BP's PR Efforts Around the Oil Spill: Slick or Sullied?

Last April, in the days following the massive rig fire/oil spill in the gulf, BP found itself at the helm of a big decision: how to address the issue, publicly.

On paper, BP did things right. They issued press releases almost immediately, pushed resources/investigations, and used tested emotional tactics (expressing sorrow, regret, sympathy to the victims; providing concrete evidence of how they were reacting to the spill with specific #s of gallons spilled, # of cleanup vessels, etc.) to showcase their accountability and attempt to regain trust.

As an example, CEO Tony Hayward said: "Our concern and thoughts are with the rig personnel and their families. We are also very focused on providing every possible assistance in the effort to deal with the consequences of the incident." And, "We are determined to fight this spill on all fronts, in the deep waters of the gulf, in the shallow waters and, should it be necessary, on the shore."

Hayward was "putting BP on our side. Trying to engage us against this enemy — the spill — is probably one of the better ways to manage this much bad news. It's clever framing," said Adam Hanft, an expert on marketing and business strategy whose firm, Hanft Projects, has advised several Fortune 500 companies. (Quote from this LA Times article.)

BP's PR department handled things well - in print. And yet, CEO Hayward was publicly lambasted for being "evasive" and even patronizing.

As a Telegraph editor says, "But never mind whether BP was recklessly, perhaps even criminally negligent; it is hard to recall a more catastrophically mishandled public relations response to a crisis than the one we are witnessing."

In the wake of the disaster, nearly a year later, BP's image remains sullied by the incident.

So, what could they have done better? Was it CEO Hayward's fault? Did the massive scale of the spill thwart BP's efforts, so that even if they reacted properly, they nonetheless would suffer longterm consequences?