Measurement: Impact, trends and developments

The media has been hot on BP’s heels since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded on 20 April 2010, causing a massive oil spill. In a separate incident, more than 18,000 barrels of crude oil leaked into the Singapore Strait after a tanker owned by AET Tanker Holdings, a unit of Malaysia-based MISC Bhd, collided with a bulk carrier owned by Treasure Marine Ltd near the Singaporean port on 25 May 2010.
 

In this posting, we look at five online articles - four by BBC News and one by Bloomberg – to find out how public relations teams tackled the two oil spills and how the two online media responded.
 

We analysed the BBC News’ coverage of CEO Tony Hayward’s statement of apology at the US Congress hearing and of BP’s public relations following the oil spill.  We then compared this with the Singaporean oil spill. How did the BBC News cover the Singapore oil spill a month later? Did Bloomberg cover the story in the same way?
 

Here’s how we calculated the favourability rating of the BP oil spill articles by the BBC News. Areas in blue represent favourable tone and in red, unfavourable tone. Beginning at 50.0 rating (neutral tone), we considered the parameters in the left-most column below to derive the favourability ratings of:

This screengrab from the BBC represents an unfavourable image of CEO Tony Hayward

 

Had it not been for the negative introduction, the first article would have been even more favourable. But perhaps the warning bells should have begun ringing for BP at that point for what was to come four days later - a brutally unfavourable article on BP’s public relations, by Denise Winterman.
 

Now compare the BBC News’ coverage of the Singapore oil spill in May 2010.  For starters, we found only two articles on the story – one on 25 May 2010 announcing the oil spill from the tanker collision and another on 27 May 2010 when Singapore closed its east coast beaches. This compared poorly to an entire webpage dedicated to the BP oil spill, that had an array of media reports, written and audiovisual - not surprisingly, given the scale of the disaster.
 

The BBC article on 27 May suggested that the authorities were downplaying the gravity of the situation but on the whole, the article was generally favourable towards the Singapore authorities. The Singapore's Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) was quoted stating that the main spill was “largely contained out at sea” while the National Environment Agency (NEA) advisory declared that the “impact [was] currently minimal, but [would] require some clean-up over the next few days.”  The article also stated that there was no reported effect on shipping traffic in the Singapore Strait. A low profile and the general message that the situation was under control; so far so good for Singapore. But where was MISC or AET in the BBC News’ coverage?
 

Bloomberg’s coverage of the oil spill (26 May 2010)  had more details to offer such as information on MISC’s share performance  as a result of the oil spill AND a statement by AET.

Was it because there was a tight hold on information released on the Singapore oil spill as the BBC News’ 27 May article suggested or was it just that the Malaysian shipping companies had not reached out to the BBC News as they had done with Bloomberg?  The former scenario was possible. For one thing,there was no explanation on the cause of the collision. Both articles focused instead on what was being done to resolve the issue, such as closure of the beaches and recreational areas affected, as well as the deployment of containment booms.

Crisis management 101 – Focus on solutions. When in doubt, seek independent, expert advice or comments. For example, in the Bloomberg article, a favourable commentator furthering the discourse of the oil spill being contained and managed was John Vautrain, senior vice-president at U.S. energy consultants Purvin & Gertz Inc. in Singapore.  He argued that it was “not like BP’s problem in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not a difficult spill situation… I shouldn’t think it’ll take too long to clean this up.” Also, a typical PR trick - detach or distance the issue from a larger, related issue, in this situation, the BP oil spill.

A harsh lesson learnt from the BP oil spill but a lesson learnt well – to address the public and reveal all actions being taken to resolve the issue immediately. However, one similarity prevailed between the two oil spills and that was the attempt to diminish the magnitude of the oil spill. If that is what the crisis management manual says for Oil & Gas communicators, then where did BP CEO Tony Hayward go wrong with his understatement when he said it was a “very big ocean”? Could it be rather, a question of audience reaction - that America is a paranoid nation and thus, an “over-reaction” as mentioned by Professor Brammer was necessary (BBC News, 21 June 2010)?

Such are some considerations that media monitoring and analysis can help direct. The BBC News, for example, would be a media outlet that BP could target to develop better media relations with – more specifically, with Denise Winterman, the byline of the unfavourable article. Or following the Singapore oil spill, AET or MISC Berhad would now recognise Bloomberg as a newswire that would take an interest in their activities and capitalise on bettering their relations with that communication channel. Of course, they may also want to target the BBC News in future.