The BP Oil Spill

Organizations frequently experience crises when conducting business. It's crucial how you react to these events since it affects how much the company's reputation will be damaged. The 2010 BP Oil Spill, which happened following an explosion on an oil rig run by the company, is one instance of a big catastrophe. This calamity had an impact on many different stakeholders, including the fishing business, the oil industry, environmental organizations, and the travel sector, necessitating a reaction from each of them. In order to reach these stakeholders, BP used a variety of communication methods, some of which included print and television media as well as social media platforms. However, BP’s response to the crisis was an unmitigated disaster with the company making a string of errors that ended up soiling its reputation even further. Some of the critical mistakes made by the entity included a failure to utilize some platforms efficiently and the provision of patently false information. In rectifying these flaws, this paper suggests that it is imperative for BP to have proper crisis communication structures, for example, having designated spokespersons to act as the face of the corporation during periods of crisis.



BP Oil Spill

In the fiercely competitive modern day marketplace, an organization’s reputation is often one of its most important assets. Corporate reputation can make an entity stand out from the competition thus giving it a competitive advantage. This explains why many entities regard the management of public relations as being among the core functions in the organization (Glenn, 2009). As an activity, Public Relations has a close and inseparable relationship with reputation and impression management, and it is especially important during periods of crisis (Girboveanu & Pavel, 2010). A crisis refers to an event in an organization that strikes suddenly interfering with entity performance and necessitating speedy action because of its ability to imperil the entity’s growth, performance and future profitability (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2007).

A crisis exposes an entity to three types of threats; reputational, financial, and concerns over public safety (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2007). Of these three threats, reputational damage is perhaps the most severe, which is why it is imperative for an organization to manage its PR responses and communication superbly during such periods. The primary purpose of communication during times of crisis is to reduce the reputational damage to the organization. Poor handling of crisis communication can cause an irreversible staining of an entity’s name, as was exemplified by BP, which ran a disaster of a PR campaign during its response to various stakeholders during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill crisis.

Key issues

The crisis commenced on April 20, 2010 when a massive explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon oilrig owned and staffed by Transocean and under an operational lease to BP who also had a 65% ownership stake in the Macondo oil well (Ebinger, 2016). This well, which suffered significant damage during the explosion, began to leak oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately 4.9 million barrels were discharged into the waters of the Gulf and the surrounding shorelines before the leaking well was finally shut 87 days after the occurrence of the explosion (National Academy of Sciences, 2013). BP, which was the organization ultimately responsible for this spill and thus the management of the crisis had to deal with various publics during their responses with the most critical stakeholders, in this case, being the Fishing industry, the Travel industry, the Environmental industry, and the Oil industry.

Key PR issues for the fishing industry

For many residents of the Gulf of Mexico and primarily those living in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, commercial fishing is a critically important economic activity and a significant source of livelihood for these the communities in those areas. Consequently, one of the fundamental PR issues arising from the oil spill was the denial of sustenance for Fishermen and the reliant industries such as hotels and fish processing industries. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that the BP Oil spill led to a 20% reduction in commercial fish production, which was directly attributable to the closure of fishing areas that had been affected by the spillage thus bringing about immediate economic hardship for fishermen residing there (IEM, 2010). Therefore, it was imperative for BP to examine how it would handle the disgruntled anglers who had lost their jobs because of the oil spill.

Another vital PR issue related to the safety of seafood originating from the Gulf region. Oil contains various toxins, which if ingested, can lead to poisoning in humans. With the waters in the area being a primary source of food for many people in the region, another critical PR issue was the potential that there would be cases of poisoning arising due to the consumption of contaminated seafood (IEM, 2010). Consequently, BP had to examine how it would reassure the surrounding community that their lives were not in danger from poisoned seafood.

Key PR issues for the Travel Industry

The Gulf of Mexico, which is plastered with pristine beaches and sport fishing destinations, was a prominent tourist destination before the oil spill with the tourism and travel industry supporting up to 400,000 jobs in the area and generating revenues totaling over $34 billion (IEM, 2010). Consequently, one of the major PR issues that BP faced was how to counter the negative public perception of the area as a tourist destination. With immense media, coverage of the spill, television and print media was awash with images of ruined coastlines and tar balls washing up on shores. These images served to exacerbate the magnitude of the spill and thus dissuade tourists from visiting the area, which presented BP with a major PR headache.

Another travel-related PR issue was how to deal with the loss of livelihood for tour operators and others in the tours and travel industry, which was one of the direct adverse outcomes of the oil spill. Tourism, which is of the most important economic activities in the region, is also one of the sectors with the highest vulnerability to disasters and crises. Travel companies, especially those involved in the provision of water excursion activities such as sailing and scuba diving had to contend with constant questions about the safety of the water even a year after the tragedy (IEM, 2010). Because of these concerns, many potential tourists canceled their trips leading to a loss of income for tourism-dependent industries. BP had to contend with how to handle the agitated travel operators.

Key PR issues for Environmental Agencies

The BP Oil Spill has been described as the worst environmental catastrophe to ever occur in the USA with the spill being the worst of its kind in the country’s history (Ebinger, 2016). Naturally, environmentalists were incensed at the company, and this led to several PR concerns one of which was how to demonstrate that the company was committed to making amends for its mistakes. The company needed to show that it understood the magnitude of the effect of this spill on the environment and that it was taking all the necessary measures to address the problem. Another PR issue for the company was how to deal with anti-BP protests organized by environmental groups one of which was an initiative calling for a boycott of the organization’s products (Zabarenko & Whitcomb, 2010). It was thus imperative for BP address these protests as a matter of urgency since this would stave off further reputational harm.

Key PR issues for Oil Industry

BP’s oil spill had a significant impact on the oil industry with the company’s crisis leading to the imposition of a moratorium on offshore deep-water drilling (Hays & Rascoe, 2010). This moratorium was a major PR issue for BP because of the potential that fellow industry players would view it as being the cause of the imposition of these sanctions. Besides this, there was immense reputational damage and a loss of credibility for the oil industry as a whole because the spill created the perception that the oil companies’ operational methods were unsafe, reckless, and damaging to the environment (Smith, 2011). Consequently, one of the major PR concerns for the company was how to respond to claims that it was painting the industry in a bad light through its actions and insufficient responses to those allegations.

Message means, and media used to deliver responses

Immediately after the emergence of a crisis, it is essential for an organization to establish a communications strategy, which will describe the techniques to be adopted in responding to various audiences (Girboveanu & Pavel, 2010). An organization can utilize both reactive and proactive methods in the delivery of these responses. When delivering these responses, the organization can employ various media with the key considerations here being the speed of the communication method and its coverage. In responding to the Deepwater crisis, BP applied a variety of strategies with the messages and media employed differing from one audience to another.

Responses to the fishing industry

The primary concern that stakeholders in the fishing industry had due to the BP oil spill was how significantly the oil spill would affect the fishermen’s primary, and in some instances, only source of livelihood. Consequently, in responding to this concern, the primary message that BP sought to emphasize was that it would offer payment for the lost incomes, which was the reassurance that the industry stakeholders in the affected areas wanted. Additionally, the company needed to reassure these stakeholders that it would offer financial and material support to the fishing industry as they sought to recover from the debilitating effects of the oil spill.

One communication platform employed by BP to reach out to the fishing industry was social media. Through its Facebook and Twitter platforms, the company provided periodic daily updates on the cleanup exercise as well as the progress in sealing the oil leaks. These platforms also allowed the public to weigh in with their opinions about the company’s efforts. Besides this, BP established a YouTube channel, which was used to share videos about the affected areas and the mitigation measures that the organization had instituted. Besides social media, BP also used print media advertisements in newspapers like The Washington Post and The USA Today to communicate with the fishing industry. In these ads, the company declared its willingness to compensate commercial fishermen, seafood vessel owners and crew as well as other players who had suffered economic damage.

Critique

BP’s use of Facebook and Twitter platforms during this crisis was highly ineffective because whereas these Social Media platforms already existed before the crisis, they had been massively underutilized. Hence, the company did not have a significant following on the platforms, which allowed its messages to be dwarfed by fake news and troll pieces (Zabarenko & Whitcomb, 2010). Additionally, BP further damaged its reputation by posting photo-shopped images on its profiles, which led to a severe destruction of its reputation.

Recommendation

Social media is undoubtedly an immensely powerful tool for communication especially in the modern day when almost everyone is a member of one social media platform or another. The speed and scope of these platforms make them an essential tool to have during crisis times since they can enable the provision of regular updates that are key to controlling the narrative (Girboveanu & Pavel, 2010). As such, it is recommended that BP retain an active social media presence in future.

Travel industry

Like the fishing industry, the most players in the travel industry were concerned about the loss of revenue occasioned by the oil spill. These entities were also concerned that the circulation of images showing the destruction of beaches and water covered in oil would reduce the attractiveness of the region as a tourist destination (Ebinger, 2016). Hence, the key message from in the communication from BP to this group was that the company would compensate all the affected parties for their losses and that it would be at the forefront of efforts to promote the region as a prime tourist destination once again.

To pass this message, BP primarily utilized print and TV media with the company running several advertisements declaring that it would compensate any person who had suffered economic losses directly resultant from this oil spill. Because the massive media coverage of the oil spill depicting images of contaminated waters and beaches had exacerbated the extent of the disaster, it was imperative to invest in advertisement to re-market the area and demonstrate to potential visitors that the area was still safe to travel. An example of a region that suffered unduly because of this widespread coverage was Fort Meyers, which suffered a massive drop in tourist numbers despite its shores not being affected by surface oil (IEM, 2010). To alter this negative public perception, BP invested heavily in advertisements with the company providing Lee County with $500,000 to cater for advertising costs. Additionally, BP’s YouTube channel shared videos of all the affected areas, which documented the cleanup process and allowed tourists to identify the areas that were now back to normal.

Critique

The company’s use of the YouTube channel was a PR masterstroke because it allowed the entity to control the narrative. By providing videos of the cleanup exercise, BP convinced the affected parties that it was indeed working to resolve the issue. Additionally, the TV ads helped to boost tourism as evidenced by the quick recovery of the sector in the post-crisis period.

Recommendation

The provision of evidence that corrective action is taking place is a critical element of crisis communication. The company’s YouTube channel served as a critical method of disseminating this information and providing tangible evidence of actual work, and hence, the company should retain the channel for use during future disasters.

Environmental Agencies

The primary message that BP sought to pass to environmental agencies such as activist lobby groups and environmental regulatory authorities was that the company was taking responsibility for the disaster and it would clean up its mess. To deliver this message and counter the negative campaigns that environmental activists such as Greenpeace were running against it, BP took to online channels as well as television. On TV, the company’s efforts were spearheaded by the then CEO, Tony Hayward, who conducted a series of TV interviews and press conferences to inform the public and environmentalists about the accident and publicly apologize while promising to rectify the problem. Besides this, BP also dedicated a section of the company website exclusively to the spill with maps, photos, and videos tracking the cleanup exercise. However, the company had received a lot of negative online attention, which it needed to counter. BP did this by acquiring search engine keywords for example gulf spill, oil spill, and oil disaster (Yousuf, 2010). The acquisition of these keywords was essential because it allowed the entity to obtain first ranking on search results pages thus controlling the information that went out because most of these results would link to the organization’s website, which contained only the news that the company wanted to go out.

Critique

The company’s use of television adverts was hopelessly ineffective, which was primarily because the CEO, Tony Hayward, was not a naturally good communicator. Whereas he probably excelled at other elements of management, playing the role of a spokesperson was evidently not his forte. Consequently, some of Hayward’s heavily criticized statements appeared to lack empathy, which made the entity appear aloof or unconcerned about the environmental impact of the oil spill

Recommendation

When communicating in a crisis, it is imperative for an entity’s statements to appear empathetic. Regardless of the channel employed, empathy ensures effectiveness, and it can help to diffuse tension and apprehension (Glenn, 2009). Consequently, the company should work on having an official spokesperson who is good before the cameras to serve as the ‘face” of the entity during crisis times and who can deliver empathetic responses.

Oil Industry

The key message that BP needed to send out to the Oil industry was that it was on top of the situation and it was working hard to rectify the situation before any further reputational damage occurred. The primary communication medium employed by BP to do this was the mass media with TV interviews by the Company CEO reiterating that BP had instituted plans and mechanisms to address the situation and return matters to normalcy. Besides this, the company announced the establishment of a compensation fund that would cater for all damages arising from the issue alongside a partnership with regulatory bodies to ensure that it sealed all loopholes that could cause a recurrence of the disaster.

Critique

The company’s strategy in communicating with the oil industry was wholly ineffective because the company failed to conduct adequate research before making specific claims. For example, in the early interviews, the company CEO attempted to downplay the oil spill as a minor issue claiming that only 5,000 barrels of oil were leaking into the Gulf with actual figures later revealed to be approximately 10-12,000 barrels (Ebinger, 2016). The revelation of the exact statistics made the organization appear incompetent thus making it difficult for industry players to believe that they had the issue under control

Recommendation

One fundamental element of crisis communication is that an entity should strive to maintain truthfulness and transparency. Providing clear, honest information helps to make stakeholders less apprehensive (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2007). By being untruthful, BP only managed to increase the public outrage against it. Hence, in a similar situation, the company should ensure that it only gives accurate information, which is the standpoint advocated by the public information model typically employed in public relations.



References

Ebinger, C. K. (2016, April 20). 6 years from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill: What we’ve learned, and what we shouldn’t misunderstand. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2016/04/20/6-years-from-the-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-what-weve-learned-and-what-we-shouldnt-misunderstand/

Girboveanu, S., & Pavel, S. (2010). How to Manage a Public Relations Crisis. Annals of University of Craiova - Economic Sciences Series, 3(38), 320-331.

Glenn, B. M. (2009). Effective Public Relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Hays, K., & Rascoe, A. (2010, June 23). BP starts to reinstall cap on Gulf of Mexico oil leak. Retrieved December 6, 2017, from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-spill/bp-starts-to-reinstall-cap-on-gulf-of-mexico-oil-leak-idUSN1416392020100623?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

IEM. (2010). A Study of the Economic Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. New Orleans, LA: Greater New Orleans, Inc.

National Academy of Sciences. (2013, July 10). Assessing impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved December 3, 2017, from ScienceDaily: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130710122004.htm

Smith, M. (2011). The Deepwater Horizon Disaster: An Examination of the Spill’s Impact on the Gap in International Regulation of Oil Pollution from Fixed Platforms. Emory International Law Review, 25(3), 1477-1516. Retrieved from http://law.emory.edu/eilr/content/volume-25/issue-3/comments/deepwater-horizon-impact-regulation-pollution-platforms.html

Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2007). Effective Crisis Communication. Thousand Oaka, CA: Sage Publications.

Yousuf, H. (2010, June 7). BP buys Google, Yahoo oil spill search terms. Retrieved from CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/07/news/companies/BP_search_terms/index.htm

Zabarenko, D., & Whitcomb, D. (2010, June 6). A groundswell against BP on Facebook, Twitter. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/05/AR2010060500677.html