5 PR Nightmares That Were Handled Better Than The BP Oil Spill (PHOTOS)

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP: BP is being vilified from the Louisiana marshlands to the White House as its leaking oil well pollutes the Gulf Coast, raising doubts about whether the company can survive the backlash.

"There are no magic bullets for something like this," said Tony Jaques, a crisis management consultant in Australia.

Past corporate crises teach us that it might be too late for BP to recover from the worst oil spill in U.S. history after initially playing down the severity of it. But history also indicates that the company could still bounce back if CEO Tony Hayward and his management team do the right things. Most companies contaminated by crisis recover, even if the stigma sticks.

"Strong leadership will survive any crisis," said public relations executive Richard Levick.

Several high-profile corporate crises in the past 30 years offer insights into what BP PLC should have done from the start - and might still do.

1 of 5

Exxon Valdez Spill (1989)

1 of 6

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

THE CRISIS: A supertanker ran aground and spewed 11 million gallons of crude into Alaska's Prince William Sound. The spill killed hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals and was the nation's biggest oil spill until the BP catastrophe. THE RESPONSE: Exxon Mobil quickly came under fire for deflecting the blame and being aloof. The company wound up paying $3.4 billion in cleanup costs, fines and compensation to victims. An Anchorage jury determined in 1994 that Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages, but Exxon spent more than a decade fighting that decision. It argued it shouldn't be liable for the actions of the tanker's captain, Joseph Hazelwood. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court reduced Exxon's punitive damages to $507.5 million. THE LESSON: Perseverance can pay for the company. Exxon Mobil is stronger financially than when the spill happened and reigns as the most valuable U.S. company. Levick, the public relations expert, thinks Exxon Mobil has managed to recast itself as environmentally sensitive because of the work it did to restore Prince William Sound. (Some environmental researchers see it differently, arguing it will be decades before all the oil is gone.) Exxon Mobil may not have emerged in such good shape had its spill not occurred in one of the least populous states, Goldsmith said. He also thinks Alaska's economic dependence on the oil industry made things easier for Exxon Mobil. BP's spill is far larger and is damaging a much more densely populated area. This calamity also threatens to defile beach communities more interested in money from tourists than oil companies.

Nutella Recipes

CEOs Who Look Like Villains

The Most Outrageous Corporate Tax Loopholes

9 Incriminating Things Wall Street Workers Have Said Via Email

Tell Us Your Story On Majoring In Debt

Conservatives Pointing Fingers

THE CRISIS: A supertanker ran aground and spewed 11 million gallons of crude into Alaska's Prince William Sound. The spill killed hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals and was the nation's biggest oil spill until the BP catastrophe.

THE RESPONSE: Exxon Mobil quickly came under fire for deflecting the blame and being aloof. The company wound up paying $3.4 billion in cleanup costs, fines and compensation to victims. An Anchorage jury determined in 1994 that Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages, but Exxon spent more than a decade fighting that decision. It argued it shouldn't be liable for the actions of the tanker's captain, Joseph Hazelwood. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court reduced Exxon's punitive damages to $507.5 million.

THE LESSON: Perseverance can pay for the company. Exxon Mobil is stronger financially than when the spill happened and reigns as the most valuable U.S. company.

Levick, the public relations expert, thinks Exxon Mobil has managed to recast itself as environmentally sensitive because of the work it did to restore Prince William Sound. (Some environmental researchers see it differently, arguing it will be decades before all the oil is gone.)

Exxon Mobil may not have emerged in such good shape had its spill not occurred in one of the least populous states, Goldsmith said. He also thinks Alaska's economic dependence on the oil industry made things easier for Exxon Mobil. BP's spill is far larger and is damaging a much more densely populated area. This calamity also threatens to defile beach communities more interested in money from tourists than oil companies.

comments(36)

Total comments: 36 | Post a Comment

1 of 6

Rate This Slide

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

A PR Blunder Well-Handled

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Corporate PR Nightmares

loading...

Corporate PR Nightmares

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[Roger Lakins]

08:05 AM on 06/15/2010

Union Carbide?! Their treatment of the victims of that disaster is an ongoing scandal for Dow. They may have had professional liars who could help them save face, but they certainly lost their souls. Their handling of that tragic occurrence is like something only hinted at in "God of Carnage." History also indicates that the company could still bounce back if CEO Tony Hayward and his management team do the right things." I shudder to think of how you define "the right things."

[TN]

03:33 PM on 06/14/2010

Executive Order Now - fine BP one million an hour for every hour the leak is still leaking and untill the mess is cleaned up. Watch them MOVE!!!!

[floodberg]

04:19 PM on 06/14/2010

Favved for this one!! But there won't be anyone on either side of the aisle to actually go against BP or any big company...we get to vote for legislators, but our one party system represents them, not us.

[InofTouch]

07:08 PM on 06/14/2010

you don't think BP isn't working faster?....this is hurting them more regardless

[serendipitydaze]

03:27 PM on 06/14/2010

Another advantage Johnson&Johnson had was the company's credibility. J&J was - - and continues to be - - perceived as a well-managed public spirited maker of baby powder and products (like Tylenol) designed to alleviate pain. Band Aids made them a welcome household member. Also, their prompt action in seeking to find the person(s) responsible added to their positive image of concern. Indeed, their search for those responsible continues.

[Sugarstarzkill]

01:40 AM on 06/19/2010

I could have sworn they knew who poisoned those capsules. But, I'll take everyone elses word for it. I saw some show where a woman poisened them to kill her husband, but also did it to a few in the store in order to throw detectives off of her. Maybe a whole different incident.

[abba11002]

11:02 AM on 07/01/2010

It was disclosed roughly a year after the scare, during the trial of the person responsible, that the person who poisoned the Tylenol had bought some shares of stock in J&J prior to his malicious act.

He did this deliberately because he somehow thought, and was correct, that J&J would recover, thus raising stock prices. It was motivated out of personal greed.

[KevinFitzz]

03:22 PM on 06/14/2010

Tylenol is bad for your liver.

[kitty61]

02:32 PM on 06/14/2010

Not sure why Chernobyl didn't even get a mention, with over 336,000 people resettled, after the disaster, thousands have gotten all types of cancer and birth defects, but of course most of it covered up by the Russian government and no one talks about it any more, the land is unusable, hmmmm...and some people want to nuke the oil well so the whole gulf becomes radio active..I think this might have been the worst environmental disaster along with human tragedy and misery.

[Jason Vise]

02:52 PM on 06/14/2010

I think they were thinking of Companies PR and not a governments.

[TheBoohoo]

02:14 PM on 06/14/2010

I know that spilling oil and getting cyanide in your tylenol is pretty bad, but I think Union Carbide getting 10,000 people killed in India should be number one. It doesn't get much worse than that.

[Sugarstarzkill]

01:49 AM on 06/19/2010

Not saying you are wrong, but I also wonder how many animals will die because of the gulf spill, not to mention the people who live on the coast. They are thankfully alive, but their lives will change for sure. It is hard to measure how bad a disaster is in terms of lives lost I think. Some of the global implications of this spill are pretty scary. It is hard for me to say which is worse between the two.

[SpinDizzy]

01:39 PM on 06/14/2010

BP doesn't need a better PR plan, it needs a faster getaway car. It's done, the bank is robbed, the posse is forming, time to go.

[Christopher Daley]

01:11 PM on 06/14/2010

Sadly I think BP will survive this because the consumer doesn't seem to care one iota or their gas sells would have dropped.

www.csdaley.com

[Sugarstarzkill]

01:51 AM on 06/19/2010

Thing is, I saw many, many people who were originally going to boycott them, but then everyone started saying it could make the situation even worse in terms of the clean up. Not sure if that is correct or not, but it seems to make sense. And there isn't anywhere near me that sells BP so I haven't had to make a final decision on that.

[Wildcatter]

01:45 PM on 07/03/2010

BP gas sales have dropped ~40% due to the boycott

[last boy scout]

12:55 PM on 06/14/2010

BP's hypocrisy on the matter of that oil spill shouldn't come as a surprise to everyone, taking the long-term history of theirs, into the consideration.

I've come to read an interesting article (link — http://www.win.ru/en/win/4600.phtml) on the history of BP and its predecessors and, which is much more important, on the issues of their connection to the Wall Street financiers.

Oh, and their shared profiteering, of course.

[davidwayneosedach]

12:48 PM on 06/14/2010

Of all the disasters listed BP is by far the biggest. They are looking straight faced at bankruptcy.

[Anselm53]

01:49 PM on 06/15/2010

David, we have a word for your comment in the UK - it is b*ll*cks. BP facing bankruptcy? The total costs of this disaster - for such it is - may possibly amount to last year's profits but it's unlikely.

2009's profits, btw, were $14bn. Whatever the final cost, BP is likely to get most of it back from Transocean and Halliburton, the contractors who actually operater the Deepwater Horizon and its subsea infrastructure. Research and read what Halliburton said about the 'temporary blowout prevention unit' in the seafloor - the thing that actually caused the cataract of failure leading to the disaster. BP is being made a whipping boy by politicians grinding axes - not least, by the White House. I had expected better of Obama but I guess I should have known - no politician can be expected to tell the truth when mendacity is seen as a way to win votes. More Chicago politics, or just politics as usual, d'ye think?

As for Bhopal being regarded as being 'better handled' in the PR stakes - I seriously beg to differ. What a pile of ordure. Decades later, Dow is still getting opprobrium for that - and to be fair, it wasn't even in charge when the disaster occured.

10,000 lives lost, remember - BP would have to nuke Biloxi to match that.

[makote]

12:30 PM on 06/14/2010

Why is this spinoff on the story so important to CNN and HP, who the hell cares of the PR nightmare this is like saying ohh BP if you had a better PR department the oil spill would have never been on the news.

Kind of stupid to actually care about the PR. Should be making BP responsible for their actions instead.

Shame on this one.

[whychooseaside]

01:41 PM on 06/14/2010

There are still others upset about the Exxon spill and their leadership.

[makote]

01:50 PM on 06/14/2010

I agree, but the PR side still isn't the important side of the story. I mean you will still buy Oil, BP could care less if it sells it through other dealers.

No matter how hard BP is hit with this "PR nightmare" they will still sell Gas and prevail. So what's all the fuzz about.

All the endangered species as well as all the states along the gulf coast will suffer the consequences of this "PR nightmare" yet BP will do better than them and their economies.

Or is someone planning an ban on OIL we don't know about?

[Kevin Atlanta]

12:24 PM on 06/14/2010

Tony the Brit responded well within the character of the Brits but that's not something that the enraged American public could easily accept.
There is no "right" response to the absolute apocalyptic nature of this Oil Industry Accident (it is NOT an "Act of God" as some claim) that is the direct result of the Halliburton White House and Dick Cheney personally with his 2001 behind closed door meetings and the entire industry deserves to be shut down until the safety violations are cured and one-by-one the rigs are inspected and certified to operate again.
Being adult in a crisis and not allowing the Carvell style Ragin Cajun emotionalism to rule is the only path for President Barrack Hussein Obama.
I'm keeping an open mind but the "blame" begins with the Bush Wrecking Crew and courageously ends with Obama's ownership.
Tony should be very happy President Obama hasn't piled on emotionalism but held to a course of clear actions that are lost in the constant propaganda of the 24 hour opinion cycle that is far from the "news."

[builder6]

08:14 PM on 06/18/2010

Kevin Atlanta responded well within the character of every bleeding heart liberal who refuses to accept the fact that their Hero, BHO has spent more time playing golf and holding parties at the White House than he has paying attention to the legitimate, constructive, requests of the only leader in this whole oil spill nightmare, Gov. Bobby Jindal.
This is like the response of "racism" we get from every liberal black "leader" when someone disagrees with a black person's point of view. It's emotion filled knee jerk ractions.
Kevin, Bush hasn't been in office for two years, and Cheney didn't have anything to do with this accident. Grow up.
On what planet does any sane person not think this is something BP wouldn't love to fix and then start repairing the damage done.
And the only thing your boy Obama has done, to date, is point the finger at others while he and Michelle have parties in the White House and he goes to play golf and then take vacations. He has absolutely NO leadership ability, that is why he has not led in this instance, but once again, decides to abdicate any responsibility, and appoints another "Czar". Obama hasn't owned anything of any substance since becoming King. And since you haven't provided any substantive data backing your vapid Opinions, we must recognize as fact, that they are just that, opinions. Your lack of material data is just one more case of a liberal speaking with his feelings, not reason.

[Kevin Atlanta]

08:49 PM on 06/18/2010

Without the baseless ad homin attack here is the reality: President Barrack Obama has taken a total of 21 vacation days in 18 months in office. President Dubya Bush had a total of 977 out of 2,923 days of unbridled spending, lies, 2 wars, fraud against the United States Citizens in Military Contractors, the failure to regulate Banks and Cheney's own behind closed doors Oil Baron meetings leading to the capture of the MMS by the Oil Company.
Now, Builder6, perhaps you should become better informed before taking off on a Texas Textbook Taliban tirade founded in "belief" rather than documented fact and scientific evidence.
Either that or ride your dinosaur to shul...
Thanks for the giggle.
And in closing it is amazing that President Barrack Hussein Obama receives a Nobel Peace Prize for being anyone but BUSH, has restored American Diplomatic Integrity with Hillary Clinton's formidable skills and passed more legislation for the protection of Americans than both Bush Corporate Fascists combined.
The foundation for my statements are fact and not the fiction of talking snakes or Faux Spews.

[Kevin Atlanta]

08:52 PM on 06/18/2010

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_vacation_days_has_George_W_Bush_taken_as_president

[ellwort]

12:23 PM on 06/14/2010

"Exxon Mobil may not have emerged in such good shape had its spill not occurred in . . . ." "MAY"? Really? Who copy-edits this crap?

[wethepeople3884]

11:43 AM on 06/14/2010

jOHNSON AND JOHNSON is the gold standard here? Wow - Im even more proud to be attending robert wood johnson medical school than i was before now that ive heard that story. I wasnt even born when this happened however.

Moreover, i really think rebranding is actually worse than sticking with your original name. Rebranding is like some giant hoax committed on the public at large because your name is so negative in the public image that its unsalvageable. That is deceit of the highest magnitude. When blackwater changed to xe no one even noticed - no one bothers calling them xe and no one has forgot how corrupt and evil that company is. Furthermore, who calls phillip morris altria group without at some point referencing their former name?? Uhhh NOBODY! If BP changed their name, who in the world wont know who they were? Its a futile, pointless and even absurd exercise to the point of being even more damaging to the corporate image. They already changed their logo and their slogan (beyond petroleum) and look where that got them. No - this company doesnt need to rebrand, it needs to fall off a cliff or undergo a massive overhaul.

[humandecency]

11:20 AM on 06/14/2010

They need to get out their with big vacumes and "VAC BABY VAC!!" with the same enthusiasm they had for getting the drills out there. Their mere "testing" of vacs is a joke. They could be saving animals and wetlands and it is worth it. Cmon on VAC BABY VAC!!

[PaleMail]

02:50 PM on 06/14/2010

Can you describe this vacuum or is this a joke?