The PR response of BP in relation the Gulf Mexico oil spill is a case study of, how not to handle a PR in a crisis situation. The company is still reeling under the after effects of the major incident, with lately a federal judge giving final approval for a $20.8 billion settlement that is the largest environmental civil settlement, inclusive of the water and environmental effects the spill had, besides the earlier settlement of BP with individuals and businesses for a total amounting to a staggering $7.8 billion (Terry, 2016).
The Response
The initial response of BP was inept, in view of the fact that the blame was being shifted to other parties that in essence showcased the fact that BP as a company was running away from the responsibility. The response of the then CEO Tony Hayward, will highlight the state of mind the company was in, that can only be described as conceited and heartless. The initial statement by the CEO that relayed the message regarding the issue was, the situation will be resolved, while stating that the issue is not a big one and by focusing on personal endeavors such as sailing away in the midst of the crisis launched a full blown media onslaught against BP.
The response of BP was slow in terms of reacting to the severity of the situation; the slide began from the top with the CEO’s less than empathic response, acting as fuel on fire, and from a PR perspective, the initial response needs to show that the company cares, as it helps in connecting with the general public, stakeholders and the media in an effective manner.
Limiting Damage done by CEO’s spokesperson
The damage could have been prevented by selecting a qualified spokesperson, who could have connected with the situation and knew the initial facts of the incident, and more importantly accepting the blame whole heartedly and assuring the grieving families of the 11 dead personals and the world in general regarding BP’s efforts to rectify the situation, the response, ‘I want my life back’, sent the media and public in a frenzy that spiraled the situation out of BP’s PR teams hands.
The effort to hogwash the public in believing that the situation is not out of control, was a major blip since after that, the companies spokesperson were went into a retracting mode and the intention was to limit the gravity of the issue, made people scrutinize the issue more closely.
The other factors that BP could have done to limit the damage, was to give the issue major importance and should have interacted with the families of the people dead due to the spill explosion that would have helped in creating an emotive connect by becoming a party with the affected people.
Advising CEO on the Questions Asked
The first advice would have been to only discuss and share facts that are known by the company and not discuss any of the way forward actions to counter the situation, the focus on showcasing a company face that shows an understanding of the gravity of the situation and the companies pledge to make the best efforts would have helped in assuaging the concerned parties immediately after the incident.
The second advice would be to, avoid any speculation with regards to the time frame of the relief efforts, since, the issue of oil spillage can take time, the lack of speculation would have kept the time frame open ended and thus, the focus would be diverted towards the immediate efforts to the incident, that would have helped in minimizing the problem significantly. From a PR perspective, it is always better to under promise in relation to the strategy, so that if the company over achieve it could use that to promote a positive image for the company in times of incidents that impacts on the brand equity.
The third advice, would be lead the effort from the front, in relation to showcasing the image of BP as a company responsive to the needs of the people and the environment, the presence of the CEO at relief efforts points, would have given the company a positive lead by showing the nature of the company and would have helped in connecting with other parties to come and sort the issue with BP, also the presence of the CEO would have made the efforts seem genuine from BP’s perspective, hence, the severity of the backlash would have died down
A campaign to salvage the brand’s lost reputation could have adopted all the aforementioned advices, by creating a thoughtful copy and visual image showcasing CEO’s efforts and presence that would have directly related to BP’s effort to connect with the situation in a meaningful and impactful manner.
References
Terry, C. (2016). BP Crisis Management, PR Misfires — a Case Study. The Biz Coach. Retrieved from http://www.bizcoachinfo.com/archives/3494
