BP’s corporate reputation is slowly slipping down the toilet.  Yet it seems their PR efforts are in complete over-drive.  Take a look at the recent PR campaigns from the company (a live cam that shows you the spill and what BP is doing to fix it).  Then there is also there  public apology in the US (see the reactions to the 60 second commercial).  And this might be part of the problem.  Whilst BP is demonstrating skills in managing its own PR machine – these skills are not matched when it comes to dealing with the physical dimension of the problem.

The challenge with managing an environmental disaster is that you need to carefully  deal with the reality of a crisis (‘crisis management’) as well as dealing with the perception of the situation (‘crisis communications’).  To be fair, BP have a whopper of a crisis on their hands (as explained in this video).  The sheer scale of what is happening in the gulf mexico is unprecedented – the public’s outrage (and subsequent interventions from the  US government) seems entirely justified.

Remembering Brent Spar 1995

The situation unfolding on the Guld of Mexico reminds me of the Brent Spar crisis in 1995 of another oil company shell.  Green Peace Germany opposed Shell’s plans to sink of the oil rig.

At the time, Shell thought it was doing the right thing (ie. implementing the solution causing the least environmental impact).  As time has shown, they were right as even environmentalist today acknowledge that Shell did have their facts straight.  This didn’t seem to matter to the likes of Germany’s Environment Minister (a certain Angela Merkell) who  agreed with  Green Peace Germany.  Nobody, in 1995, agreed with Shell.

Shell failed to deal with the perceptions of a crisis, addressing the reality of removing squatters from the oil rig.  BP today are doing the opposite – trying to manage perceptions without dealing with the reality of the oil spill.

Quite a connundrum for BP, the oil industry and the southern states of America.  The impacts of this current disaster will be felt (both economic and environmentally) for years to come.

r.g.

There are some interesting voices around questioning the value of certain corporate responsibility initiatives. Dan McQuillan, and his collection of thoughts on Slideshare, is probably onto something.

I showed Dan’s slides to a friend who has worked in CSR and human rights (for large corporates) for over ten years, who tends to agree…

“… especially his point that stakeholder engagement flatters companies (and some NGOs) by thinking that they are at the nexus of something exciting and worthy of attention (in most cases, not)”

Internal (employee) doubts about corporate responsibility are also real – albeit rarely leak outside of the organisation.

It’s an issue worth tackling – but it can only happen from the ‘outside-in’.  Companies who care about doing good, strangely enough, only stand to benefit.

Which does not mean that organisations should throw out their ‘CSR babies with the bath water’.  There needs to be greater distinction between organisations addressing real social/environmental issues as part of their core beliefs, versus those caught up in compliance-led ratings and marketing puffery.

The discussion about high profile CSR failures is always of interest.  The Tesco example above, which I’d not seen before, is rather good.  ie. buy energy efficient light globes (reduce carbon footprint) to earn airmiles (increasing carbon emissions).  This is what happens when you put the sustainbility message in the hands of marketers.

I particularly liked the Nike video below.  A nice example of collaboration between companies and “AdHocracies” (groups that form to attach meaning to serious issues).

Some great speakers overall.  The grandees of the UK’s social media scene were certainly present (the Dells, the Shells, SAP etc). The initiatives presented were all decent and well thought out – but it was the non-corporate input that ignited the room.

The talk with Dan McQuillan from Social Innovation Camp had a stand out quality.  Dan provided a non-corporate and non-consultant perspective that was desparately needed today.  His jovial and quasi-socialist point of view (‘at first do no harm’ / “its not about companies… its about issues… we need to socialise solutions to the problems… its about overall impact on the world”) provided the room with tangible goals.

In the world of vaguely defined terms such as ‘stakeholders’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘engagement’ some moral benchmarks are very much needed.

FEB 28,  ZOUZ  – I have spent the last 3 days in Zuoz, Switzerland catching up with friends from business school. Zuoz is a magical and extremely well preserved town in the Engadine mountain range with odd and interesting traditions.

One charming ritual is the signalling of the end of winter.   Young lads, perhaps 10 or 12 max, take to the streets with full scale leather whips.  During the day you can see them practicing in lane ways.  Usually with a father or older brother standing near – arms folded, grunting with approval whenever the boy achieves an almighty ‘thwacking’ sound.

By Feb 28, the last day of winter, a group of boys take to the streets.  The cacophony of whipping sounds carries on late into the night.  These sounds supposedly crack the ice – accelerating the melting of the snow.

Do these boys actually believe they have in their hands the power to dissolve snow and control mother nature?   Probably not.  But so what if they do – this is probably a better class of illusion to have.

There is a fair amount of cynicism surrounding yesterday’s Tiger Woods apology, which to be frank I don’t understand. His speech did get off to a shaky start but it was thorough, genuine and appeared to make an impact.

The pace and length of the apology was also just right – using the word ‘sorry’ more than once, but not diminishing its importance by repeating it.

Also admirable was that he did NOT use the apology as a launch pad for other announcements about his career.   He referred to the ex-sponsors that dropped him as ‘friends’ (a really nice touch) thereby ensuring the attention was centred his choices and behaviour – not on other people.

Woods came across as vulnerable, shaken and genuine.   Woods appeared appropriately upset and this will go far to rehabilitating his public image.

I’ve posted about Woods in December and the future of sports sponsorship before.  The only thing strange about his statement is timing.  It is now well over 60 days since the story reached its zenith.  A public apology was necessary for his family, golf as a sport and the Woods sponsorship empire.

There is clearly a commercial dimension to last Friday’s 13-minute statement.  So if we are talking business, I wonder whether waiting 60+ days was wise.

Would we tolerated this sort of delay from other high profile brands or people?

The keffufle over one of TED Talks’ presenters last week is quite curious.  I haven’t seen the sketch  featuring Sarah Silverman (in which she uses the word “retarded” over an over) however it doesn’t take much to imagine what transpired.  The TECHCrunch view of events is fairly spot on.

Silverman’s reply is equally hostile (see her Twitter profile) with some admittedly funny things said about TED and AOL.

Although the recently opened Medieval and Renaissance Galleries at London’s V&A has received much of the media attention, a small scale digital exhibition across the hall is generating some real ‘Wow’ factor.

The official interview with the artists gives a nice overview.  However, for a real idea of how people are interacting with this exhibition you can’t beat the You Tube post Rudy at the V&A.

I ran a workshop last week for a group of execs who work in professional services. We used the recent Ernst & Young / Nortel case (see ITV news story above).   Nortel’s demise [the Canadian company went into administration in Jan 09] raises interesting points about the challenges of PR in the current climate.

The basics:   People losing their jobs, without pay/consultation, attitude of big/bad management consultants not helping, etc. Ernst & Young make it clear in their press release last year that it was ‘with regret that these employess lost their jobs’ and that ‘one group of creditors is not preferred over another’.  Their statement, prima facie, seems adequate.

Perceptions, not facts

New stories, especially during a recession, aren’t always about facts.  The ITV reporter hadn’t appreciated the subtle difference between the role of joint administrators appointed by the courts (who work for EY) and that of Ernst & Young.  Does this matter?  Probably not to the viewer, or to ex-employees.  It is the company’s attitude that is under scrutiny.  And the perception created in the ITV report is that Ernst & Young’s attitude ‘sucks’.  In fact it is the UK ex-employees that come across as measured and balanced in their own video (below).

Online shadow

Google “Ernst & Young Nortel” and you’ll find links about the affair from sources except Ernst & Young.  You won’t  find much on their website either (as at 2 weeks ago).  Puzzled by why a company would want their digital shadow shaped by other people I called their UK press office why they don’t provide direct info?  Just reading their press release (with no mention of the company) one has the feeling that Ernst & Young is not implicated at all.

I was told with an indignant edge by their press officer that my understanding of the matter was “naive” and that my “views were muddied… because people have lost their jobs”. [... ! ? ]  Whilst I wondered at first why the company was attracting hostility – it became a lot clearer now.   Here is the worrisome symptom of a company that believes, and perhaps celebrates, its own combative rhetoric.

Popcorn

The stance a professional services company chooses to adopt in such circumstances is key.  The wrong attitude is the equivalent of attending Nortel’s funeral and eating popcorn during the service (then acting surprised when people are annoyed with you).

The problem is also highlighted in Mark Borkowski’s blog post today.  A company like  ASDA understands how to combine PR and technology with different results:  “Instead of simply burying bad news or hiding Asda’s corporate head in the sand…[they have]….actively engaged with problems and used social media to resolve them.”

Joining the dots

The Nortel / Ernst & Young story has been bubbling online for several months.  There was the petition abuse of workers rights.  Last year bloggers were updating their own community. Nortel has been spoofed in a 12 part You Tube video (using Hitler’s downfall)
Search for EY on You Tube video and you’ll spot an internal video which really shouldn’t be there .

Companies used to have the option of responding to press criticisms with neat reactive statements to maintain a low profile (the preferable option when you couldn’t win the emotional debate).  The reactive approach has different consequences in the current media environment.  Being the leading source on your company is now crucial.

A spoof about a company on You Tube can shape the opinions of MBA graduates.  Every remix of a video drives new traffic (as the Shell Hell and United Airlines Breaks Guitars examples show).

Stakeholders join the dots and make up their own minds. When the dots form patterns so does a view on corporate reputation.  The past has never been stickier.

Ernst & Young probably hasn’t done anything wrong or illegal.  Yet success in today’s value might have meant managing the PR differently – by addressing the issues in a manner which is more direct and up-to-date.

There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?” [extract from a DFW speech, addressing a group of students in 2005]

When I think of the two young fish swimming, it might as well be Adobe and Yahoo.  Google (the wiser fish) made it clear what was acceptable or not when it comes to doing business in China.  Now, Yahoo!, realising the water it swims in, has said, me too, we are ‘aligned’ with Google.

When Yahoo! had the opportunity to express its values about doing business in China, it took a different approach over the Li Zhi case (the 35 yo former civil servant, who’s conviction for reporting local corruption resulted partly on the basis of information provided by Yahoo’s Chinese operation). The decision quite rightly was criticised by Reporters Without Borders.

An ‘alignment’ statement in relation to Google puts Yahoo! in a lose-lose situation.  It draws attention to their values in relation to the Li Zhi case as well as attracting new criticism (from Chinese customers and the government).  Yesterday, the Alibaba Group [a Chinese Internet company which is 40pc owned by Yahoo!]  has described Yahoo!’s decision as ‘reckless’.

If Yahoo! wants to express a sort of moral comraderie with Google it needs think hard about its own corporate values and how they communicate them.  And not just refer to the water it swims in.