RSS
As the news coverage of the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico continues, this story is becoming much more than about an oilrig that has blown up and the resulting oil spill. There is, of course, the whole eco-system that is at risk, and the resulting loss of sea-life, birds and animals, and the loss of livelihood of the fishermen of the region.
This is also becoming a story of how or even whether the BP brand will survive.
The future of BP as a company has started to be questioned. Historian Douglas Brinkley stated that much on CNN in an interview with Anderson Cooper, saying that we’re seeing “a great company crumbling before our eyes.” He also stated that this is the third BP environmental disaster in the United States in the last five years. Words such as greed and negligence are being associated with BP.
From a branding perspective, how can a brand built on being the oil company that is moving away from petroleum and touts itself as an environmental champion – whose whole brand is built around the idea of “beyond petroleum,” right to their green eco-friendly symbol – how can that brand remain credible?
It is one thing for one of the “big, bad” oil companies to have one of their rigs blow up, it is another for BP with all its green brand claims.
While the company itself may not, at the time of this writing, be in any danger of disappearing, its brand’s credibility is at the mercy of the oil heading towards the Gulf coast. If they (with the efforts of various levels of governments involved and volunteers) manage to somehow contain and minimize the effect of the spill, BP may be able to contain the damage to its brand. On the other hand, if we are witnessing one of the worst environmental disasters in the United States, with the effects of the spill taking 50 years to dissipate, BP may have no choice but to abandon its Beyond Petroleum brand and revert to British Petroleum, anything, to move away from being seen as the Bad Petroleum company.
In the brochure produced to launch its Beyond Petroleum brand in June 2000, BP stated:
“We are committed to:
• respecting the rule of law, conducting our business with integrity, and showing respect for human dignity and the rights of the individual wherever we do business
• creating mutual advantage in all our relationships so that people will trust us and want to do business with us
• demonstrating respect for the natural environment and work towards our goals of no accidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment
• managing our financial performance to maximize long-term value for our shareholders”
They have certainly met their financial goals. It is not clear they are meeting their other objectives. In the same CNN report as the Brinkley interview, CNN revealed that BP had been asking volunteers to sign waivers, indemnifying BP in case a volunteer is injured during clean-up efforts (they have since recalled the waivers: not exactly living up to their claims of respecting rights of individuals, trust, etc.).
To be fair, BP is doing certain things right, from a branding perspective. Their web site touts their efforts in coping with this disaster; Tony Hayward, their current CEO, has been in front of the cameras to explain what BP is doing in the Gulf to stop the spill. In the face of tough questioning, he claims that the spill wasn’t their accident (it was a subcontractor’s rig, employees etc.), but that the oil is their responsibility.
A few months ago, various blogs (including this one) offered opinions on the damage to the Tiger Woods brand. That was silliness, a diversion from the day-to-day life. This brand crisis is not. And how it will play itself out, will directly affect the lives and livelihood of a great many people.