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

Thirty-eight days and counting. There’s no doubt all of the positive brand equity BP built since its $200 million, award-winning rebranding effort nearly a decade ago has been more than spent in the past five weeks. When the company re-branded as BP after its Amoco acquisition, it leveraged the tagline “Beyond Petroleum” to assert itself as a green brand. It was a bold and successful strategy that created clear differentiation between BP and its top competitors.

However, BP faces a tragic and undoubtedly complicated situation today. But when you are a $246 billion company in the oil and gas business, the stakes are always high. As a household brand name with a significant consumer retail footprint, BP has a lot to lose. And as the days continue to tick by in the effort to plug the massive mile-deep oil leak, questions are mounting. Oil sludge has reached Louisiana’s shoreline, is infiltrating fragile marshlands and is negatively affecting wildlife.

Watching CNN’s Anderson Cooper on location in New Orleans last night, he’s doing what he does – “keeping them honest” and asking the tough questions. James Carville has also escalated his involvement , doing what he can to raise awareness of the dire situation. With Carville pressuring the White House and Cooper getting his hands dirty in the marshes with Gov. Bobby Jindal and other local leaders, reputations are getting hammered.

Unfortunately, BP’s CEO was not available for Cooper’s show to address the plans to take control of the situation and assure the American public that his company is doing everything it can do. Yes, BP has been communicating and participating in interviews, but in times like these, companies can’t appear to be sidestepping tough questions. If you are doing the right thing, you need to make sure your side of the story is told. But instead, the story is being told for BP, just like last night when Cooper clamored to know why he was denied an interview. It looked bad.

In situations like this when the stakes are high on all accounts, it’s imperative that brands and their leaders do everything they can to assure all stakeholder groups they are doing the right thing. They must map out everything they are doing to fix the problem and explain how they will make sure it never happens again. It has to be a priority.

Now, let’s hope the “top kill” effort holds and aggressive clean-up activities can commence.

Matt Averitt can be reached at maveritt@mww.com.

maveritt Crisis Communications BP

BP’s CEO told NBC today that the oil spill that is likely to be worse than the mother of all spills – the Exxon Valdez – “wasn’t their accident, but they would clean it up.”

As more than 200,000 gallons of oil are spewed into the Gulf of Mexico each day – a number that may climb to millions according to some experts – BP is desperately grasping onto any lifeboat it can to preserve its reputation. This began with the assertion that the U.S. Government should have have acted more quickly to mobilize resources, to today’s attempt to draw a distinction between the big brand of BP and the little known operator of the actual machinery, Trans Oceana.

This raises an important issue on the role of partners and reputation. To put it simply, reputational sh#@ doesn’t roll down hill. It stays right at the top, where it belongs. Airlines use code share partners, sometimes very small regional code-share partners. But when that plane goes down, the flagship brand’s reputation takes the hit. Always.

Any time you put millions of gallons of oil anywhere other than a tank, you’ve got a problem. But it is how you respond that defines your future. So far, BP isn’t doing much to help themselves.

The issue of reputation cannot be sub-contracted. Leadership, like management, requires that the leader accept responsibility in bad times, and share credit in good times. And BP’s attempt to throw their vendor under the proverbial bus does little to advance their cause.

They selected this vendor.

They supervise this vendor.

They are responsible for this vendor.

The good Sisters at my Catholic School always used to tell us that when you point a finger, three more are pointed back at you.

In other words, BP… you own it.

Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com.

cwinters Crisis Communications, General Corporate BP, Exxon, oil spill