BP Oil Spill - Essay Example

Crisis Situation: BP Oil Spill Crisis Situation: BP Oil Spill BP oil spill of was one of the largest oil spills to occur in recent times. The oil spill put the American government, BP and its PR arm, oil companies and environmental organizations in a difficult situation because of its sheer scale. Before 2010, the last major oil spill in the US occurred in 1911 in California (Weber and McClam 2010). The oil spill also seriously affected the Gulf of Mexico, one of the richest ecosystems in America. The circumstances surrounding the spill created a difficult yet ideal situation for PR practitioners in the government and at BP. The American government was required to explain why it allowed oil companies to prospect and drill for oil in sensitive ecosystems such as the Gulf of Mexico. The government’s environmental policy was brought into question, with issues concerning tighter regulation of oil companies, penalties for violations, and offshore drilling. Fortunately, the government understood that it was not directly responsible for the disaster, and therefore it would not put itself in a position to be painted in a bad light (Barrage and Chyn 15). PR officials from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved fast to absolve the government of any complacence. They laid the blame at BP’s door, briefing the public that it was the responsibility of oil companies to ensure that their offshore rigs and operations did not endanger the environment in any way. The government was not responsible for monitoring each and every action taken by oil companies while drilling. Although this was a successful move in PR terms because it put the government – albeit temporarily – on the good side of the public, it was negative in terms of long-term significance. All the government did was avoid questioning temporarily. Subsequent briefings were dominated by questions concerning its environmental policies and active measures being taken to protect the environment. Yes, it was not directly responsible, but indirectly, it was. PR practitioners often argue that managing disasters require short-term solutions if necessary, but with one eye on long-term strategies. It is naïve to jump out of the frying pan into another frying pan and claim to use PR effectively. BP, the main culprit, faced two serious challenges that both needed application of PR tactics. The first involved halting the daily spillage of over 200,000 gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The second involved convincing everybody – the government, the public and environmental groups – which it was trying to halt the spillage (Beam 2010). The company is famous for its PR strategies – both negative and positive. For example, its 2000 Beyond Petroleum campaign aimed at rebranding received praise from the PR industry (Beam 2010). At the same time, it attracted mockery from some environmentalists and media, who saw it as a greenwashing campaign. Now, finding itself in the deep end of the biggest disaster in its disaster-rich history, the firm was experimenting with novel ways of relaying its message. According to PR experts at the time, BP’s normal efforts – press releases, official public statements, and late-night show interviews – were largely hit or miss. However, the company enjoyed more PR success with social media. Since the start of the spill, the company made some PR mistakes (Beam 2010). For instance, it initially told the media that the rig leaked 1,000 oil barrels daily. The actual number was 5,000 barrels, and when it became known it put the company in a very tight spot. Even a company spokesperson downplayed the figure as between 1,000 and 5,000 or thereabouts (Beam 2010). The tone suggested that BP was not too concerned about a disaster of its own making, another negative. The lie and the conduct hurt the company’s credibility initially. Americans – and the world – wondered whether and how much BP could be trusted. It also broke a common rule in PR that discourages speculation. If you are sure about it, say it (Beam 2010). If you are not aware, say you are not aware (Clausen 2014). BP should not have tried to absolve itself of blame, especially with public fully aware that it was directly responsible for the spill and coming after the US government’s own diversionary tactic which left BP in the thick of things. The company’s first press release following the spill stressed that the rig was owned by Transocean Ltd, a drilling contractor and that BP provided its full support, insinuating that it was not to blame. BP also called the disaster the “Gulf of Mexico oil spill,” when most parties referred to it as the “BP oil spill.” The company then tried to separate liability for the disaster and the responsibility for the subsequent cleanup (Merry 2013). CEO Tony Hayward stated, “It was not our mistake, but we are entirely responsible for cleaning up the oil.” That could be honest (Beam 2010). The company only owned the oil, not the rig. However, it was still a poor and negative PR move. Wherever the blame lay, the company should not have been splitting hairs. It should have accepted blame and worked quietly to handle the fallouts and lawsuits later. For instance, when Taco Johns found itself in the middle of an E. coli outbreak, it did not publicly point fingers at the supplier of the lettuce (Beam 2010). It accepted responsibility and the proceeded to sue the supplier later. Few people were aware of this. In terms of social media and the internet, PR experts gave and continue giving the company high marks. The company dedicated a part of its website, complete with maps tracking the cleanup, photos, and videos. One PR expert stated that he had to give the company an A+ (Team 2012). In one video, for example, a tired and sweaty BP CEO explains the cleanup process while bevy of busy-looking workers mill behind him, offering the viewers a peek into the hectic process of cleanup that they could not get from TV interviews. BP also participated in the development of a website called deepwaterhorizonresponse.com, which provided information about the spill and the cleanup process (Beam 2010). It also posted regular updates on its Twitter page. Of course, airing your propaganda on social media does not make it less sentimental and propagandist. However, it does help firms react faster and more accurately to new developments. When news broke that BP was attempting to get fishermen to sign disclaimers absolving the company of blame for some claims associated with the cleanup, the company responded on its Twitter page by stating that it had promised fishermen’s groups that fishermen offering services were not expected to sign disclaimers (Beam 2010). Any sign would not be under coercion. BP also used Twitter to nurture trust in a subtle way. For example, it posted a hotline for the public to call in case they spotted oiled wildlife. References Barrage, L., & Chyn, E. (2014). Advertising, reputation, and environmental stewardship evidence from the BP oil spill. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. Beam, C. (2010, May 5). What P.R. experts think of BPs response to the oil spill. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/05/oil_slick.html Clausen, J. (2014). Veiled spill: A sequence. Grafton, VT: GenPop Books. Merry, M. (2013). Framing environmental disaster environmental advocacy and the deepwater horizon oil spill. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Team, T. (2012, July 2). BP Goes For Public Relations Makeover To Get Beyond Gulf Spill. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/02/07/bp-goes-for-public-relations-makeover-to-get-beyond-gulf-spill/ Weber, H., & McClam, E. (2010, June 11). BP’s failures made worse by PR mistakes. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37647218/ns/business-world_business/t/bps-failures-made-worse-pr-mistakes/#.VIoEasmGPaQ Read More