BP actually seems to be using its website and traditional means of communication quite well, given the circumstances of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But in social media they are the proverbial lame duck.
The @BP_America account has a total of 52 tweets, one per week, since its inception in April 2009.
Not one of those tweets has an @ symbol in it, meaning they have replied to no one, ever. Apparently BP’s idea of social is pure monologue broadcast. Consistent with that approach is the fact they follow only one other account.
And there is a lot out there that need response from BP:
And the link on the @BP_America Twitter page leads to a classic corporate “brochure-ware” page that has no information on the spill until you click into the “Press” section.
Finally, when you look at how BP is listed by other Twitter users, it is often categorized by the words “oil spill,” whereas previously it was listed under “energy” and even “green energy.”
And BP’s Facebook page is silent:
BP is being hammered by critics all over the web, with thousands of posts on Twitter and Facebook slamming the company for its failure to prevent the disaster and its inability to stanch the flow of oil from their well nearly two weeks after the accident.
This spill is going to stick to BP’s image like oil to a pelican’s back, in some measure because BP is unable to contain the reputational damage through efficient digital communications and preparation.
Could that have been mitigated? It’s hard to say given the scope and scale of this incident. It certainly couldn’t have hurt to have fans, followers and plans to communicate.
Maybe BP can learn from some of the airlines during the the Icelandic volcano eruption:
Short URL & Title:
Social media and the oil spill disaster — http://www.torbenrick.eu/t/r/sop