In a digital era — as BP attempts to shift assets, ‘cap’ expenses, restore reputation and rebuild trust — is it possible the global giant has invested enough in its brand and identity to be able to recover, without having to change face?
Following the explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil-rig in April, and the horrific and catastrophic events that have followed since, traditional media (television, radio and print) has been ablaze with condemnation, vilification and public unrest. We’ve seen world leaders take to the stage, television interviews with those who have lost their livelihood and environmentalists — condemning both industrial and commercial greed — emphasizing the impact on local wildlife, the fishing industry, regional tourism and beyond.
But traditional media’s fixation pales, compared to a global onslaught from online and social media, campaigning vigilantly against BP’s management of the crisis, corporate accountability and the continual destruction of our planet. On Twitter @BPGlobalPR, an unofficial and fictitious account now with over 180,000 followers, has been spoofing BP’s Public Relations messages since mid-May 2010. Reinforcing negative coverage and continuing to consistently blast, publicly endorsed, ‘retweeted’ attacks.
Over the past few weeks we have seen user generated content (UGC) gain momentum attracting a following of thousands over night. Devotees checking blog-feeds before official media channels and humorous satirical sarcasm over professionally structured commentary. Bloggers, Twitterers and iPhone ‘App’ creators alike continue to strike the ‘Public Listed Culprit’ where it hurts the most — its reputation and share-price.
Within many more weblogs and forums, amongst the expected ‘redesign the logo‘ threads, discussion has also opened up surrounding the brand identity itself, and whether the recent events, near-destruction of BP’s reputation, the dramatic drop in both financial and goodwill value will, in the long-term, instigate change and reinvention.
BP is huge — it is the forth largest company in the world — but the recent oil-spill has created obvious uncertainty about its future. There is speculation surrounding it being taken-over, the stripping of assets, and current selling of equity to guarantee survival.
Since the explosion, BP has been acknowledged as the only organisation capable of fixing the problem. Under global watch, the company is now focusing its resources on capping the leak, cleaning up the surrounding environment and providing financial compensation to the thousands of people who have been affected.
Of all corporate catastrophes that have ever faced global public and political attention and ridicule, BP must surely be at the top of the list. For the moment, the BP brand is still trying to get a grip on the situation, which from a PR and brand perspective is certainly Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and replacement CEO Bob Dudley’s most important priority.
Historically, we’ve seen many examples following corporate catastrophe and scandal, where major corporations have attempted to reposition themselves away from irrevocable stripping of public and professional confidence in their brand. With reputation in tatters, these businesses have returned to market with changed visual identity and core messaging and sometimes a new name — attempting to distance themselves from unwanted emotional baggage and to start afresh.
If BP survives, manages to clean up its messand isn’t taken over — having suffered such bad press, Tony Hayward’s departure, record loses, mounting speculation and unprecedented online lynching — is the multinational’s brand identity, as we know it, destined for the scrap heap?
As one of the world’s largest companies, bearing the category’s strongest identity, dividend pay-outs are a necessity to many investors and public shareholders — on both sides of the Atlantic. However, perhaps not even BP or ‘British Petroleum’ (as several have since reverted to using) is strong enough to survive continual online ‘flak’ and mounting offline pressure.
Dependent on the outcome of the next few days, weeks and months — combined with history, years of profit, accumulated growth, thousands of staff — one can’t help wonder whether BP’s green and yellow, environmentally inspired and instantly recognisable ‘Helios’ will ever again evoke trust, assurance and loyalty.
If BP is able to position itself as accountable for all its actions, remain respectful of its size and position and prove itself capable by delivering the promises it has made, perhaps not even the largest onslaught of global, cross-platform disapproval can knock the Helios from its pedestal.
On proving itself to be ‘Beyond Petroleum’, and borne from forward-looking, innovative insight, is BP’s identity system so flexible, powerful and sustainable it will be able to support the brand, whatever the crisis?
If so, then out of one of the world’s worst industrial and environmental disasters, may come Landor’s greatest case study — creation of a ‘truly versatile’ corporate identity. One that is capable of enhancing the company’s vision and strategy for growth whilst, being clairvoyant in design, to be fully prepared in supporting a corporation, across every platform, should the unthinkable ever happen, again!
Risky Business:
Organisations who ‘changed face’ in an attempt to distance themselves from catastrophe, ill feeling, bad association or a tarnished reputation.
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Not forgetting, the world’s worst industrial catastrophe in 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. Killing plant staff and thousands of people in surrounding residential areas, UCIL subsequently renamed, and became Eveready Industries India Ltd. (EIIL) — adopting the Eveready ‘Nine Lives’ identity.
ENRON
Arthur Andersen, the once ‘Big Five’ accountancy firm, was directly linked to the ENRON scandal. In 2001, when legally forced to change its name, spin-off business Andersen Consulting rebranded to become Accenture.
The Government Bailouts
In an attempt to avoid disaster, resulting from the US Government financial bailout episode this year, AIG (American International Group) went through various iterations and streamlining spin-off exercises, one of which became Chartis.
Blackwater!
Blackwater was/is a private military contractor linked to the shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, 2007. Blackwater rebranded to become Xe. Enough said!
Poor Health
In 2003, amidst financially difficulties and public identification exclusively with tobacco, Phillip Morris (who owned 84% of Kraft Foods) rebranded to become Altria, demoting “Phillip Morris” to subsidiary status..
The ValuJet Airline Disaster
In 1996, whilst en route from Miami to Atlanta. a ValuJet Flight crashed killing passengers and civilians. Having had its credibility destroyed, the American budget airline was forced in to merging with AirTran Airways — adopting its name and identity.
MCI. MCI Worldcom. Worldcom. MCI
In 1997 MCI communications and Worldcom announced their US$37 billion merger. Following a much larger, US$129 billion, merger with Sprint Corporation in 1999, MCI Worldcom became Worldcom. In the wake of bankruptcy and accountancy scandal in 2002, it later became MCI.
By Tony Spaeth
28 JUL 2010, 21:05 GMT
Tough it out, BP. Admit you screwed up, renew your commitment to clean up (in all ways), and live the brand. It’s still a great promise, with the category’s greatest logo, and your heartfelt communications are on the right track.
By joel portugal
28 JUL 2010, 21:42 GMT
let’s get serious.
1. landor has nothing to do with this disaster. BP is a company that did not live up to its positioning/promise.
2 until BP cleans up the environmental mess and makes the workers in the region whole no change in logo/identification system will help BP.
3. Where are they going to get the money to pay for it? Better they reinstate the dividend first.
4. And if they are going to spend money on branding better they focus on the other aspects of the subject–their values, culture, how they communicate. If they had addressed these aspects earlier they wouldn’t be in the situation they are in now.
If they can clean this mess up and live up to their word they will get such positive attention they will be fine. First things first.
3.
By Scott Lerman
28 JUL 2010, 21:44 GMT
BP should not change its identity in the short-run. A new mark or name would be immediately soiled and the company (rightly) heckled for trying to hide in plain sight. It would be like adding a nice clean layer of sand on a beach while an oil-slicked tide is still washing in. Longer term? They need to genuinely clean up their act if they’re to survive. IF they can change their behavoir, the Helios mark might also survive.
By Marco Rezende
28 JUL 2010, 22:02 GMT
At this moment, we have to recognize that BP has other issues to worry about, more complex than branding. If BP survives, engaged to save the environment and repair all the harm as it seems to be, under vigilant world scrutiny, why will they need a rebranding? On the contrary, if they are able, they may use all their actions not only as duty but as a merit. If BP is wise, the Helios will come out stronger, with a reinforced meaning. Otherwise, BP will spend a couple of billion dollars for another “good boy” narrative. (Instead of green and yellow, the company will become white, like a virgin? Or will they prefer to be invisible?)
By Roger van den Bergh
29 JUL 2010, 14:36 GMT
My theory is as follows:
BP will rebrand using the AMOCO name;
one of the firms is already on it.
AMOCO was acquired by BP around 1987 along with SOHIO and rebranded into BP.
At that time the Raymond Loewy shield was restyled by Siegel & Gale;
the use of the color yellow was reduced, resulting in primarily green as its brand color.
This all took place in the 1988-1989 period.
By Dan Dimmock
30 JUL 2010, 14:14 GMT
Good insight and thoughts, Gentlemen. Thank you. However, just to be clear, I did not suggest for one minute the shifting of blame to the agency. The post was on the versatility of good brand identity design.
As most agree, if BP are able to get their house back in order, regaining public approval, the Helios will be able to support the corporation going forward — perhaps switching visual association from one of consistent profitable growth to eventually becoming “truly” synonymous with environmental correction and cleanliness (obviously not immediately). Proving to be a terrific, well-constructed, adaptable identity — capable of assisting the business throughout its good and worst times.
If not, then perhaps we’ll see a white AMOCO identity, Marco and Roger.
However, I do wonder though, how bad it has to get before an identity ‘expires’, and whether there is a much stronger relationship (or perhaps a more obvious correlation) between identity change and monetary catastrophe, rather than the emotional (?)
In the meantime, here is an interesting paper Tony forwarded on to me…
Unbranding, Confusion & Deception
By 'LanreWaju Emmanuel
30 JUL 2010, 14:26 GMT
They should tough it out. People just want them to admit that they are wrong and they should, they also need to revise their mission and CSR strategy. They are still a strong brand if they get out of this they will be bigger, better and stronger. They should employ the principles of Spiritual Intelligence (SQ). They should from now on start social initiatives and research ways to make their production and operating processes more eco-friendly. They should realize that their enemies are out there waiting for them to pack up and then they sieze the opportunity. This is just a small problem, how can big BP pack up under this, if they take the right approach the problem will be solved in no time.
By Dan Dimmock
01 AUG 2010, 23:04 GMT
Ah, here is a link for Roger:
“BP Gas Station Owners Take Our Advice, Consider Rebranding as Amoco“
By Jerry Kuyper
02 AUG 2010, 19:13 GMT
More support for Roger’s theory:
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Business/2010/08/02/BP_pushed_to_rename_US_petrol_stations_493166.html
By William Agush
10 AUG 2010, 23:31 GMT
This is an identity firm biz dev dream — pitch a big rebranding as the way to paper over all the ills. What crap. The visual identity should stay. The management should go. I for one think they can save their brand by their actions from here out. If they need an identity change it will be something to worry about in 12 months. For now they need to focus on recovery.
By Christian Davies
18 AUG 2010, 17:47 GMT
So far the comments do seem to miss the irony surrounding the positioning. That the idea of Beyond Petroleum and the Helios mark that embodies this idea could not have been called into question more profoundly than with these recent events. The public is now more aware than ever that BP is nowhere near being Beyond Petroleum and this event has led to increasing transparency around what a miniscule part of their operation other sources of energy truly represent. So, to reinforce your argument, there is no doubt that the mark is strong but what the identity now represents - post spill and maybe before - is disingenuous at best, insulting at worst.
By Dan Dimmock
21 AUG 2010, 22:29 GMT
Recently, over dinner, I heard a rather interesting anecdote regarding the actual origin of ‘The Helios’. It would be good to hear from those who know? If my source is correct (former AoR), the need for ironic justification, regarding the mark, may be short-lived…
By Mario Rodriguez
01 SEP 2010, 23:27 GMT
When I look at the BP logo from a distance it almost looks like an explosion.
While not a complete change, after enough time has passed, BP “cleans up” its act, and the public’s anger subsides, I’d do a redesign to that logo and make it simpler while we’re at it.
By saffron
11 SEP 2010, 22:53 GMT
If the Helio mark is first step toward the changing current BP, I will wait to see BP after 10 years, there are many possibilities with this mark. may be it will change many things in BP internally ( policy towards ecology ) .
By Colin Anderson
20 OCT 2010, 3:20 GMT
This is a highly emotional situation with losers on all sides. Its bad for the planet, bad for the investors and bad for the industry as a whole. But we all have a stake in this, as the world demands energy and companies are pushed to meet that demand in ever increasingly difficult operating environments.
No company, including BP, sets out to allow something like this to happen; and the onslaught of the social media will make other oil companies re-evaluate their exposure to a very different but equally potent risk in this ‘new media’ operating environment. It will be interesting to see if BP can bounce back.