Introduction
The deepwater horizon explosion caused a lot of crisis since it raised issues concerning the environment. The drilling rig was in the Transocean’s possession, and it was located in the southeast of Louisiana. The explosion was evident to have killed at least eleven people and an addition of sixteen who endured severe injuries (Juhasz, 2011). An approximated number of ninety-nine civilians survived the explosion without injuries. The state of the situation was that a blowout preventer fell short on the drilling rig to cause the explosion that took lives. After the explosion, the manufacturer’s failure to sustain the situation let the dented wells spill oil for months thus endangering the aquatic living organisms.
Background
The company failed to handle the situation rightfully, which in the end cost them more trouble with the public. If they had contained the situation with the correct precautions, then nothing would have gone wrong between them and the public. After months of the oil spilling, it found its way to the coast of the United States. Civilians along the coastline claim that on reaching the Gulf coast the oil established itself on the bottom leading to a crisis that forced the coastguards to take charge of the occurrence. The situation got out of hand that the president, Barrack Obama, had to intervene and carry out sightseeing to the state at which the community around the shore lived (Juhasz, 2011).
The company tries denying the fact that production is their first priority though it is evident how they care less about what happens after such an incident happens. More focus is on capitalizing the profits made by the company than trying to come up with better safety solutions for the employees and the surrounding environment (Kapucu & Ozerdem, 2012). The drilling rig has had a history of problems because the companies spotlight was to dwell more on production. BP’s response to the explosion had components from two diverse perspectives, negative and positive. A positive response from the company was after the explosion when the company brought the public together to address the situation.
The organization ensured that briefings were conducted regularly to the media to keep the public up to date on how the handling of the situation. There were graphics that displayed the proceeding to the public on the floor of the ocean. This was meant to show the public that their progress on the explosion and the damages (Regester & Larkin, 2008). Another positive component that the company employed to engage the public was by setting up cameras, which sent live feedback on the happenings of the blow out. This was a direct transmission to a twenty-four hour television broadcast. It displayed the rightful measures the company took to take care of the incident.
Attempts were in progress to sort out the damaged well issue in avoidance of causing any more health hazards on the coastline. BP joins forces in carrying out disaster reactions with the coast guards to control the tension built around the community living along the coast. Employees who had lost their jobs because of the spill-required reemployment to assist in the sanitary as well as the recovery process (Regester & Larkin, 2008). The organization thereafter employed various strategies to inform the globe on their steps to rectify the crisis that took place at the Gulf. They had foremost advertising operations on the televisions, as well as the radio.
BP made a right choice in engaging the public through updating them on the progress of their handling of the situation. Thought the company had some negative components in modes they applied to handle the explosion crisis. There were minor mistakes that turn the public against them and create a negative perception about their informing the public about the progress. The company had wrong representative, Tony Hayward, who made arrogant statements on press cameras. Another additional negative scenario is when the Chairman of the company said, “We will take care of the little people” (Mueller, 2011). That statement by the chairperson made after a journalist questioned him about the damages caused to thousands of minor trading centers after the spill.
The organization made a serious mistake by not playing a role in assisting the explosion victims’ families. Instead, they abandoned them and took no initiative in supporting them. This undoubtedly will drive the public angry because it shows how much the company cared less about its employees. One of the reasons that drove the public angry is that BP denied accepting the fact that the spilling of the oil was there accountability (Moss, 2011). If they had contained the situation, then the oil would not have spread as far as the coastline.
Conclusion
From the way the company handled the situation, it is evident that it places money, production, and earnings as their top most priority. To add on that, their crisis communication is extremely poor since they were egotistical, unresponsive, lacked involvement and the fascination on their production made the situation worse. BP destroyed their standing to the public with the negative components involved in handling the crisis. The company’s name is now in relation to agreed, superiority, and inconsistency. The company would avoid these things if it was mindful of the surrounding community (Kapucu & Ozerdem, 2012). BP should have the people as their primary priority then the environment and lastly its property.
Reference
Juhasz, A. (2011). Black tide: The devastating impact of the Gulf oil spill. John Wiley & Sons Canada.
Moss, D. (2011). Public relations: Managerial perspecitve. London: Sage.
Regester, M., & Larkin, J. (2008). Risk issues and crisis management in public relations: A casebook of best practice. London [u.a.: Kogan Page.
Mueller, B. (2011). Dynamics of international advertising: Theoretical and practical perspectives. New York: Peter Lang.
Kapucu, N., & Özerdem, A. (2012). Managing emergencies and crises. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
