Canadian Cincinnatus

BP and corporate PR

The current vilification of BP over the Gulf oil spill is a perfect example of the uselessness of conventional corporate PR.

Why do I say that? 

Take a look at BP before the spill. Knowing they are a prime example of ‘big oil’ (boo…hiss), they implemented a coherent strategy to counteract the negative connotations associated with that: they supported every environmentalist initiative they could, such as cap and trade; they loudly called themselves the first ‘green energy’ company; they even rechristened themselves “Beyond Petroleum”. Fat lot of good any of that did to them. As soon as disaster hit, they were “British Petroleum” and vilified with all the gusto they would have been vilified with if they had done none of this.

This got me thinking about the lousiness of corporate PR, how a business can be so good at advertising its products while simultaneously so woefully inadequate at politics. The problem, I believe, is that everybody knows that big companies are there just to make a buck. As a result, their slick ads just look cynical and, if they have any effect at all, it is negative.

The big flaw in today’s corporate PR strategy is that they begin by apologizing for what they do, and if there is one rule in politics (that Red Tories have yet to learn) is that you can’t apologize fast enough to win. When your enemies hear you apologize, they don’t see contrition or moral goodness, they only smell weakness and fear. You win political fights by trumpeting the strength of your case - and by vilifying your opponents.

Instead, corporate PR departments should run ads that say things like:

“Yes our purpose is to selfishly make money, but so what? given that we can only make money by engaging in voluntary transactions. This means we only turn a profit if we make products that are so good and desirable that people voluntarily part with their money in order to acquire those things. The consumer is our king and if you restrict us, it is the consumer who you really punish. And unlike our socialist critics, we actually produce things, many of which required real creativity and effort to produce. We don’t have to ‘give back to the community’ because we give back to the community every day, with jobs, and tax money and products that people want to buy. Our critics are the ones who need to ‘give back to the community’ since they produce nothing and only sponge off of other people’s taxes.”

I am not saying that aggressive PR like this, done ahead of time, would allow BP to come out smelling like roses after the Gulf oil spill crisis. Nothing could accomplish that. All that I am saying is that all their prostrating before the environmentalist gods did them no good. Absolutely zero, zip, nada. No favours that they could cash in at crunch time. 

The Gulf oil spill and Environmentalism

It has been a widespread observation in conservative and alternate media circles that if this crisis had been happening under George W Bush’s watch, then all hell would be breaking loose now in the media and among the tree-hugger crowd. There would be mass demonstrations daily – many violent, ‘die-ins’ and lots and lots of large paper mache puppets of President Bush and Tony Hayward. Indeed it has been a relief that the reaction to this crisis has been so level-headed.

However there is a big danger for the environmentalist movement in this.

Think back to the Bill Clinton scandals and feminism. When President Clinton was hauled up before the courts in what was really just a fairly typical sexual harassment case, the feminists sided with ‘their President’ against ‘their law’. All of a sudden, all of the arguments used previously by conservatives to argue against this onerous, unjust anti-man law were employed by the feminists to provide cover for Clinton.

As a result, Bill Clinton survived comfortably but the feminist movement was left permanently discredited. The spectacle of feminists carrying water for a powerful lothario simply because they agreed with his left-wing politics demonstrated to everybody what conservatives knew all along, that feminism is really only the ladies auxiliary of the left. As a result, regular college-age women stopped identifying with organized Feminism, which has in recent years become the exclusive club of unhinged, man-hating lesbians.

Getting back to the Gulf: by any objective standards, this oil spill is about the worst possible environmental catastrophe short of a nuclear war – an epic underwater gush of oil, already 60 days old, with no end in sight, and with the potential to grievously pollute thousands of miles of American coastlines. I mean, if this isn’t a red light emergency for environmentalism, then what is?

Unless, of course, the environment is really a cover for other, unstated, priorities. If the environmentalists are seen to care more about Obama’s poll numbers than they are about mother nature, then it will be graphic demonstration to all concerned that they are like a fresh tomato, which is green at first, but can be counted on to turn bright red when left in the sunlight.

How President Obama blew the Gulf oil spill response

I have a lot of sympathy for some of the argument used by the President’s defenders. Really I do. For instance, they say that the President is merely the chief executive of the federal government; he is not an omnipotent being. By holding him responsible for everything that goes wrong within the borders of the United States - including those caused by private entities - you are holding him up to impossibly high standards. I fundamentally agree with this argument. 

In fact, I wish it were truer than it actually is. When the US was a modest, commercial republic a hundred years ago, the president was a remote figure, far removed from everyday matters. As a result, when something bad happened, the local citizens came together, rolled up their sleeves and got on with it. This is as it should be. Unfortunately, these days, after the steady rise of the federal colossus for over a century, when a natural disaster happens, local authorities try to get it declared a Federal Emergency. In this way, hurricanes and tornados are converted into federal dollars. This trend is enervating and corrosive on the ethic of self-reliance America used to pride itself on having. The Big Man theory – the idea that all of your needs and desires can be met by the country’s heroic leader – is more fitting for a third world African thugocracy than a free country, and should have no place in the United States.

Having said that, I still say Obama blew it. How?

Well for starters, while it is true that the US government does not have the expertise or the equipment to deal with the oil leak, after 50+ weeks, it has become abundantly clear that neither does BP. And since an environmental disaster in federal waters ultimately falls on shoulders of the federal government, the federal government must get involved, ready or not.

To me, Obama’s main failing is that he has not so far distinguished between problem number 1 and problem number 2. Problem number 1 is stopping the leak. Problem number 2 is assigning criminal blame and determining legal liability. Solving problem number 2 is important but it is not nearly as important as problem number 1 and cannot even begin until problem number 1 has been decisively solved. The Obama approach has been to periodically lash out about problem number 2 – in-between various vacations and me-times.

Given their lack of expertise in this matter, what could the federal government do? As I argued before, something the US government has a great deal of is resources. Why not offer a prize of, say, $25 billion to whoever plugs the leak (taken from the unspent portion of the stimulus fund). Let the resourcefulness and creativity that has always been one of America’s more conspicuous virtues be employed to plug ‘the damn hole’.

What President Obama could do about the Gulf oil slick

President Obama has been roundly criticized for his passivity and apparent disinterestedness over this issue. His strategy has been to blame BP and demand that they take care of it. Obama’s supporters say that this is correct because the US government doesn’t have the expertise or the equipment to solve this problem. To the extent that anyone does, it is the oil companies.

This is true, as far as it goes, but what the US government has is almost unlimited resources (even in its current indebted state). What could it do? How about offer a prize, say $25 billion to the first person or group who caps this well. This would be like the X-Prize that resulted in the first private manned suborbital space flight. Instead of bureaucracy, why not unleash the innovation and private creativity that has historically made America great. I bet the solution would as unexpected as it would be quick in coming.

Of course, you would have to word the proposition so that BP doesn’t get to profit from its disaster but hey, that’s what lawyers are for.

Is $25 billion a lot of money? Yes it is. But in an era where the federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars of ‘stimulus’ money on dubious money-wasting projects, why not $25 billion on a demonstrable good?

In addition, it would be a good example of how big projects can be tackled with prizes and innovation, rather than cushy cost-plus contracts. Which is why Obama wouldn’t do it. Unless it was clear to him that the solution is going to come from ACORN.