Most Recent Posts

South Florida-based Spirit Airlines is known for being cheap. It boasts "ultralow" base fares and then charges for items such as carry-on luggage or printing out your boarding pass at the airport.

That thrift carries over to Spirit's advertising. Even compared with other low-cost airlines, Spirit spends almost nothing on ads. And yet the company makes a surprising splash with its campaigns. A visit to Spirit headquarters reveals the secrets of its marketing.

Spirit Airlines' corporate conference room is about what you'd expect: A drop ceiling, people in button-down shirts sitting around a dark-wood table, listening to a jargony presentation.

"We've been successful at promoting our ultralow fares in a way that keeps costs down," says Bobby Schroeter, vice president of consumer marketing, while presenting a PowerPoint of successful Spirit campaigns.

One of the ads shows a series of islands and four bright-yellow letters.

"We have our very famous, 'M.I.L.F.' ad — Many Islands Low Fares," Schroeter says. The slogan continues with, "hotter and cheaper than ever."

Not coincidentally, "MILF" is also a crass reference to good-looking moms. It's not the kind of thing you're used to hearing from a publicly traded company. But this ad in particular is a good way to look at how Spirit "shock marketing" works.

The process starts with customers like Yessica Diaz and her boyfriend, Edwin Irizarry. They were flying Spirit out of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

"Yeah, because it's cheap," Diaz says.

Diaz is now one of 6 million people on Spirit's email list.

Instead of buying TV commercials, Spirit blasts out email ads like "M.I.L.F." and, unsurprisingly, it gets reactions.

"It's kind of, like, funny and insulting, I guess," Irizarry says.

"That's pretty bad," Diaz says of the ad.

Entertained or aghast, people like Diaz might forward or tweet or blog the ad. Enough of that and the big leagues take note.

Sometimes shows like Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor try to take Spirit reps to task. Discussing the M.I.L.F. ad, Bill O'Reilly said, "A gross expression taken from the movie American Pie was adopted by Spirit Airlines."

Spirit Airlines President Ben Baldanza, who appeared on the show, is very good at turning a scolding into a value proposition. "Our consumer feedback has been positive, and the only thing we think is obscene is the fares that most of our competitors charge," he said.

Just like that, a free advertisement is born.

Enlarge image i

If you eat fish on a regular basis, chances are some of it is coming from Thailand. The Asian country is the world's No. 3 exporter of seafood (after China and Norway), and the U.S. is its top destination.

The Thai fishing industry has grown dramatically, and it is now coming under increased scrutiny. A new report details "deceptive and coercive labor practices, and even forced labor and human trafficking within" the Thai fishing sector.

The allegations are not new. An NPR story from June 2012 cited the example of one Cambodian who spent three years confined to a Thai fishing boat. A Global Post series from last year chronicled what it called "seafood slavery." And in May, the Environmental Justice Foundation said Thailand is doing little to prevent the abuses.

Thailand's fishing industry relies heavily on migrant workers from Cambodia and Burma — many of them undocumented. The new report, jointly released Monday by the International Labor Organization and the Asian Research Center for Migration at Chulalongkorn University, is the largest-ever conducted on the subject, surveying about 600 people who work on Thai boats in national and international waters.

Asia

Confined To A Thai Fishing Boat, For Three Years

Twenty-four hours after President Obama announced on Saturday that he'll wait for congressional authorization before launching strikes on Syria; members of Congress attended a classified briefing at the Capitol.

For days, most of the discontent among members of Congress has been about not being included in the deliberations on Syria, about not getting the chance to vote. Now that they've gotten their way, each member of Congress will have to go on the record.

"Right now, I would say, if the vote were today, it would probably be a no vote," Republican Rep. Peter King of New York told Fox News Sunday.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said on NBC's Meet the Press, "Listen, I think Congress passes the authorization."

And, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky also weighed in on NBC, "I think it's at least 50-50 whether the House will vote for involvement in the Syrian war."

A number of their colleagues came back Washington, D.C., on Sunday — the same day as the first classified briefing on Syria. It was open to any lawmaker, and members who attended estimate more than 100 showed up.

And there were reminders it was still summer recess. Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan strolled in wearing jeans and a T-shirt emblazoned with an image of Darth Vader.

But lawmakers kept touching on the gravity of the question before them.

"It's a vote of conscience, and I think this is the supreme vote that any member of Congress can take," says Xavier Becerra, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "So this is not going to be a matter of trying to enforce party discipline, or to vote for or against the president. This has got to be something you believe in."

Becerra says he believes in limited, brief strikes on Syria. But if you ask other lawmakers what the president should do, the most frequent response — from both Democrats and Republicans — was a version of, "I don't know yet."

"I'm not there yet," says Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.). "I feel terrible about the chemical weapons that have been used. However, we know that chemical weapons have been used in other instances, and we did not take military action."

Lawmakers were holed up in the briefing room for almost three hours.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) said there was a barrage of skeptical questions for White House officials. The specter of Iraq hung over the discussion.

"In that room today, there were a lot of memories over another time when a president came and said — or at least the president's people came and said — that this is slam-dunk intelligence, and of course, that was not I think an episode that most members would ever want to repeat," Himes says.

Many members are struggling with the question of how attacking Syria because of chemical weapons would actually protect U.S. national security. Others are wrestling with the goal of the mission. Is it to punish the use of chemical weapons, or should the United States go further, and try to overthrow the regime? And still others are fearful the U.S. is treading into an open-ended conflict, despite the president's assurances the strikes would last just a few days.

"Well, this is a partial blank check the way it's currently drafted," says Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). He says explicit limits are missing from the language in the resolution the president wants Congress to pass.

Van Hollen wants to see an express provision forbidding boots on the ground, and a time limit on the attack.

Caution like that was perceptible from nearly every lawmaker emerging from Sunday's briefing.

Mike Burgess (R-Texas) says he's probably voting no.

"I just think back to what General Eisenhower said in 1954. That was a pretty rough year for him. He said you shouldn't go to war for emotional reasons. And right now, I think it would be in response — it would be an emotional response. And that probably is not a good enough reason," Burgess says.

One day after the president's announcement, it's clear the debate on Syria will be intense and divisive. And somehow Congress will have to fit that conversation into an already jam-packed schedule. After the summer recess, they'll have just a matter of weeks to figure out the country's debt and deficit problems too.

President Obama cleared one of the most important hurdles Tuesday in his effort to win support in Congress for taking action against Syria: Both of the top Republican House leaders — Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia — said they would support such a resolution.

But just what the resolution will say, in terms of how much leeway Congress is willing to give the president, remains unclear. There's no guarantee of success regardless. Any version's chances for passage are highly uncertain at this point. No votes are expected until next week, when the House and Senate return from their summer recess.

What is certain, however, is that the president won't get the exact authorization language he initially proposed.

Senate To Act First

Most presidents in recent years have acted first, then asked Congress for retroactive approval. By calling on Congress to okay action in Syria in advance, Obama has opened up a scenario in which the two chambers will "work their will" — meaning any resolution will be subject to amendment and, potentially, a filibuster in the Senate.

It appears that the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, will act first. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he expects draft language will be ready today or possibly Wednesday, NPR's Ailsa Chang reports.

Corker said it would be good for senators to have a chance to examine the language before returning to the Capitol next week.

House aides said they also expect the Senate to vote first, with House action not coming until later next week.

"When they come back, they're going to want to have several days to mull it," says James Phillips, a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation.

Lines Of Opposition

It could be a tough sell. Far more members are publicly undecided than openly supportive of military action at this point.

A number of Democrats have issued statements saying that they are skeptical about the use of force and fear another foreign entanglement following Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Republicans have also been critical, arguing that Obama has not outlined a clear strategy.

For all these reasons, the final resolution is likely to be fairly limited in its scope.

"Some are looking for language that is much more targeted, so as not to authorize something that could lead to a broader war," says former Rep. Tom Perriello, a Virginia Democrat who is now at the Center for American Progress and favors intervention.

On The Agenda

In the meantime, the relevant committees are holding rounds of hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Tuesday afternoon, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Martin Dempsey, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are all appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The committee will hold a closed hearing regarding Syria on Wednesday, as will the Senate Armed Services Committee, which will meet privately with Hagel and Dempsey.

On Wednesday afternoon, Kerry and Hagel will both testify publicly before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Obama, who has held multiple meetings with members of Congress over the past few days, will be flying to Sweden Tuesday night before attending the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg.