On 20th April 2011 (a Wednesday) BP will be facing the first anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster. Last week’s blog looked at the areas upon which the media might decide to focus during this first anniversary.
This blog reviews what BP might be doing to minimise the first anniversary impact.
Things to consider
• The BP response will depend greatly upon what they have been doing over the past year
• It will also depend upon the relationship between the corporate communications people and their involvement in strategy development. If they are a ‘send and defend’ team with little influence over strategy then that may limit the approach taken.
Once these are known then the next stage is to consider:
• Should BP be proactive or reactive? Proactive means engaging with stakeholders, reassuring, informing and listening. Reactive means waiting to see if they have escaped an anniversary onslaught and then reacting to any coverage that does occur
• If proactive then what should they be talking about and to whom?
• Even if reactive they should be preparing scenarios for likely attack points and preparing relevant statements or references to third parties
• In this process they might be considering all their stakeholders and their likely reaction to the anniversary.
During the crisis last year I criticised BP for being too corporate. They appeared to be fixated with processes and procedures rather than the human element of the crisis. Their use of Tony Hayward the then CEO as their spokesperson was an object lesson on how not to use a CEO in a crisis.
The proactive approach:
I would always favour a proactive approach to the ‘tin helmet’ hunker down approach. On that basis what might they be doing?
• Remember that crises are about people
• Don’t forget that the first anniversary of a crisis can be stressful to all involved
• BP might want to express regret and sympathy for the lives lost (and mean it). For the families of the eleven men who died they should be listening to what these families want. Some will want no contact, others may want to visit the site of the disaster, yet others may want to talk and remember
• Employees will be stressed and the first anniversary is unlikely to be a normal working day. Those most closely involved in the crisis may need time and space to handle what happened. Others may just want time to talk or to take a little time out to remember. Most important though is that internal communications processes are used to send clear messages of support and understanding from the senior team
• The communities involved in the Gulf of Mexico will be very raw. Depending upon how proactive BP have been since the disaster will determine their level of involvement in those communities at the time of the anniversary. It could be that BP use the opportunity to express regret at what happened and then reaffirm their commitment to those communities. If BP has built a closer relationship with the Gulf communities then it might be a chance to reach out and demonstrate a change in culture between large oil company and the communities in which it operates
• If BP feels really confident that they can demonstrate real change then now would be the time to show what has happened since the disaster. The danger lies in the change being shallow. This is only an option if journalists can see and feel cultural and attitudinal change.
Ultimately it will be BPs actions in the lead up to and during the crisis that will do them most harm or good. If they come across as arrogant and complacent then self harm will happen.
If they show openness, honesty, a willingness to admit human frailty and an admission that more has to be done then they might just be treated more kindly.
It is interesting to note that the BP share price before the crisis was 655.4 pence. Today it stands at 467 pence. In three weeks time it will be interesting to review how BP handled the mini crisis heading their way. Will their senior executives be watching the share price or be more concerned about the human cost of the crisis – that is the real test.
Read More
It is just one month before the first anniversary of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. On 20th April 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, killing eleven oil workers and spreading a deadly slick of oil which took three months to contain and then cap.
Reputations were destroyed.
The Beyond Petroleum (BP) logo became a laughing stock as the oil slick destroyed wildlife and wrecked the economy of many communities.
Tony Hayward the CEO of BP at that time was ridiculed, embarrassed and shamed in the most public way by a series of politicians including Barak Obama.
Barak Obama, in turn, was damaged within the US by accusations of tardiness in his response and outside the US for his blatant attempts to move the blame beyond his government and country. His deliberate use of the title British Petroleum condemned him in the eyes of many Brits and destroyed the idea of a special relationship between the US and the UK.
The BP corporate communications team were condemned, probably unjustly, by just about everyone for failing to respond appropriately to the crisis.
There were many more reputations both within the oil company and outside who suffered.
A year on what can we expect?
Well, hopefully BP corporate comms have got their act together and are prepared. Perhaps the saving grace is that the political turmoil in the Middle east and North Africa (MENA) will sideline the anniversary. For BP to hope that it will all be forgotten will be a mistake. They should prepare and here are some thoughts they might be considering.
1. Nuclear power is not oil, but it is linked in the minds of many. The recent events in Japan and the problems with their nuclear reactors have led to more than one article about the dangers around the use of dangerous fuels
2. The relatives of eleven men will be mourning their loss. How have they been treated since the disaster and how have the oil companies involved treated their memories?
3. What has happened to the oil that spilt into the Gulf? Is it lying at the bottom destroying marine life and what is BP doing to clean it up? What about all of the dispersants that were used, how have they affected the environment?
4. What happened to all those communities affected by the oil spill? Are they still suffering, have they received the help promised or are they languishing in poverty forgotten by a Federal government too busy fighting wars in MENA and by BP?
5. What happened to all of the money? Was it spent as expected or are there dozens of court cases enriching American lawyers whilst poor local businessmen struggle?
6. What has BP done since the disaster? Have they cleaned up their act or are they still making mistakes and getting into trouble? They sold a lot of assets after the oil spill. What is their latest strategy, where are they investing and how safe are their sites today?
For sure there will be journalists looking at all of these areas and more over the next month. They will be preparing their articles and finding the controversial aspects of the intervening year.
This blog has looked at the areas that might be rich pickings for the media to investigate. Next week, how BP might seek to respond and prepare for the anniversary.
Read More
Looking at a communication plan recently, from the very beginning it was clear that it was overambitious. It was obvious what the writer was trying to achieve and the aims were honest, it was just that they were unattainable.
Many communication plans fail for that one simple reason. On paper they look good; in reality they are impossible to achieve. Here are some of the reasons why communication plans fail when they are put into action.
Poor strategy. It is worth pointing out the difference between strategy and tactics. A strategy describes where you want to go and in broad terms how you want to get there. A strategy paper is usually no more than two or three pages long.
A tactic is the means and methods by which you will achieve your strategy. Most people confuse the two, writing very long ‘strategy’ papers which are, in reality, tactical papers which are poor in strategic thinking. Clarity of thought in knowing what it is that you want to achieve is most important for a successful communications plan.
Poor tactics. All too often the tactical element contains everything including the proverbial ‘kitchen sink’. Simplicity is key at this point. Another mistake made by many is the headlong rush to ‘do’ social media because ‘that’s the modern way’.
In one recent conversation it became clear that the traditional method of advertising in a local newspaper was achieving far more than all of the money being spent on online resources. The local newspaper is where the audience found that particular product.
Too much, too quickly. Trying to do too much, too quickly is another problem with a lot of communication plans. A well planned, phased and protracted campaign will achieve a lot more success than a big impact, all at once, approach.
Getting buy-in. Not buy-in from senior executives; for a communication plan to be put into action that is a given. The real problem is that not enough communication plans are presented and discussed with the very people who could, all to easily, scupper them – the employees. Spending time involving team members and employees in what is being planned can produce good ideas and a sense of ownership. When the communication plan is agreed spending more time telling employees about the plan will get further support and prevent them from accidentally undermining the initiative.
Over ambition. Finally, over-ambitious plans lead to poor execution, disillusion and failure. It is a common human trait to think that things are easier to deliver than is the case. Goals are often over-ambitious and the ability for individuals to deliver on core areas can easily be thrown out by unexpected events.
In short, little steps rather than big steps are the best approach. Realistic goals are essential. Getting buy-in is a must. And tempering ambition with a touch of reality will lead to an achievable and successful communication plan.
Read More
