Crisis Management – How not to do it (Case of BP)

Following the recent, high profile mistake of Nestle’s crisis management on Facebook, you would think that other big brands would have learnt about the power of social media. Unfortunately, the message didn’t reach the social media team (or those, more likely, that were hastily thrown in charge of it) at BP. I won’t go into the details of how they got themselves into ‘a crisis’ and will try to refrain from making judgement on their offline actions post ‘spill’. Rather, this article will focus purely on their social media activity, namely on Twitter; how they have handled the situation, how they should have handled the situation, and what their options are going forwards.

Firstly, here’s a brief outline of where BP stand now in terms of social media activity:

Twitter – The official BP twitter @BP_America has 18,757 followers and is being updated regularly with news of the clean up effort and links to news articles and interviews. The account information points users to different contact points for more information. The account still doesn’t engage with customers, showing no re-tweets or replies to other users. There are a large number of ‘fake’ BP accounts such as @BPGlobalPR, @Real_BP_CEO and @BoycottBP all posting negative comments about the company.

Facebook – With 37,825 people ‘liking’ the BP facebook page it has over double the following of @BP_America. However, the level of engagement with the conversation is more or less the same, with no response to people’s comments, both positive and negative. Status updates and posts from BP are largely similar to its tweets, although granted are updated very regularly (approximately one an hour).

Other activity – The company has a YouTube channel on which it hosts various videos of the clean up operation and links to these through both Twitter and Facebook. There are also a small number of blogs on the BP official website written by employees of the company ‘out in the field’, disappointingly though the most recent of these was posted on the 20^th June.

What could they have done to prevent it?

Prevention is better than the cure. By having a contingency plan in place just in case a crisis such as this arose, BP could have handled their social media presence with more authority and control. These are some things I would’ve suggested the company had on their social media crisis management plan.

Engage with customers. By showing an active interest in people’s views and responding to comments and questions in the first instance, many people would have felt that BP cared about their opinions and would respond by engaging in conversation with the company, rather than starting up their own parody and anti-BP accounts.

One of the main protagonists of the anti-BP Twitter parodies is @BPGlobalPR. This account has been well documented in the press due to BP’s threat to have it shut down. By not declaring itself as a fake account, @BPGlobalPR was actually in violation of Twitters policy for ‘Parody, commentary and fan accounts’, but it was drawn to the attention of BP because of the negative comments it was posting about the company. Unfortunately, by the time BP was aware of the account it already had a significant following and there was public outcry when BP threatened to shut it down. This inevitably led to more publicity for the account, more followers and BP being forced to leave it alone.

If the company had been using social media listening tools they would’ve stood a better chance at stopping this account before it gained popularity. By simply setting up tracking for their brand name on Twitter BP would have spotted this fake account as soon as it was set up, and could’ve reported it to the relevant Twitter authority as a rule-breaker to be clamped down on.

What should they have done to control it?

Nestle’s big mistake during the Greenpeace backlash on their facebook fan page was to retaliate against comments rather than respond and sympathise with them. BP made exactly the same mistake once parody accounts on Twitter began to spring into place.

Once these accounts had been set up BP should have immediately created a presence on these profiles. By responding to negative comments and involving themselves in the conversation they would have shown they were not afraid of these anti-BP comments, and would have shown they had nothing to hide. By ignoring the profiles and hoping they’d go away, BP merely poured fuel on the fire. Furthermore, by responding in a ‘human way’ rather than with corporate jargon the company would have portrayed a more sympathetic persona, showing they care about the clean up operation rather than just their image. They may then have stood some chance in pulling back their reputation online.

Social media is a powerful tool. When faced with negative conversation, brands such as BP panic and forget standard crisis management rules; blocking out the conversation or talking to the mass media won’t help the situation. What companies need to remember is that you are not in control of the conversation online; when you stop talking the conversation still carries on without you. This means it is even more important to take part in the conversation, use it to your advantage, take on board people’s comments, engage with consumers as you would in a one-to-one situation offline and it will be easier to change the conversation to portray the company in a more positive light.

What can they do going forward?

Two of the vital ingredients in social media are listening and engaging. BP has made some progress in their efforts by regularly informing consumers of their activity in the Gulf. But they are still restricting interaction by ignoring anti-BP tweets and being non-responsive on their Facebook page. This is going to have to change if the company is to resurrect its image online. There is no chance of influencing the conversation if you are not a part of it. BP should grit its teeth and face the people, both directly and indirectly affected by the spill; accepting responsibility and asking for forgiveness and help from those that are currently very angry.

Consistency is also key to coming out the other side in one piece. BP needs to integrate all their communication, online, offline and inbetweenline to send out one message, a message of honesty, transparency and motivation towards a solution. They can then use social media, digital communication and PR to enhance the message, not contradict it.