1
British Petroleum and Chevron in the Public Eye
Case Study
McCown Bridges
Professor Tom Klipstine
Integrated Marketing Communications 705
November 11, 2010
2
“What the hell did we do to deserve this?” asked Tony Hayward, CEO of British
Petroleum after the biggest oil spill in history claimed the lives of oil rig workers, countless sea
animals and almost halted life on the Gulf Coast (The BP Quote Hall of Fame, 2010). The brands
of British Petroleum and Chevron oil companies have been forever changed after the significant
year of 2010 brought more crises and opportunities to rebrand their companies in order to
move forward. This paper looks at two global oil companies, British Petroleum and Chevron,
and how they dealt with their crises of 2010, through their advertising, social media and public
relations, with or without using Integrated Marketing Communications.
The new idea of “stealing” a company’s name and creating a false website, Twitter
account or press release wreaked havoc on the brands of British Petroleum and then, later,
Chevron. The American Marketing Association describes a brand as a “name, term, sign,
symbol or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of one
seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors.” When the
corporation no longer controls its brand image, the brand name is not as solid.
Now globally (in)famous, British Petroleum (BP) is a oil company operational in 30
countries that “provide[s] its customers with fuel for transportation, energy for heat and light,
retail services and petrochemicals products for everyday items” (BP at a Glance, 2010). The
company, headquartered in London, is the third largest oil company in the world and the
seventh largest company in the world.
The global corporation obtained worldwide attention beginning in
April 2010 when an oil pipe owned by BP burst in the Gulf of Mexico (How the Gulf Spill
Happened, 2010). British Petroleum quickly became the target for backlash as news surfaced
3
that BP could have prevented the disaster, but was too concerned with bottom-line profits to
use extra precautionary methods. The explosion occurred when a surge burst the cement
surrounding a new well. Even the blowout preventer attached to the pipe could not stop the
pressure, and the oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank (The Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill: Some Background, 2010), beginning the problems that BP would face for the next months.
After immediately making headline news, BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward’s response in one of
his first interviews was, “How could the hell could this happen?” [sic] (Gulf Oil Spill: BP CEO
Hayward Just Can’t Help Blaming Someone Else, 2010). Then, he promptly blamed the drilling
rig company, Transocean. Eventually, BP had to accept most of the blame, and the company
hired Bob Dudley, an American, to replace Hayward as the “public face of the response” to the
oil spill catastrophe (Gulf Oil Spill: Swift Reaction to BP’s ouster of Hayward from Spill Response,
2010). Regardless, the response to the oil spill was criticized by 80 percent of Americans (BP Oil
Spill Response rated worse than Katrina, 2010), who believed that the British company should
have done more and reacted better in the first days of the spill.
Although hiring Mr. Dudley as its public face was making progress, BP failed in
reassuring its publics that it was tirelessly working on cleaning up the oil spill. Disgruntled
citizens wanted to find out more about the disaster, and many were going to Social Media site,
Twitter, to find the most recent news on the oil spill. Unfortunately, in May, news spread that
BP had a fake Twitter account: “@BP Global PR,” was not really updated by officials at BP, but
instead created to mock the company’s reactions to the oil spill. Tweets from the fake account
included, “Negative people view the ocean as half empty of oil. We are dedicated to making it
half full. Stay positive America!” (BP’s Latest Woe: Its Fake Twitter Stream Has Twice the
4
Followers of the Real Thing, 2010). These impostors, unhappy with the oil company’s real
responses, were making up responses of their own, but in the name of BP itself. Unsuspecting
Twitterers followed the fake account, and, in May 2010, nearly quadrupled the number of
followers of the actual BP Twitter account (Fake BP Twitter Account Mocks Oil Spill PR Efforts,
2010).
Eventually, however, the fake Twitter account was no longer headline news, and the
imposters lost their 15 minutes of fame. BP learned that things could always get worse: even
when dealing with a globally-recognized oil spill, they must also learn to deal with imposters
pretending to be representing the company to the media. BP continued to update its own, real
account of the oil spill on Twitter, hoping that its publics would soon recognize the difference
between the accurate and false accounts.
BP also began a huge campaign to repair the damage, both in the Gulf and of its own
reputation, which was suffering all around the globe. BP quickly bought space on Google so
that when visitors to the search engine typed any phrases related to the oil spill, the first
choices to appear on Google were websites owned by BP. Though the oil company received
some negative feedback accusing the corporation of propaganda, BP acknowledged that it had
paid Google for the space and stated that it wanted its publics to receive news from a reliable
source when searching for updates on the oil spill, as well as be able to contact the company
directly for claims (BP’s Latest PR Tactic, 2010). On its main website, BP created a new tab,
easily identifiable, leading to the most recent news of the oil spill.
Instead of trying to blame others, such as Transocean, for the disaster, the oil company
took responsibility for the spill and began making promises of how to “make it right.” On the
5
website, visitors can view the number of people currently employed by BP to work on the oil
spill, the amount of money BP has used for clean-up and the number of barrels of oil taken
from the ocean water. Visitors can view pictures and video of the clean-up, as well as contact
BP directly about the oil spill (BP.com, 2010). BP also launched a live webcam feed for viewers
to see the clean-up while it happened, allowing viewers to have a first-hand look at what the
company was doing to fix its mistake (BP Launches Live Webcam of Riser Flow, 2010). While the
reaction from the global oil company began slowly, it quickly picked up its pace and began
releasing much more than press releases about the disaster which impacted the world.
Another global oil company, Chevron is based in San Ramon, California. The energy
company “explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and
distributes transportation fuels and other energy products; manufactures and sells
petrochemical products; generates power and produces geothermal energy; provides energy
efficiency solutions; and develops the energy resources of the future, including bio-fuels”
(Chevron Launches New Global Advertising Campaign: ‘We Agree’, 2010).
Perhaps in an effort to differentiate itself from the more newsworthy
oil company facing environmental backlash, Chevron launched a global campaign, titled “Power
of Human Energy,” highlighting its goodwill toward the environment in the fall of 2010 in an
effort to show its publics that it was embracing its communities and helping the small
businesses (Chevron Announces New Global ‘Human Energy’ Advertising Campaign, 2010).
Taking out full-page color advertisements in newspapers such as The Washington Post, The
Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and running compelling television commercials,
6
Chevron was determined not to let the new environmental campaign of British Petroleum get
ahead (Critics spoof new Chevron ads promoting responsibility, 2010).
The advertisements focus on five key aspects that the company believes it has in
common with its publics: growth and jobs, renewable energy, technology, small business and
community development (Chevron Launches New Global Advertising Campaign: ‘We Agree’,
2010). The campaign focuses on the issues that Chevron can help the communities with, such
as more renewable resources and compassion for the small businesses. The advertisements
feature statements that most of its publics believe big oil companies do not care about coupled
with the tagline, “we agree.” “It’s time oil companies get behind the development of
renewable energy. We agree.” “Oil companies should put their profits to good use. We agree.”
“Oil companies need to get real. We agree” (Chevron.com/weagree, 2010).
Chevron has incorporated many ideas of Integrated Marketing Communication into this
global campaign. Although much of the focus of the campaign has been the television
commercials and print advertisements, press releases make sure to note that commercials are
available to be seen on youtube.com and advertisements can be viewed on Chevron.com
(Chevron Launches New Global Advertising Campaign: ‘We Agree,’ 2010). Furthermore,
interactive stories are available through the company’s main website, and the website created
in 2005, www.willyoujoinus.com, is still running to interest the nearly 2 million visitors from all
over the world to help Chevron with its cause (Chevron Announces New Global ‘Human Energy’
Advertising Campaign, 2010).
The problem with Chevron’s new environmentally-friendly campaign was that Chevron,
according to many accounts, was not exactly environmentally-friendly. Beginning in 1972,
7
Texaco (now known as Chevron) extracted oil from fields in Ecuador. The company released
over 18 billion gallons of toxic water into the rainforest, polluting the surrounding rainforest as
well as making residents of the area sick. Chevron is still in Ecuadorian court battling this
dispute. According to Chevron, the Ecuadorian government’s allegations are false and Texaco
had already paid all remediation to the Latin American government at the time of the incident
(Ecuador Lawsuit: A Meritless Case¸2010).
The new Fall 2010 campaign employed Integrated Marketing Communications through
the interactive websites as well as through Energyville, a game allowing visitors to the website
to play, which ultimately teaches them the effect of their energy choices (Chevron Announces
New Global ‘Human Energy’ Advertising Campaign¸2010). However, most of the campaign’s
online counterparts which normally augment commercials and print advertisements actually
debilitated the “Power of Human Energy.” An activist group called “The Yes Men” found out
about the campaign a few days early and began an online spoof mimicking the company’s
promise to remember small businesses and encourage renewable energy. The activists, angry
about Chevron’s issues in Ecuador, created a fake website, www.chevron-weagree.com, and
posted similar advertisements that read, “Oil companies should stop endangering life” (Critics
spoof new Chevron ads promoting responsibility¸2010). The Yes Men describe themselves as
“impersonating big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. Our targets are leaders
and big corporations who put profits ahead of anything else” (The Yes Men, 2010). Determined
to point out that Chevron was not as ecologically-aware as their advertisements illustrated, The
Yes Men, together with Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network, displayed pictures of
the environmental damage made by Chevron in Ecuador. Although Chevron decided to go
8
ahead with their advertising campaign, The Yes Men and its cooperating activists groups quickly
gained the upper hand in publicizing the environmental issues that Chevron had tried to gloss
over. Using Integrated Marketing Communication to their benefit, the activist groups quickly
gained media attention – so much so that the media even believed that the fake websites were
really from Chevron.
BP’s image was in no way improved by the fake Twitter account pretending to be BP’s
Public Relations; in fact, BP only received bad press because of the attention drawn to BP’s
alleged failure to react properly. Instead of asking Twitter to remove the fake account, BP
instead fought the battle against the imposters by telling its side of the story through its true
Twitter account (@BP_America), its Facebook page, its Flickr account and its Youtube channel,
some of these created solely for the response to the oil spill. Even though the British Petroleum
brand was meeting negative press from every direction, it stayed the course by presenting its
own story, its own fact and its own figures to its publics. Admittedly, all of these actions could
never erase the bad publicity from the oil spill, but BP moved to “rebrand” its image in an effort
to persuade its publics that BP cared for the environment and was working to fix the mistake it
had made.
Similarly, Chevron also moved ahead with its own campaign even after the “Power of
Human Energy” campaign was high-jacked days before it debuted. The Yes Men tried to
sabotage the large corporation by alerting the public to the company’s hand in the destruction
of the rainforest and illness of indigenous residents in Ecuador, all while it put on an
environmentally-friendly face for the American public. Instead of halting the campaign and
hiding from the imposters, Chevron decided to continue its campaign even with the fake
9
campaign running simultaneously. Chevron insisted that its part in the Ecuador crisis was
innocent and the corporation had nothing to hide. If Chevron had retracted its advertisements,
it would have wasted millions of advertising dollars and, more damaging, allowed the small,
activist group to win, indirectly conceding that Chevron was wrong. By continuing with its
“Power of Human Energy” campaign, the oil company tried to make sure that its publics saw
the company as it wanted to be seen, and not as The Yes Men wanted it portrayed. A brand
represents the corporation’s attitude and promise to the consumer, and when imposters
pretend to represent a corporation, sending mixed signals to the publics, the brand is inevitably
weakened, as witnessed by BP and Chevron.
Satire and spoofing have become almost emblematic of our times, increasing confusion
when the publics want to find out the truth. British Petroleum’s false Twitter account surprised
the company just as it surprised the media and its publics. However, instead of demanding that
Twitter shut down the fake account, a spokesperson from BP announced that everyone is
entitled to his or her view and BP would not try to end the false account’s Twittering. Even with
fake feeds such as, “The ocean looks just a bit slimmer today. Dressing it in black really did the
trick,” BP opted to ignore, for the most part, the 140-character phrases and continue posting its
own Tweets on @BPAmerica (BP May Not Shut Down Fake Twitter Feed @BPGlobalPR, 2010).
Not wanting to draw any more attention to imposters and their antics, BP continued to work on
cleaning up the oil spill without loudly and publicly fighting with Twitter and the imposter.
Perhaps adhering to the idea that any acknowledgement of bad behavior encourages it, BP
chose to do little to combat the issue except to move ahead.
10
Chevron did not just have a fake Twitter account – false press releases were written,
posted to a false website, false quotes were written and even a false Advertising Age website
was created to host the false reports. Not only were the publics confused, but even media were
not sure what was happening. Chevron had to reassign employees to watch online activity to
make sure that no more fake websites or news stories were created. Chevron, though it chose
to continue with its campaign, was no longer as environmentally friendly as their
advertisements wanted the publics to believe. Even though the commercials stated that
Chevron helped small businesses and gave back to its communities, it was soon common
knowledge, because of The Yes Men, that Chevron was simultaneously fighting to win a law suit
based on the poor treatment of the environment and its communities in Ecuador. Whether or
not Chevron was actually at fault made no difference – the fact that the public knew that it was
involved in the law suit claiming that Chevron had mistreated the residents and their
environment hurt the reputation of the “different-kind-of-oil-company” (Marketing: Pranksters
Highjack Chevron Corporate-PR Efforts, 2010). Chevron, in response to the hoax, released a
statement saying,
"Chevron's new advertising campaign is meant to identify and highlight common ground
on key energy issues so we can move forward safely, intelligently and collaboratively.
Unfortunately, there are some that are not interested in engaging in a constructive
dialogue, and instead have resorted to rhetoric and stunts. Today, activist groups have
attempted to interrupt the conversation by issuing a fake press release and establishing
a counterfeit website, which are not affiliated with Chevron" (Yes Men Pull a Double
Fake on Chevron, 2010).
11
Chevron appeared to take the same stance as BP had just taken earlier in the summer, not
wanting to give any more publicity to the hoax than had already been given by the news media.
Because of the huge amount of advertisements, it has become increasingly harder for
an advertisement to break through the clutter and grab attention. Advertising must now be
dynamic and interactive: attracting the consumer through personal and conversational
techniques. Perhaps the newsworthy issues of high-jacked Twitter and false campaigns added
to the buzz about British Petroleum and Chevron.
British Petroleum’s Public Relations department was heavily criticized for its weak
response after the oil spill. CEO Tony Hayward complained, “I’d like my life back” and the
company failed to comply with its own company-created set of guidelines to follow after an oil
spill (Analysis: BP’s Public Relations Make Terrible Decision Worse). The company’s Public
Relations wavered and did not show control of the situation. BP made promises it could not
keep, such as promising that the spill would be capped long before it really was and
underestimating the extent of the total damage. After the corporation began reporting news
on its Twitter account, the company’s brand lost much of what remained of its reputation when
the fake Twitter account blatantly mocked the company’s decisions and actions.
Chevron’s Public Relations’ campaign to distinguish the company from other
environmentally-damaging oil companies exploded when The Yes Men ever so ingeniously
pointed to Chevron’s own environmental damages in Ecuador. The Public Relations departed
continued its campaign in an effort to show that Chevron did have a united front and would not
back down from small activists groups that accused the oil giant of also damaging the
12
environment and refusing to fix it – the same characteristics that the company was trying to
distinguish itself from its fellow oil companies.
Social marketing has been successfully used by British Petroleum and Chevron, despite
the problems that came hand-in-hand with the marketing tool. While BP and Chevron can both
communicate more freely and cheaply with their publics using Facebook and Twitter, this
aspect of Integrated Marketing Communication was used as sabotage for both companies.
Because social media is so new in the business world, BP and Chevron were among the first
corporations to find out the negative aspects of the tool. Because of the two-way conversation
this tool allows, corporations must expect negative feedback when they make mistakes, such as
oil spill disasters and refusing to pay $27 billion to clean up environmental damage in Ecuador.
The advertising campaigns of both British Petroleum and Chevron are dynamic,
interactive campaigns, reaching out to their publics and showing the personal side of the
company. BP recently met negative feedback when even President Barak Obama criticized the
corporation for spending billions of dollars on advertisements and campaigns promising to
spend clean up the oil spill even while it has yet to pay back some claims to those who lost
money because of the oil spill (BP Ad Campaign Boomerangs, 2010). Currently, BP
advertisements focus on “energy diversity,” or finding energy from wind, solar and bio-fuels
instead of only from oil (BP World Advertising, 2010). Perhaps BP wants to call its publics
attention to the good that the oil company is working toward instead of reminding them of the
oil spill yet again. While BP did not have much success with the modern way of two-way
advertising because of all of the brutal criticism it received after the oil spill, if BP uses the twoway advertising to its advantage now, it can seem like it really cares about what its publics want
13
and show that it is doing its part to rebrand British Petroleum into a company that really does
care about the environment as well as one that keeps its promises made to its publics.
Chevron’s new advertising campaign, “We agree,” tries to find the common ground
between a massive, global oil company and the small communities it services. By relating to its
publics, Chevron allows visitors to its websites to choose the declarative statement they most
agree with and see “What Chevron is doing” to improve in that area. Once the visitor clicks on
the link to see what Chevron is doing, a video clip plays, showing Chevron workers carrying
through on their promises made. Viewers are able to “Like” the page via Facebook and see the
number of viewers who have already “Liked” it, as well as read a personalized message from
the Vice President of Chevron, Paul K. Siegele (Chevron, We Agree, 2010). These new
advertising campaigns are not just fulfilling the advertising needs of the companies, it
encompasses Social Media and Public Relations, too.
The principle goal of Integrated Marketing Communications is to project a consistent,
unified image to the marketplace. Corporations can now use all of the new opportunities to
give the same appeal to a broader market and in a more specific way. By using the functions of
Integrated Marketing Communication, companies can create an integrated approach to relate
more to their customers. Without Integrated Marketing Communications, a company fails to
be as successful as it could be because its different departments are struggling to do-it-all
themselves, instead of working together to create a more successful, unified image of the
brand to its publics. The publics no longer expect to see a press release from a Public Relations
department in a company that does not relate to an advertising campaign or even a Tweet.
Companies, in order to be successful, must make sure that their departments can work
14
together to create a unified brand. Even facing disasters such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and
the lawsuit over environmental damage and residents’ illness in Ecuador, the examples of
British Petroleum and Chevron have proved that an Integrated Marketing Communication
approach, one that encompasses all areas of marketing into one, unified theme is best when
dealing with crises, and marketing in general. Even though BP and Chevron did not always
apply IMC, such as BP’s Public Relations’ failure to keep its promises and appearing not to care
about the loss of human and animal life and jobs, the two oil companies have incorporated
more aspects of IMC and seem to be on the road to recovery from these two epic crises.
15
References
Analysis: BP’s Public Relations Make Terrible Decision Worse. (2010, June 11). WWLTV.com
Eyewitness News. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from
http://www.wwltv.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/Analysis-BPs-public-relations-make-terriblesituation-worse-96183834.html
BP. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from
http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9034427&contentId
=7063885
BP Ad Campaign Boomerangs. (2010, June 6). NPR. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/06/bp_ad_campaign_boomerangs.html
BP at a Glance. BP. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=3&contentId=2006926
BP May Not Shut Down Fake Twitter Feed @BPGlobalPR. (2010, May 25). PR Newser. Retrieved
November 2, 2010, from http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/bp-may-not-shutdown-fake-twitter-feed-bpglobalpr_b3749
BP Oil Spill Response rated worse than Katrina. (2010, June 9). Mining News and Journal.
Retrieved October 30, 2010, from http://www.phongpo.com/2010/06/09/bp-oil-spillresponse-rated-worse-than-katrina/
The BP Quote Hall of Fame. (2010, June 17). Business Pundit. Retrieved November 7, 2010,
from http://www.businesspundit.com/the-bp-quote-hall-of-fame/
BP’s Latest PR Tactic. (2010, June 8). Fast Company. Retrieved October 30, 2010, from
http://www.fastcompany.com/1657945/bp-snaps-up-googles-sponsored-links-in-prattempt
BP’s Latest Woe: Its Fake Twitter Stream Has Twice the Followers of the Real Thing. (2010, May
24). BNet. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertisingbusiness/bp-8217s-latest-woe-its-fake-twitter-stream-has-twice-the-followers-of-thereal-thing/4921
BP Launches Live Webcam of Riser Flow. (2010, May 21). BP. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062328
BP World Advertising. BP. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from
http://www.bp.com/multipleimagesection.do?categoryId=9028309&contentId=704473
9
16
Chevron Announces New Global ‘Human Energy’ Advertising Campaign. (2007, September 28).
Chevron. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from
http://www.chevron.com/news/press/release/?id=2007-09-28
Chevron Launches New Global Advertising Campaign: ‘We Agree.’ (2010, October 18). Chevron.
Retrieved November 2, 2010, from
http://www.chevron.com/chevron/pressreleases/article/10182010_chevronlaunchesne
wglobaladvertisingcampaignweagree.news
Chevron, We Agree. Chevron. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from
http://www.chevron.com/weagree/?statement=realism
Critics spoof new Chevron ads promoting responsibility. (2010, October 20). The Washington
Post. Retrieved November 2, 2010 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101904622.html
Ecuador Lawsuit: A Meritless Case. Chevron. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from
http://www.chevron.com/ecuador/
Fake BP Twitter Account Mocks Oil Spill PR Efforts. (2010, May 25). ABC News. Retrieved
October 30, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/fake-bp-twitter-accountmocks-oil-spill-pr/story?id=10737669
The Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Some Background. (2010, April 28). The Oil
Drum. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6407
Gulf Oil Spill: BP CEO Hayward Just Can’t Help Blaming Someone Else. (2010, April 29). BNet.
Retrieved October 29, 2010, from http://www.bnet.com/blog/clean-energy/gulf-oilspill-bp-ceo-hayward-just-can-8217t-help-blaming-someone-else/1717
Gulf Oil Spill: Swift Reaction to BP’s ouster of Hayward from Spill Response. (2010, June 18). The
Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/06/gulf-oil-spill-swift-reaction-tobps-ouster-of-hayward-from-oil-spill.html
How the Gulf Spill happened: A Graphic Presentation. (2010, May 7). Nola.com. Retrieved
October 29, 2010, from http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/05/how_the_gulf_of_mexico_oil_spi.html
Marketing: Pranksters Highjack Chevron Corporate-PR Efforts. (2010, October 18). Advertising
Age. Retrieved October 30, 2010, from http://adage.com/article?article_id=146559
The Yes Men. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from http://theyesmen.org/
17
Yes Men Pull a Double Fake on Chevron. (2010, October 18). Oil Watchdog. Retrieved
November 2, 2010, from http://www.oilwatchdog.org/2010/10/yes-men-pull-a-doublefake-on-chevron/