Mele’s Musings

BP Buys “Oil Spill” on Google: Crisis Management Brilliance or Blunder?

For the record, BP has done its part to destroy the Gulf via shoddy planning and unconscionable corner cutting. They deserve every bit of vitriol sent their way. Let’s just get that on the table before we go any further. What has happened in the Gulf is an unmitigated disaster that will take decades (or more) to fix. Are we clear on that? There are no apologies for BP here.But, their reaction in the digital marketing in the wake of the disaster offers us an interesting study and great case for debate on both general search and digital strategies as well as crisis management specifically. I have been reading a few articles on the subject recently here, here, here, and here and these articles should be discussed and debated among all of those who fancy themselves to be marketers.

What we know is true today is that people use the internet, and search engines specifically, to search for news. When a major news story hits, one of the first things people do is go online and search for information. So, it only makes sense that, if BP is going to launch a PR campaign to save itself, it puts digital advertising front and center. To not do so would be stupid.

As Forbes points out, BP is rumored to be looking to spend $50 million in TV to address the crisis and manage their brand. How is buying keywords like “oil spill” or “bp oil spill disaster” any different? (On a side note, I find it interesting that they did not buy those keywords on Bing, only on Yahoo and Google. Seems like a miss.)

And only the very dim don’t know that the differently colored links at the top of the search engines, which, by the way, say “sponsored link” aren’t ads. So no one should be surprised that clicking on the link leads them to information created by BP. Information, by the way, that is meant to look like a news source, but only contains very positive stories. (On another side note, I find it interesting that they are not better ranked or more ubiquitous in natural search. That feels like another miss. )

So, is this good brand management or not? Is this effective crisis management or not?

The Huffington Post recently ran an article that asked the question about whether or not what they are doing is unethical. The author makes the point that, distasteful or not, they would be irresponsible as marketers not do so - not to buy keywords and lead consumers to PR. And, he doesn’t think they’ll make much difference in the long run anyway, so what’s the harm?

Really?

Could it be that BP is simply making things worse by buying those ads and driving people to a PR site if we assume that people aren’t stupid, and aren’t fooled by the whitewash content?

I would argue that it’s not their keyword strategy that is wrong (although, I have to say that it is not very good - they should be doing a lot more than they currently are based on my side bars above), but the way they are responding overall in the digital space that needs to be overhauled.

Their take on crisis management, although in the guise of being very digital, is off. And off big. It is being run and managed by the spin doctors who think, somehow, if they keep talking like nothing bad is happening, we’ll all forget. Fortunately, it doesn’t work that way (except, I think, in politics). Lots of ads won’t help. Lots of keywords won’t help. They miss the point completely.

BP’s big miss is that it is not leveraging the power of digital to actually do something positive for itself and for the environment that it is helping to destroy. BP’s big miss is acting like all media is about talking to people. BP’s big miss is treating the digital space like a PR channel, rather than a communication channel.

To get a good sense of the missed opportunity, let’s play the “what if” game.

• What if BP decided to be totally honest about what is happening in the Gulf?
• What if BP allowed people to comment, to post, to ask questions on its website?
• What if BP actually opened up a dialogue with people online, had conversations, forums, townhalls with people?
• What if BP used digital to actually appear human, concerned, and sympathetic by giving people a place to volunteer, to donate, to help in the clean-up?
• What if BP used the power of digital to listen to scientists and environmentalists, engineers and chemists all over the world to get their advice, ideas, and input on what to do next?

No, I don’t think BP is wrong for buying keywords associated with the disaster. That is the smart thing to do.

I think BP is wrong for not thinking more broadly about how they could turn their response to this disaster into something more than a PR festival. Their actions, in my opinion, make them look more guilty, more unethical, more bumbling. They could have turned something awful and made it at least into something proactive. Better yet, they could have taken something awful, and used it as an opportunity to bring great minds together to make sure nothing like this ever happened again.

Instead, they are using it to try and cover up a monumental mistake, like a little kid trying hide a mess under the rug.

What a big miss. What a huge message and learning opportunity for brands.