The HP Mark Hurd saga has provided a nice diversion to BP’s fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. It has been interesting to follow the debate on whether HP’s Board of Directors did the right thing, the power of various advisors in the decision and whether the woman at the center of the controversy was merely an actress or an actress and Playboy model.

After all the stories and blogs on the incident and its aftermath along with the damage to HP’s share price and reputation, you’d think the company would do all it can to help the story fade away. Once it’s in the past, HP can get back to business, focus on its customers and enhance shareholder value.

When news broke earlier this week that Hurd is joining Oracle as co-president, many of us wondered how HP would react. After all, HP and Oracle are business partners in some areas and Hurd apparently was not subject to a non-compete clause. While California is reticent to impede employees from choosing a new employer, HP is pressing forward with a lawsuit challenging the hiring on trade secret and other concerns.

Legal pundits say the HP case has little chance of success in the courtroom. But in the court of public opinion (shareholders, customers, partners, employees and the Silicon Valley wags), HP is keeping the Hurd discussion alive. Whatever the motivation for the lawsuit (are there real business reasons or just revenge), HP may not have thought through the communications and reputational consequences of its actions.

As a start, Larry Ellison issued a statement that seemingly brings the future of the HP-Oracle partnership into play. More importantly, the lawsuit provides another opportunity for reporters, bloggers, financial analysts and others to rehash the details of the story up to now and speculate anew on HP’s future.

Stoking the controversy and prolonging the story may not be the best thing for HP in terms of reputation and relations with some key constituencies but it does allow the publication of more fetching photos of Jodie Fisher and adds to her 15 minutes of fame.

rtauberman General Corporate BP, HP, Mark Hurd, Oracle

As we mark the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, another tragic event just occurred off the shore of Louisiana – an oil rig owned by Mariner Energy exploded earlier today in the Gulf of Mexico several hundred miles west of the site of BP’s infamous Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The people of Louisiana have had more than their share of tragedy. For the families of the 13 people on the rig (thankfully, all accounted for based on news reports), this raises questions about worker safety that are tailor-made for union organizing.

So why does an explosion at a rig owned by Mariner Energy spell trouble for BP, which has spent nearly $100MM on advertising in an effort to repair its reputation since the explosion?

It’s simple – BP has become the face and acronym of BIG PETROLEUM.

Today’s explosion creates a legitimate argument for President Obama’s drilling moratorium and increased discussion of regulation … but who really cares about Mariner Energy besides The Apache Corp., its owner? If you read John Grisham’s novels you know that it is the big-name, big-money entity that gets targeted.

Every news story will rehash the BP events. Every call for regulation and investigation will cost them. And every energy company will cite BP for decreases in sector valuation.

Conventional public relations wisdom says today’s event will get BP out of the news and off the hot seat. But I’m betting against the house on that one.

cwinters Crisis Communications Apache Corp., BP, Hurricane Katrina, John Grisham, Mariner Energy, President Obama

BP’s new CEO may be getting more than he bargained for. It seems that he doesn’t just need to clean up a spill in the Gulf….he needs to clean up a culture that accepts, or even encourages cutting safety corners, downplaying problems and only communicating when you get caught.

Apparently, lack of transparency may be a “corporate value” at BP, as is taking shortcuts that shortchange safety. BP’s most recent “gotcha” is happening in Texas, where local families are experiencing respiratory problems after the release of toxic fumes into the air, and a failure to notify residents. These families have filed a $10 billion class action lawsuit. And while BP is denying any wrongdoing – they aren’t exactly starting from a position of strength.

Sounds like something out of a Michael Moore documentary, doesn’t?

If a single event can damage a reputation, what does a pattern of deception, cover up and disregard for safety do? I am waiting for the pundits to start talking about BP’s “PR Problem.”

This is much bigger than a PR problem… I’ve said it before – good communications can’t compensate for bad decisions or bad policies. And believe me, that isn’t an easy thing to tell a client who wants to hire you for PR…

However, the new CEO has an opportunity…while he is responsible for the mistakes of the past and making them right – he isn’t “to blame” – at least not yet.

If BP wants to avoid being the next Enron or WorldCom, it needs to make some changes, and quickly:

• Leadership should immediately launch a review of safety standards and operating standards, and make changes quickly. While some of their operational decisions may be “by the book” – failure to take the most aggressive response to protect safety after these two events will only exacerbate the problem.
• Engage the environmental groups…make them part of the solution – an in the process make it more difficult for them to be critical.
• Engage your employees. They know where the problems are. And they know how to fix them. Use that dialogue as an opportunity to send a signal that BP is upping its game, and elevating its standards, and that there will be zero tolerance for failing to comply.
• Put people before profits. I know that this is difficult for a public company to do. But a few dollars spent on the front end will save millions in legal fees, fines and penalties on the back end.

Once they’ve done these things, then BP can start to think about communications. Otherwise, it is just talk.

cwinters Crisis Communications BP, Enron, Michael Moore, Worldcom

After the level of expectation and coverage around the BP announcement of a new CEO, the actual announcement may seem somewhat anti-climactic. I can imagine the commentary now:

BP’s board of directors felt it was time to effect a transition (gasp), and they’ve selected an American CEO in an effort to repair their image (imagine that). And Mr. Hayward seemingly gets his wish….and gets his life back.

Leadership transitions always present a unique set of challenges and priorities for those of us in the communications and reputation management business. And sudden or abrupt changes can create chaos…like the night I spent in Bethlehem searching for video crews when Bethlehem Steel changed CEO’s shortly before filing for Chapter 11, requiring an entirely new set of communications toolkits, employee videos (with subtitles) and letters to all constituencies because the new CEO had a new point of view and message.

But leadership transitions in the wake of a crisis can be a really positive thing – an opportunity to create a “fresh start” or at least mark a BC (before new CEO) and AD (after new direction) for a company struggling to preserve, protect or rebuild reputation.

It’s sort of like the first day of school…a new teacher, who (in theory) doesn’t know that you were the class clown, the brain or the homework slacker…you can (at least partially) reinvent yourself…if you change your behavior. A fresh start can be a reputation reboot….if the right changes are made to support the new leader and the new message.

BP is facing a massive loss of trust…one that that they earned by their actions and their inactions in the wake of the Gulf spill. I talked to Ad Age about this very topic…and I am optimistic that a new leader will mark the beginning of a new era for BP. But like most of you, I plan to wait and see what comes next.

cwinters Crisis Communications, Executive Visibility, General Corporate Bethlehem Steel, BP, CEO transitions, Tony Hayward

If you’ve followed this blog or tuned in to the webcasts where I’ve been a panelist, you know that I’ve been saying that 60 seconds is the new “first hour” – the textbook window of time when a Company must take control of a situation in order to preserve reputation. And while that is a somewhat hyperbolic statement, the Miracle on the Hudson is my case in point – and was the day that I began to rethink everything I had learned about crisis communications 101.

Today, I heard that BP’s cap may be leaking. An editorial in the New York Times calls Congress to the carpet for not taking detector tampering in the Massey Mining explosion that was the industry’s worst in 40 years. But the furor and public outcry seems to be losing steam.

Certainly, the intensity and speed with which information moves creates some unique and new challenges for crisis communicators….but does it also create opportunities? Are memories shorter? Does interest wane more quickly? Do we move on to the crisis du jour and give reputations a pass?

Has the plethora of “worst events in history” in the past few years desensitized us to the significance of these issues? Or does the pervasive mistrust of all things big – big banks, big companies, big governments caused us to expect the worst?

Big questions for a rainy Monday morning…

cwinters Crisis Communications BP, Crisis Communications, Massey, Mining, Miracle on the Hudson, oil spill, Public Relations

For as long as I’ve been in the PR business, we’ve been counseling our clients to tell their story….and helping them craft the messaging, the platforms and the proof points to do so. I’ve done this for almost 20 years….and I’ve often found myself telling clients that we can’t tell their whole story….that certain items and issues are too inside baseball, too granular or simply not newsworthy or noteworthy enough.

However, it seems that those of us in the reputation business need to ask a new question…

Is this the whole story?

Today’s NYT has a front page story about SmithKline Beecham’s failure to disclose that a new drug for diabetes had a risk of cardiac problems.

It also has a story about BP’s relentless pursuit of growth at all costs prohibiting them from learning from their mistakes.

The Toyota crisis will go into the text books as a classic case of trying to minimize or cover up an issue, making it worse.

When I started in this business, no one talked about transparency…they just did it. Today, there is a lot of talk about transparency, and seemingly less of it than ever before.

There is a difference between putting your best foot forward and hiding material information that tells a completely different story…and counseling clients today is more about being their Jiminy Cricket than their “Spin Doctor.”

cwinters General Corporate BP, Reputation Management, SmithKline Beecham, Toyota, Transparency

The latest in a series of shocking revelations in the BP incident, the CEO acknowledges that their crisis plan was inadequate. ”We didn’t have the tools in the toolbox.”

For communicators (ok, maybe for everyone), the revelation that there really wasn’t much of a crisis plan is nothing short of astounding. And the rapid succession of crisis issues this past year in energy, mining and banking, just to name a few, suggests that the for some of these industries, the lack of preparedness is nothing short of breathtaking.

Should government mandate crisis planning for certain industries? And if so, how should they monitor it?

Click here to take a 5 minute survey to share your views.

Here is my POV about the 4 things that separate the “men from the boys” in terms of good, effective crisis preparedness.

• An integrated plan that deals with both operations, and communications/stakeholder management. Nothing does more damage than actions that don’t synch with the words…building your plans together ensures a coordinated response.
• A process with clearly defined roles and approaches to decision making….not a plan built on individuals, who may or may not be available. Person-centric plans are reputational Kryptonite…they rarely work, and when they do, they are too slow to be effective in an environment where the proverbial “first hour” has become 60 seconds.
• A mechanism that allows for speed, and use of judgment and application of your principals – because no plan can plan for everything….and if you try, it becomes too big and cumbersome to use effectively. A crisis plan should be able to be carried in your pocket, not your wheelbarrow.
• Total Stakeholder Approach…my recent blog about President Obama saying the BP CEO wouldn’t work for him says it all. And do we really think the families of the 11 men killed care that Mr. CEO wants his life back?

cwinters Crisis Communications BP, Crisis

Pundits and newsmakers around the globe are tweeting and re-hashing President Obama’s interview on the Today Show this a.m., giving lots of attention to the comments about knowing whose ass to kick.

But for careful watchers of reputation issues, another very interesting exchange occurred when Lauer asked the President if he’s spoken to BP’s CEO.

President Obama’s response came without hesitation. No, he said, because he is interested in “action, not words.” Moments later, after reviewing the CEO’s many statements attempting to minimize the issues, Obama said, “He wouldn’t be working for me.”

Some simple rules of crisis management: Engage your third party influencers. Keep them informed. Make them part of your solution. Then back those words up with action.

None of us know the outcome of this situation. But having the President of the United States suggests you should lose your job can’t be a good thing.

Lauer later criticized President Obama for not picking up the phone to reach out to the BP CEO, and the balance of power was clear … they’ve been in touch and told BP what to do. If BP hopes to protect and preserve its reputation, which may be impossible at this stage, the responsibility for initiating that dialogue lies with the company, not with the White House.

cwinters Crisis Communications, General Corporate BP, Obama, Today Show

We’ve written a bit about BP’s response to the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

So, I wanted to point you to Carreen’s commentary in Advertising Age on BP’s communications efforts relative to its new round of print and TV apology ads in a story by Michael Bush.

Let us know what you think.

Also, check out this BP logo redesign contest. Some biting, some funny, some arresting.

msacks Crisis Communications BP

Back in 2004, BP was celebrated by NGOs, experts in corporate social responsibility and academicians for its proactive commitment to issues related to environment and climate. For years it has been a poster-child for corporate social responsibility, even going so far as to rebrand the company in celebration of its environmental commitments. The company has been held up as a role model for its approach to human rights and fair labor standards. In short, BP has been a company to admire.

Similarly, Johnson & Johnson, the parent of McNeil Consumer Products, has a sterling reputation. Cited for its integrity and pristine track record, Johnson & Johnson (and the McNeil division) is the standard-bearer for crisis management from the days of the Tylenol tainting and subsequent recall. Truly, a company to be admired.

And yet, today, we watch these heroes struggle…with mixed emotions. We want to admire them. We want to see them as the white knights they have been at various times in their history. And yet, they let us down and have shaken our confidence, not only in them, but in ourselves. For, if our heroes can make such blunders and have their reputations bruised and bloodied, what will happen to the rest of us should an accident happen or mistake be made?

Perhaps the trick is to not be “perfect.” If you make small mistakes, are open about the small mistakes and the world watches you recover from those small mistakes, perhaps they will be more likely to believe in you when you encounter the bigger issue. Faith in the fact that you can fix your mistake, may be more important than the fact that you made the mistake at all – after all, we all make mistakes.

It requires a certain amount of bravery to be committed to transparency when mistakes are made. We tend to hope that no one notices the small mistake. But, if that small mistake shows your ability to take accountability, fix problems and recover, transparency might be just what will help you weather a future storm.

And maybe, remain a hero.

Ame Wadler can be reached at awadler@mww.com.

awadler General Corporate BP, Johnson & Johnson