BP PR: a well oiled machine?
With oil from its ruptured rig in the Gulf of Mexico now reaching the shoreline of Louisiana, and with the White House’s “boot on the throat” stance refusing to ease up, the eyes of the world are intensely scrutinising BP as it attempts to manage this crisis under extreme pressure.
While the oil giant still faces many months of challenges as it tries to rectify its mistakes and regain public confidence, its initial approach, according to reputation management consultancy Insignia Communications, has provided a sound platform for damage limitation.
Insignia director Jonathan Hemus identified five elements of BP’s crisis communication response which have served it well in the early stages of this incident.
The first worthy step taken by BP has been its admission of responsibility. Granted, Barack Obama provided some “encouragement” here, but, as Hemus point out, “organisations are often unwilling to take responsibility in the immediate aftermath of a crisis.”
“The consequence of this can be to appear cold and uncaring, and it also means that the communication response is delayed with the result that the company loses control of the situation.”
The second step that has served BP well has been its refusal to play the blame game. Pointing the finger would be a mistake: “I believe that BP has successfully walked a tightrope in naming Transocean, the operator of the rig that it believes caused the oil spill, without shirking its responsibility to deal with the outcome of the incident.”
Making CEO Tony Hayward visible in leading the crisis response was the next admirable element of the BP response. The magnitude of the crisis, plus the major threat to BP’s reputation, makes this appropriate. Plus, says Hemus, “not to do so at a time when the US President is commenting on the incident would appear cavalier and dismissive in the extreme.”
Taking action, such as technical responses like attempting to lower a giant funnel into the sea, has likewise helped in damage limitation.
“It has communicated these steps pro-actively to demonstrate that it is not just talking a good game, but being swift and decisive in responding to the incident. This helps to position BP as a professional, responsive organisation seeking to influence events rather than simply respond to them.”
Lastly, presenting a united front with other stakeholders involved in the crisis response has avoided further damage: “BP seems to have consciously avoided public confrontation with President Obama, Transocean, the US coastguard and other stakeholders. As a result, it has prevented a damaging situation getting even worse. Aligning with stakeholders in a crisis and acting – publicly at least – as a like-minded team will address the incident more quickly and effectively, as well as serving to protect reputation.”
Hemus admits that nothing can change the fact that BP has a huge crisis on its hands, its communication response, however, has been well conceived and “provides a solid platform to protect reputational equity in the longer term”.