BP: PR FAIL
Posted May 31, 2010 in Environmental Justice, Health and the Environment, The Media and the Environment
Wikipedia defines public relations (or PR) as "the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action, which will serve both the organization and the public interest." It's not just about talking the talk, it's about walking the walk.
Clearly, BP is currently failing on the PR front.
Companies involved in the fossil fuels industry already have difficulties predicting the long term consequences of their actions (air pollution, global warming etc etc)... They work in the dirty fuels business... part of their very survival involves having a sort of loose relationship with reality.
And while it appears that there is little more damage BP could do given the company's responsibility for the worst oil disaster in American history, BP's continued attempts to re-write reality while the whole world is watching highlights that the company not only had an unrealistic impression of their godlike ability to draw oil from 18,000 ft below the seabed without any risk of oil spill (and therefore no need for investing in pesky oil spill clean-up technologies, or plans) but also continues to fail to understand that unless an action serves the public, it does not serve the organization, no matter how you spin it.
There have been many PR failures since this disaster started, but the one that really gets under my skin is BP's blatant disregard for worker health.
BP spokesman Darren Beaudo claims that "folks working those [oil clean-up] crews are not expected or trained to work in circumstances that would require respirators. If they were in that sort of situation they would be removed immediately," but if that was the case, then why have workers been hospitalized?
I'm no scientist, but I imagine that standing over a giant oil slick in 80 degree weather is probably going to expose you to some nasty fumes. While we might not know yet if it's essential for workers to wear respirators, we definitely don't know that it's safe for them to be out on the water without them. (See National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report citing an estimate that about 40 percent of crude oil evaporates after it is spilled).
According to NRDC environmental justice attorney Al Huang, the hospitalizations clearly indicate that "the health impacts from working long hours in oil-contaminated areas were so bad they needed emergency treatment... [and] there are probably many more workers out there who have experienced symptoms, but not sought treatment."
Yet one month into this disaster, rather than respond to the real problems on the ground and prevent further injury to the people of beleaguered Gulf Coast communities, BP continues to pretend that-- just like an oil spill of this magnitude could never happen-- there also could not possibly be a worker health concern (see Beaudo quote above).
BP has missed every opportunity to prevent this mess, cutting corners on blow out preventer tests, weaseling itself out of environmental impact statements, and even rushing through the sealing of the well-- and we've all witnessed the consequences.
Sure- tests, monitoring, health clinics, hazmat training, proper protective gear and respirators cost money-- but frankly we know where cutting corners gets us.
It's time for BP to pursue the precautionary principle: to over-prepare the people on the water for the challenges they will face.
It's good for the people, and it's good PR.
For more on the health effects of oil spills past, see this post from my colleague Dr. Gina Solomon.
Recent BP headlines:
AP: Underwater Oil Plumes Disputed by BP CEO Tony Hayward
WSJ: BP provided low-quality video of the leak site that hindered efforts to make an estimate
BP CEO: Gulf Coast Oil Spill Is Relatively 'Tiny' Compared To 'Very Big Ocean'
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — May 31 2010 05:20 PM
I would not get excited about the elevation of PR to a science, just because somebody wrote that at Wikipedia.
The more generally accepted definition of PR is that it is the activity of portraying actions of one's organization to make it look good. Saying it nicely, it is always with the intention of putting the "best foot forward." Saying it directly, the objective of PR is maximum bamboozlement of the public. This often includes portraying one's intentions in a way that is decidedly different from the actual facts.
I continue to suggest that the primary goal of BP is to establish this very valuable well as an assett, and to use PR to help tough it out with the environmental damage. Hence we see Tony Hayward staggering around bleary eyed on the beach, showing that he shares our pain.
But it is my impression that the actions taken have fallen short of the kind of thing that would quickly plug the leak, but would render the well useless. Yes, they would need to spend another half billion $ or so to drill an adjacent well. I think the decision makers at BP are prepared to pay quite a lot in damages to avoid this extra drilling cost.
Elswhere I have discussed a variety of actions that might be more impressive, and though this is armchair criticism, it is based on many years of experience solving unusual problems and much of that involved marine systems and oceanographic research. The lack of such actions, or anything approximating real crisis level response, makes me think that we are dealing with duplicity from BP. That is my definition of PR.
While I think Pres. Obama has a steady style of leadership which I applaud, it does not seem that he is getting good advice that would enable him to see through the PR from BP.
Courtney Hamilton — Jun 1 2010 02:36 PM
Hi Jim-- I agree that PR is often used for "the bamboozlement of the public"-- but I don't think that "successful bamboozlement" is what makes good PR. The definition I quoted at the top of my entry was the description of the field established at the first World Assembly of Public Relations Associations, held in Mexico City in August 1978 (I just found it on Wiki, hence the citation).... I agree BP is acting in a duplicitous manner, and I think it's awful. I think that BP is likely choosing to invest in PR firms that can "spin" this mess while choosing not to spend money on things like proactively protecting workers. And I think that in the long run, choosing to let people possibly get sick because pretending there isn't a problem is "better for the company's image" reflects a failure to understand that a good relationship with the Public depends on the ability of a company to find avenues of action that also serve public interest.
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — Jun 1 2010 04:46 PM
Hi Courtney,
Thanks for responding. I have not looked much at the clean-up side of things, since I think that getting the gusher stopped is a far higher priority at this minute.
The duplicity I speak of is in the choice of priorities, where BP is seeming to choose to take actions that preserve the huge asset of this oil well, instead of taking actions that might quickly shut it off but would render it useless.
I am raising such a commotion about this because it seems like the administration is oblivious to this possibility.
Sorry to kid about PR; we both know it can be very useful, for good or bad, though I suggest it is mostly a tool to advance a corporations objectives. We need to recognize (I think) that corporations are not good or bad, they are just a mechanism created by law, and the usefulness of that mechanism depends on how well it is controlled by law. When PR is used to portray a corporation as a moral entity, it tends to be a misleading force.
Susan Jensen — Jun 5 2010 03:56 PM
If I may contribute ...
You mention above that BP is likely investing in PR firms that can effectively spin the message (semantics some would feel but my distain for the term spin is another discussion for another time ; ). In watching this MESS unfold day after day I would suggest that whomever they have heading the PR function, or those who are ignoring the PR advice, be given their walking papers. This is a classic textbook example of what not to do. In fact, if I were still writing a national PR column I'd do a formal assessment of BP and the Government's communication activities the past 40 some odd days.
Without investing that kind of time on a Saturday morning, here some broad strokes about what has been wrong with the PR response and next steps. Open to your responses ... i am pretty darn passionate about communicating openly and honestly in a crisis (hence the spin comment above) that affects people so pls forgive me if this comes off as a bit of a rant.
- the middle of a media storm is no place to be making decisions about who should be communicating to stakeholders, how and when. Companies like BP have crisis communications plans. I have great difficulty in seeing how that plan was enacted at all let alone IMMEDIATELY when the rig set fire --- or even today.
- The BP CEO obviously isn't the person who should be spokesperson., He is arrogant and uncaring. His priorities are askew - celebrating his birthday, wants his life back. C'mon!
- BP shouldn't be the spokesperson,. The incident command centre will have a designated PR function and spokesperson.,who may or may not be the PR person. Finally this week Thad Allen(?) has taken the lead in communicating. He has the authority and expertise to be credible.
- Basics of crisis communication: express empathy (you're in a media storm because you have been PERCEIVED to or have ACTUALLY done something that affects someone or a bunch of someones. Being empathetic does not mean accepting all responsibility, it is just the right thing to do.
- It is ok to say I don't know but I am working to find out but get out to the media and stakeholders early and often - or the media will fill the void with expert speculation and misinformation. Help the media tell your story by providing visuals etc. There is not chance of over communicating in a crisis.
- Be open and transparent in how you are fixing the problem. One of the first things the PR person at the incident command centre should have done is to establish communicaiton protocols that support disseminating accurate and timely information.
So there it is. The armchair quarterback's version ... ahhh 20/20 is such a luxury. Although it is clearly an uphill battle all is not lost. The greatest opportunity, and perhaps the only one left, it to leverage the decision to have the government and Thad out there doing the heavy lifting that is required now.
- establish regular media brefings conducted by anyone other than BP (they have zero credibility left) and preferable Thad (although he can share the role once things begin to subside a bit) so the media knows how and when they will receive information - or watch the pack of dogs continue to rip and shred as we are seeing now.
- a fisherman's wife is reporting that she provided her name for more information and upon returning a week later her info was on the same desk.. If you are taking requests for information make sure you are going to do something with that request and responding to people (start a website answering common questions is one idea)
- it doesn't matter what science says, docs and fishermen cleaning up are saying they are affected. Do the right thing and be seen to do the right thing and protect the people you have already impacted to critically.
- i am not hearing any key messages. determine what it is that those working on this problem are aiming to do - e.g. another opportunity for the government to distance itself from the PR mess BP has made: we are taking the lead here and the American people can count on us to not only put all of the resources at our disposal in effect to rememdy the worst disaster in American history but to be with them every step of the say (off the top of my head). And ... The consequnces of those who are responsible for this disaster are being discussed at the highest levels the American people can rest assured.
- go above and beyone e.g. be ahead of what the community needs and provide services e.g. mental health support.
Well that is enough for now. Thanks for the opportunity to vent. I hope we see improvements both operationally and from a communicaitons perspective.
Susan Jensen
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada