BLOGS - by George!

George Glasser

George Glasser

George Glasser
Location
Hoyland Nether, Barnsley, UK
Birthday
February 02
Bio
Glasser is an ex-instigative environmental journalist who don't have anything better to do than post articles about subject matter that catches his fancy.

MY RECENT POSTS

George Glasser's Links

Salon.com
MAY 9, 2010 8:19AM

The Gulf Oil Spill & The Art of Persuasion

Rate: 0 Flag

It's not us.

High-powered public relations and crises management teams come to the rescue of BP. 

Tony Hayward, the cherub-cheeked chairman of PB (British Petroleum) has the unenviable task of being the talking head for BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill. He comes across as the concerned, empathetic executive trying to make things right, and of course, denying any responsibility for the spill – it was the incompetent contractors. However, Hayward magnanimously goes on says that British Petroleum will pay for cleaning-up the mess. 

Hayward is simply the public face of BP – a robotic mouthpiece attached to a crises management team. He ceased to bare any resemblance to a human being the moment the crises began to unfold. 

Watching and reading interviews with Hayward, the one thing an old investigative environmental journalist sees behind the empathetic words and boyish expressions is an invisible army of cynical lawyers, crises management, and public relations specialists frenetically crafting his canned responses to media questions. 

The crises management team has already reviewed questions the news media asked about previous man-made disasters and fabricated logical sounding answers. They craft every word that Hayward and his BP associates spit out to the media to elicit as much public sympathy and understanding of “BP’s unfortunate plight” as possible. 

Not only do they create the words and Hayward’s public image, but simultaneously there are batteries of people tracking every news story along with what’s said on bogs and social networking sites, and in turn, pump out positive spins to counter anything negative they encounter. The aim is to get people on their side, and if a blogger is popular enough, attempt to buy them off with favours. 

The PR battle and manipulating public opinion regarding BP’s battered public image is every bit as intense as the battle to quell the oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. 

What we are talking about is “Crises Management” and that’s in the domain of public relations experts. Large corporations like BP retain a multinational public relations firm specialising not only creating their ‘green corporate image,’ but also disarm the media and manipulate information on Internet social networking sites such Twitter and Facebook in crises situations. They even attempt to manipulate Internet search engines to knock negative information or bogs off the first pages. 

Large public relations firms are completely without scruples and completely mercenary. Their only loyalty is to the corporation paying for services. 

Typically, proactive crisis management activities include forecasting potential crises and creating media strategies to deal with them – it’s like soothsaying and rehearsing responses to the media before the foreseeable crises happens. 

The PR agency responsible for BP’s “Green – Nice Corporation” image in the early part of this century says on their site in the crises management section: 

Crises can unfold with blistering speed. Responding to a crisis requires an organization's leadership to remain focused and effective. 

Ogilvy PR is an expert in crisis management. From the CDC [US Centers for Disease Control] to corporate clients, we help organizations anticipate the types of situations they're likely to encounter and hone the skills they need to contain a crisis and implement an effective response. 

Al Tortorella, Managing Director, Crisis Management at Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide says: 

What are some of the challenges clients face, and how does Ogilvy address them? 

Every crisis situation is unique and must be managed accordingly. However, there are certain core principles underpinning successful crisis management, and we use them every day to contain the difficulties our clients face when they are under attack. 

Our experience has led us to identify some key areas that companies under stress should be cognizant of. They are:

·         an understanding of the media interest in the story,

·         a precise definition of the real problem and determining strategy accordingly,

·         a managing of the flow of information,

·         an assumption that the situation will escalate and get worse,

·         a managing of all the affected constituencies, and,

·         a measuring of results in real time. 

Much of what we do involves anticipating the types of crises that a company is likely to encounter so we can help develop useful frameworks. 

Further, the skills needed to implement a crisis response can be amplified and honed through simulations that put management through the paces of a realistic crisis situation. 

When it comes to crises management, the PR agency will try almost any tactic they can get away with to take the heat off their client. In the case of BP, it appears that one tactic called ‘viral marketing’ has come into play using rumours and conspiracy theories to deflect the spotlight from the corporation onto innocuous third parties. 

While PR agency personnel may not have created the rumours, it is to their benefit to spread and perpetuate them on behalf of their client who is not directly responsible for the PR agencies actions. 

One of the better sound bites is “Obama’s Katrina” which is something the Obama administration was forced to counter before it got out of control by publishing a timeline on the Internet.

The ‘Katrina’ sound bite suggests that if President Obama had responded sooner, the oil spill would not be as serious and the real fault falls on the US government’s slowness in responding, not BP. 

The major objective of crises management is to take control of the information disseminated to the media and make the news media dependent on the company public relations department for any news. 

Thus far, to some extent, it seems as if tried and true crises management strategies are beginning to work for BP. 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
bp tried to hint at the truth, but americans didn't want to hear it:

the rig was not built by bp.

the conversion to production was not being done by bp.

the techniques being used by the 'contractor' [why no names?] were known to be risky, due to methane hydrate being explosive when heated. there was mh on the sea-bed, it was heated by the injection on curing cement at high pressure, surprise surprise, it exploded!

then it turned out the builder had saved a few bucks by leaving out safety features that became legally unnecessary when dick cheney came to power.

what hasn't come out, what is being buried by msm, is the name of the builder, the name of the operator. where are those names?

let me make one wild guess. they are american companies, indeed, the operator is a subsidiary of the builder, and both are dear to the heart of dick cheney. just a guess.

this story is a pr triumph. it's right up there with the 'one man and a clapped out austrian rifle killed jfk.' it's not a great triumph for bp, perhaps- but for halliburton things are going well.

who did build this rig? who was pumping hot concrete into methane hydrate inclusions? tell these facts, and then make them go away, that would be real expertise in public relations. just covering up the facts is mere hack work.
Re: Response to Al Loomis

Once, an old Bernays' school PR man told me, "A corporation can always make more money, but never enough to buy back its reputation once compromised in the public eye." Rightly or wrongly, BP's reputation is compromised, and all the money it can make and PR firms it can hire for green-wash makeovers will ever get BP's reputation back again.

You flippantly remarked: "bp tried to hint at the truth, but americans didn't want to hear it," which, to say the least, is a rather condescending and derogatory statement seeming to illuminate your general opinion of Americans. In other words, you are saying that Americans are too obtuse and too stupid to be open to the truth.

I also noticed that you were rather quick with the at classic Alistair Campbell ploy to put all the blame off on somebody else, e.g. incompetent "american" companies, which is probably true to a great degree, but then again, they're no more incompetent than incompetent British and American BP executives who contracted them to do the work. The portrait you painted of BP executives in those few words is that of a bunch of gullible fools hoodwinked and exploited by slick American cowboy companies - not very flattering regarding the calibre and intellectual prowess of the executives employed by BP.

In your defence of BP, you failed to mention that BP was primary corporation in the US lobbying against the mandatory use of the 'acoustic switch' for the blow-out valve because they said (to the effect) that the acoustic switches were too sensitive and tended to go off and shut down oil production, which in-turn caused them to lose a little money. They also assured the government that, safety-wise, they had everything under control, and the extra safety features weren’t essential to overall safety. In saying that, BP accepted all responsibility for their work and for the work of their contractors.

BP executives also griped about the $500K cost of the redundant acoustic safety switch, and again, assured officials that it wasn't essential. However, BP's cheapskate approach is now costing them upwards to $10 million a day, 14% drop in share value, and about $20 billion loss in capitalisation, and it could be all for the cost of a $500K piece of kit!

You also failed to mention that that BP is the largest producer of oil in the US, and in 2009, BP was among the top twenty lobbyists in the US. They spent $16M lobbing the US congress and government to maintain lax regulations.

In fact, BP has one of the worst safety records of any oil company operating in the USA, and in the last few years, BP paid out $485 million in fines and settlements to the US government for environmental crimes, willful neglect of worker safety rules, and penalties for manipulating energy markets. Of course, this was just 'chump change' for BP - probably the executive suites in Dubai cost much more than that.

The investigation into 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion which killed 15 workers, the US Chemical Safety Board found a long history of egregious mismanagement, egregious cost-cutting, and an egregious rejection to the concept of security. While BP was experiencing its highest profits in its own history, in 1999 and 2005, management cut spending by twenty-five percent across all of its five US refineries. The Chemical Safety Board found this cost cutting and a lack of attention to security was the cause of the tragic explosion in 2005.

The Texas City catastrophe was the largest workplace accident in the United States in 15 years.

Between 2008 -2009, BP cut operating expenses by 40% and laid off thousands of employees, which means they were looking for the lowest bidders for the jobs in order to maximise profits which were something like $6.5 billion in the first quarter of 2010. With a 40% cut in operating expenses there also had to be at least 40% reduction in safety oversight. All these cuts took place under the oversight of Tony Hayward - he appears to be more of a hatchet man that the nice, safety oriented guy painted by the public relations team.

At the end of the day, BP's fate doesn’t look good if measured by its lack-lustre health and safety history in the US; the legal vultures are circling and litigation is inevitable. The law firms are naming all the companies in their complaints and not singling out BP. However, BP commissioned the job, BP hired all the contractors, BP's oil is spilling into the Gulf Of Mexico, and BP was ultimately responsible for overseeing the whole project to the last detail, including the safety. Consequently, as Exxon took the brunt of the Alaska spill in the past, BP will take the hit for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. You can't change the outcome by blaming the contractors - they will all be suing one another soon enough, but BP will take the ultimate fall no matter what. So, BP's dubious reputation in the US will more than likely be beyond salvage.

If you're playing a risky game, you better be able to take the punches when you blow it - BP just happened to be the oil company that lost, and is the one the American government has to crucify as an example to the rest.