On April 20, one of the world’s most sophisticated off-shore oil drilling rigs exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and spewing an indeterminate amount of crude oil into the Gulf waters and onto the shores of Louisiana and neighboring states.   Most companies will never have to deal with a crisis of the magnitude of what is now being called simply the BP oil spill, but there are still many lessons about communication and public trust to be learned from this environmental disaster.

There are many major issues negatively affecting public trust of British Petroleum (BP), but I want to address just two of them here.   The first involves the company’s ability to stop the hemorrhaging of oil from the ruptured underwater well, and the second relates to the company’s commitment to accept responsibility and pay the costs of the cleanup.

In an attempt to address these trust issues, BP took out full-page ads on Tuesday (May 25) in the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today.  The copy read:

“Since the tragic accident on the Transocean Deepwater Horizon rig first occurred, we have been committed to doing everything possible to stop the flow of oil at the seabed, collect the oil on the surface and keep it from the shore.

“BP has taken full responsibility for dealing with the spill.  We are determined to do everything we can to minimize any impact.  We will honor all legitimate claims.”

These statements are not unlike those made on May 3 by Lamar McKay, Chairman and President of BP America, who said the company is “absolutely responsible” and committed to paying “all necessary and appropriate costs.”    Referring to the fact that the rig belonged to Transocean, Ltd., the world’s largest offshore drilling contractor, BP CEO Tony Hayward added,  “ It wasn’t our accident, but we are absolutely responsible for the oil, for cleaning it up, and that’s what we intend to do.”

Despite repeated reassurances, no one seems to be buying what BP is saying.  The latest poll reported that 76 percent of the respondents disapproved of the way BP was handling the spill, and believed that the company was not taking “full responsibility” for the spill.

The concern for crisis communicators is why aren’t BP’s communication attempts working?   The answer is all too common:  Too little, too late, and under the wrong circumstances.

“Too little” means more in this case than just not saying enough.  It refers to the quality of what is being said as well.  As is too often the case in crisis situations, legalities become the focus of communication, with all kinds of equivocations added to public statements.   BP is to be commended for coming out and saying it was “absolutely responsible,” but when addressing the issue of compensation it said it would pay for “legitimate and objectively verifiable” property damage, personal injury and commercial losses.

This wording led to media reports that President Obama and several state attorneys were asking BP for more details on what the qualified language of “legitimate and objectively verifiable” really means.   In the end, this added to negative mainstream and social media coverage, and generated even more pessimism.

As for “too late” and “the wrong circumstances,” the explosion happened on April 20, but GP’s pledges weren’t widely and publicly made until May 3.    The occasion was a Senate committee hearing.    The pledges should have been made immediately after the explosion, disseminated widely and repeated often.  Waiting until an official investigation or hearing gives the impression that the company is being pressured into making the commitment, or that it is only doing so as a way to get out of trouble.  In other words, the company isn’t really sincere.

Another point about “wrong circumstances”:   As the crisis worsened, BP initiated an aggressive public relations campaign that includes Facebook and Twitter social media efforts.   The effort elicited the following reactions, and many more like them:

“The battle to stop the oil spill is nearly being eclipsed by the effort to control the story being told.  The disaster is doing more than fouling that corner of the world.  It’s soiled the notion that social networking can be a cure for what ails business.”

“We’re tired of hearing the feel good statements you put out to make it look like you’re doing something….”

I tell my clients, if you want to be believed in a crisis and given the benefit of the doubt, you have to have a good communications track record well beforehand.    Further, you need to communicate through channels in which you have both experience and at least some established credibility.

Without such a foundation of credibility, it goes without saying that information provided in a crisis is more likely to be perceived as self-serving and suspect.  In fact, the message may very well wind up “killing” the messenger.

In the wake of the April 20 explosion of Exxon Mobil’s CEO hit the nail on the head this week when he said that the oil industry’s biggest challenge is regaining public trust.  He should know.  Until now his company’s handling of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska has been the perceived benchmark for how not to respond in a crisis.   The key word here is “perceived.”

Does that sound familiar?  BP

Tags: bp, crisis communications, crisis management, crisis planning, crisis pr, Exxon Valdez
Posted in Blog