So you have a giant oil spill that is the largest natural disaster in the United State's history - so what should BP be doing right now from a PR perspective?
Everyone seems to have an opinion on this. Most folks seem to be of the view that they should be more transparent with hourly updates on activities being under taken to clean the oil up. Others think they should say nothing because there's nothing they can say that will make this right.
My view is that this is beyond complicated in terms of a PR response. My assumption is that BP's public relations department is the same as probably any other large-cap company. Which means they can't just do what they would like to do to manage the situation with regards to public sentiment. Anything and everything they do will be in consult with BP's legal and investor relations departments.
And from a legal perspective, the less you say the better. If you say nothing then down the road, when you're involved in a variety of law suits, past comments can't be used against you. You stick with a basic 'we'll clean this up' message.
BP's recent commercial has received little praise from the public and seems to have done very little to change sentiment.
The Associated Press covered the reaction to the ad. You can read their article - Apologetic BP ads get criticism, not sympathy.
Here's my take on this whole situation from a PR perspective. BP in my opinion has done a very poor job protecting their brand in the market. They are trying to appear apologetic, while at the same time resolute and competent in fixing the problem they have created. This would be fine, if it's what people wanted to hear.
BP's main themes that I've heard since this started were "We've failed to wrestle this beast to the ground." and that this won't cost the tax payer anything in the end and BP will ensure this never happens again.
These should not have been the key messages being pushed in the media.
First, BP has to understand that people don't see the oil spill as 'the beast', they see BP itself as the beast. BP's attempt to subtly imply that they are the rescuers rushing in to do battle with some maniacal, unleashed monster from the depths of the sea was never going to fly. Moreover, trying to get the public to understand the challenge you are facing in confronting 'a beast' does not mean anything to anyone at this stage.
Second, statements that contradict themselves are always bad. Saying that it will not cost tax payers anything in the end makes no sense. It already has cost tax payers. It cost 11 people their lives, it's destroying the quality of life in the Gulf of Mexico, it's upset an entire nation and it has (in my opinion) added to the recent volatility in the markets. The fact that it (supposedly) won't cost tax payers any 'money' indirectly sends the message that the only thing BP understands is the financial issues associated with this situation.
For these two themes to be your main message, it's not surprising that the public is not responding favourably.
So what should BP have done?
There's no easy answer to this given the magnitude of the disaster. Some basic things though would have included:
* Having the CEO in the region and available to press at least once a day with updates on the efforts taking place
* Establish an independent, third-party, expert body to provide public comment on their assessment of the actions BP is taking to contain the crisis. Components of the body would include university researchers, non-governmental organizations and non-profit organizations representing groups associated with climate change, wildlife, economics, etc. -
Basically organize those who will be the most critical of you, keep them in the loop and give them access to the media. Accept that no one will believe you alone at this point - but if you had representatives with no vested interest in supporting you, telling the public they felt you were doing everything that could be done, you might regain a degree of trust from the public.
*Acknowledge that nothing BP does at this point can make up for the damage that has occurred and acknowledge the pain and suffering this event has caused. And whatever you do, don't talk about how it's hurting you, because realistically no one cares.
* Lastly, re-frame what has happened as an event that while very low in probability, could happen again and that these are the risks associated with drilling for oil. That while BP is responsible for this accident, growing worldwide demand for oil is forcing producers to drill in more and more dangerous situations. Articulate that BP wants to see the movement towards renewable energy sources accelerated and is increasing R&D commitments in those areas.
So why haven't we seen these actions taken?
While it's total speculation on my part, all of these actions probably would not have made it through the legal department because each one of them could, potential, increase the liability of BP when lawsuits are filed after all this is said and done.
Additionally, the last one, could hurt the stock price, because it's a statement that BP's core line of business is one with unsustainable, long-term risks. While we all know this, stating an increase in R&D to alternative energies would panic a lot of investors given their main thesis of investment was projected revenues generated by oil.
So alas, BP is doing the next best thing. Promising to tame the beast, promising to clean the mess up and promising that it will take steps so that it never happens again.
Unfortunately, the public's reaction to these statements is "Well duh... what, were you even considering not cleaning up the mess or not taking steps to make sure it never happens again? Tell me something I don't already know."
The most interesting thing in all this, from my perspective, is that I just can't fathom that BP's public response is truly the actions of a PR department that has been given the authority to truly manage this situation as it should be managed. My personal hypothesis is that the PR efforts being taken are probably more the result of in-house lawyers than PR folks.
One would have thought that at some point during their crisis communications planning someone would have asked - "So what will our response be if one of these drills goes horribly wrong? How will we react?"
I'd be willing to bet that there's a big thick manual within BP with the answers to that question and the only thing I can possibly think of that would have put that plan on the back burner (which I think it clearly is) would be a legal strategy that supersedes concerns over brand reputation.
We may be watching one of the first times in history where a company simply puts brand / trust / reputation management to the side because the financial and legal concerns supersede everything else.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on this. Most folks seem to be of the view that they should be more transparent with hourly updates on activities being under taken to clean the oil up. Others think they should say nothing because there's nothing they can say that will make this right.
My view is that this is beyond complicated in terms of a PR response. My assumption is that BP's public relations department is the same as probably any other large-cap company. Which means they can't just do what they would like to do to manage the situation with regards to public sentiment. Anything and everything they do will be in consult with BP's legal and investor relations departments.
And from a legal perspective, the less you say the better. If you say nothing then down the road, when you're involved in a variety of law suits, past comments can't be used against you. You stick with a basic 'we'll clean this up' message.
BP's recent commercial has received little praise from the public and seems to have done very little to change sentiment.
The Associated Press covered the reaction to the ad. You can read their article - Apologetic BP ads get criticism, not sympathy.
Here's my take on this whole situation from a PR perspective. BP in my opinion has done a very poor job protecting their brand in the market. They are trying to appear apologetic, while at the same time resolute and competent in fixing the problem they have created. This would be fine, if it's what people wanted to hear.
BP's main themes that I've heard since this started were "We've failed to wrestle this beast to the ground." and that this won't cost the tax payer anything in the end and BP will ensure this never happens again.
These should not have been the key messages being pushed in the media.
First, BP has to understand that people don't see the oil spill as 'the beast', they see BP itself as the beast. BP's attempt to subtly imply that they are the rescuers rushing in to do battle with some maniacal, unleashed monster from the depths of the sea was never going to fly. Moreover, trying to get the public to understand the challenge you are facing in confronting 'a beast' does not mean anything to anyone at this stage.
Second, statements that contradict themselves are always bad. Saying that it will not cost tax payers anything in the end makes no sense. It already has cost tax payers. It cost 11 people their lives, it's destroying the quality of life in the Gulf of Mexico, it's upset an entire nation and it has (in my opinion) added to the recent volatility in the markets. The fact that it (supposedly) won't cost tax payers any 'money' indirectly sends the message that the only thing BP understands is the financial issues associated with this situation.
For these two themes to be your main message, it's not surprising that the public is not responding favourably.
So what should BP have done?
There's no easy answer to this given the magnitude of the disaster. Some basic things though would have included:
* Having the CEO in the region and available to press at least once a day with updates on the efforts taking place
* Establish an independent, third-party, expert body to provide public comment on their assessment of the actions BP is taking to contain the crisis. Components of the body would include university researchers, non-governmental organizations and non-profit organizations representing groups associated with climate change, wildlife, economics, etc. -
Basically organize those who will be the most critical of you, keep them in the loop and give them access to the media. Accept that no one will believe you alone at this point - but if you had representatives with no vested interest in supporting you, telling the public they felt you were doing everything that could be done, you might regain a degree of trust from the public.
*Acknowledge that nothing BP does at this point can make up for the damage that has occurred and acknowledge the pain and suffering this event has caused. And whatever you do, don't talk about how it's hurting you, because realistically no one cares.
* Lastly, re-frame what has happened as an event that while very low in probability, could happen again and that these are the risks associated with drilling for oil. That while BP is responsible for this accident, growing worldwide demand for oil is forcing producers to drill in more and more dangerous situations. Articulate that BP wants to see the movement towards renewable energy sources accelerated and is increasing R&D commitments in those areas.
So why haven't we seen these actions taken?
While it's total speculation on my part, all of these actions probably would not have made it through the legal department because each one of them could, potential, increase the liability of BP when lawsuits are filed after all this is said and done.
Additionally, the last one, could hurt the stock price, because it's a statement that BP's core line of business is one with unsustainable, long-term risks. While we all know this, stating an increase in R&D to alternative energies would panic a lot of investors given their main thesis of investment was projected revenues generated by oil.
So alas, BP is doing the next best thing. Promising to tame the beast, promising to clean the mess up and promising that it will take steps so that it never happens again.
Unfortunately, the public's reaction to these statements is "Well duh... what, were you even considering not cleaning up the mess or not taking steps to make sure it never happens again? Tell me something I don't already know."
The most interesting thing in all this, from my perspective, is that I just can't fathom that BP's public response is truly the actions of a PR department that has been given the authority to truly manage this situation as it should be managed. My personal hypothesis is that the PR efforts being taken are probably more the result of in-house lawyers than PR folks.
One would have thought that at some point during their crisis communications planning someone would have asked - "So what will our response be if one of these drills goes horribly wrong? How will we react?"
I'd be willing to bet that there's a big thick manual within BP with the answers to that question and the only thing I can possibly think of that would have put that plan on the back burner (which I think it clearly is) would be a legal strategy that supersedes concerns over brand reputation.
We may be watching one of the first times in history where a company simply puts brand / trust / reputation management to the side because the financial and legal concerns supersede everything else.
Comments
Post a Comment