Things like BP's ongoing "greenwashing" campaign where they run ads trying to convince us that they're the good kind of polluting oil company seem to have been a boon for people working in media oriented around public affairs. It's not a business that's been doing very well lately, but it's a natural target for this sort of advertising. But does it work? I'm not even sure I understand what it working would look like. Is BP going to be exempted from cap and trade regulations? Get a special "we like you better than ExxonMobil" ribbon? We're going to drive an extra mile to fill up with BP oil instead of Shell oil?
« No Transit For You | Main | The Cheney Factor »
Question
28 Jun 2008 05:15 pm
Comments (39)
The idea is to present the appearance of a controversy. Journalists, politicians, and scientists say BP is a massive polluter. Commercials on TV say BP is doing everything it can to move beyond petroleum and benefit the environment. That suggests there are two sides to the story which each deserve an equal voice, which in turn leads television producers, newspaper editors, blue dogs, swing voters, gasbag columnists to attempt a neutral posture between the "two sides."
It's all farce, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that if you put out a 100% ludicrous position on your own dime, you get 50% ludicrous press coverage and maybe even 50% ludicrous legislation (see, e.g., John McCain's cap-and-trade without the cap plan).
hmm, sorry about the caps lock on my name up there. I didn't mean to shout.
ExxonMobil makes $40 billion a year. Many broad indices of the energy sector (e.g., http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=US:FNARX) have returned more than 400% over the last five years. The United States is on the brink of a recession and has been having a bit of a housing crisis, but not Houston, the energy capital of the world (and where unemployment is falling and home prices are still rising). Yeah, the business has been sucking lately, dude.
Well, when all oil companies are basically polluters, aren't BP one of the least terrible?
http://betterworldshopper.org/r-gas.html
I just talked to my mother about BP's marketing the other day; she says to me, "I love BP. I feel like I'm pumping spring water into my car." So that's one person it works for.
As a recent engineering graduate, I would say that the image benefits BP in terms of recruitment of top talent at a point in time in which engineers are in very high demand. Undoubtedly not worth the billions on advertising, but it's something.
I used to work at BP Solar in the R&D for thin-film PV. They closed the plant and the R&D section, fired everyone and refused to sell the plant to the engineers and physicists who wanted to keep it going.
BP gave up that technology and isn't replacing it. They spend more on greenwashing ads than they do on solar research.
I always assumed these ads were aimed more at investors than consumers--specifically, the politically aware investors who watch the Sunday morning talk shows and read the Economist and who would like to think of themselves as socially responsible.
It's insurance against their next oil spill. Don't you know people who still avoid Exxon in retaliation for the Valdez spill 20 years ago?
Have you seen Exxon's new commercials? They are even advertising on this website.
I guess I always assumed it was more of a long-term company image-shaping goal rather than any sort of short-term sell-more-gas goal. Shoring up goodwill, that sort of thing. If people's first association of BP is with pollution, they might be less likely to pump there, less likely to buy stock, more likely to push for legislation to deal with it, and worst of all, more likely to consider looking for alternatives.
And with the money they're pulling in, they can afford to waste some on branding.
It's also protection money. They are paying NBC, Fox, ABC, etc., millions of dollars a year in advertising. If a news story comes down the pike that isn't to their liking, they can threaten to stop advertising on that network unless the story is pulled, costing any particular network millions in ads.
the simple point is, the idea of green energy is being mainstreamed by the consumer's pocketbook and this election. so they must capitalize on it, and they're doing it the way they know best--telling us they are good and noble. as you point out, they have no idea of how to actually BE good and noble.
but how does that differ from any other branded company? don't discount the power of establishing brand loyalty. I don't like either company, but I would never, EVER, drink a Pepsi. BP, Exxon/Mobil and Shell can't achieve that, but they can approach it.
What Brian in Philly Said. It's for investors, so when they see BP show up in your mutual fund, they don't get so freaked out.
I used to work at BP Solar in the R&D for thin-film PV. They closed the plant and the R&D section, fired everyone and refused to sell the plant to the engineers and physicists who wanted to keep it going.
BP gave up that technology and isn't replacing it. They spend more on greenwashing ads than they do on solar research.
Posted by Beth in VA | June 28, 2008 6:07 PM
=================================================
BP pulled out of the Solar PV business and is moving heavily into Solar Thermal and Wind Energy. We are doing a number of Solar Thermal siting studies for them now and working to permit wind farms for them.
Also working on permits for a conventional power plant burning refinery waste products with capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. BP Alternative Energy is no sham
How much is BP actually polluting? Isn't it you and me who do the polluting by burning their gas?
What? I know that every time I watch the Sunday Morning chat shows, the ads for Archer Daniels Midlands makes me go out and buy a billion tons of various agricultural products.
Matt B: Well, by the same token it's not the cigarette companies who cause cancer, they just sell the medium that people use to give themselves cancer. But it's a moot point, because refining gasoline isn't exactly an organic farmer's market in terms of environmental friendliness.
Take some time, and think about relative performance and consumer demand. It's not really that hard to think about, this topic.
Not exactly the same thing, but close, is this new Planet Green network on cable. There was a piece about it on ATC a few weeks ago, and the gist was that its all about marketing and ratings, as if it would ever be about anything else.
Lost in the discussion was any consideration that the issue of environmentalism itself is inherently important and worthy of coverage and awareness, but it was clear that if the ratings aren't there or the advertisers don't think its moving product, it will soon be Planet Wrestling, or Planet NASCAR.
Not exactly the same thing, but close, is this new Planet Green network on cable. There was a piece about it on ATC a few weeks ago, and the gist was that its all about marketing and ratings, as if it would ever be about anything else.
Lost in the discussion was any consideration that the issue of environmentalism itself is inherently important and worthy of coverage and awareness, but it was clear that if the ratings aren't there or the advertisers don't think its moving product, it will soon be Planet Wrestling, or Planet NASCAR.
Not exactly the same thing, but close, is this new Planet Green network on cable. There was a piece about it on ATC a few weeks ago, and the gist was that its all about marketing and ratings, as if it would ever be about anything else.
Lost in the discussion was any consideration that the issue of environmentalism itself is inherently important and worthy of coverage and awareness, but it was clear that if the ratings aren't there or the advertisers don't think its moving product, it will soon be Planet Wrestling, or Planet NASCAR.
oops, sorry for the triple there
Matt B: Well, by the same token it's not the cigarette companies who cause cancer, they just sell the medium that people use to give themselves cancer.
No, that's not remotely "the same token." Nicotine is a physically addictive drug and tobacco companies exploit that addiction to sell cigarrettes. Oil is not an addictive drug and our demand for it is a matter of our lifestyle choices. The tobacco companies have been found legally liable for systematically falsifying and suppressing information on the health effects of smoking. No comparable legal responsibility applies to oil companies. Scapegoating the oil companies for the lifestyle choices of American consumers isn't going to fly.
Mixner: I'm not talking about suing BP and neither is anyone else. The point is that BP is selling a product that pollutes and they're advertising in such a way as to obscure that fact. Matt B asked if BP was polluting and the answer is yes.
I second Anna about recruitment.
I was given a lot of grief when I took a job with a fossil fuel company, OTHER than BP. My vaguely hippy friends thought BP was alright but the rest were pretty horrible.
Due to the Texas City 'incident' they had a problem recruitment wise. Making young engineers feel that BP is the least bad fossil fuel company; probably gives them an edge.
And I second Mixner. People demand gasoline and jet fuel, an integrated oil company produces the product. Its the user thats the worst polluter not BP/Shell/ExxonMobil.
Matt--Self-serving "public service" ads have been around a long time. See this one from the film The Groove Tube made in 1975: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0usiztmtxA
Matt--Self-serving "public service" ads have been around a long time. See this one from the film The Groove Tube made in 1975: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0usiztmtxA
Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but it's funny how the "we're not raping the environment" ads get played during cable news and other low-volume programs. You'd almost think the companies were buying something other than advertising. What I think is really funny is reading the newspaper and seeing ads for the KC-45 air refueling aircraft. Suffice to say, I doubt too many folks reading the Washington Post are buying any aircraft like that. In fact, I believe an individual can't own such a plane. On top of that, government procurement procedures should be immune to the kind of impulse buy traditional advertising is aiming for -- what exactly is going here?
To me, it's a quid pro quo -- we'll buy ads that we don't have to if you don't question what we're doing.
... media oriented around public affairs. It's not a business that's been doing very well lately ...
Really? Could anyone point me to more information on that front?
I was under the impression they were doing quite well.
My guess is that having a bad environmental record is unlikely to negatively effect your stock price. Socially Responsible investing suffers from serious collective action problems. Its more likely that some consumers pay a premium to feel they are protecting the environment and possibly engineers are more likely to want to work for a company which they think is good in some intangible way. As an engineer myself I kind of find it hard to believe that we are that easy to manipulate. My guess is that companies advertize during Meet the Press in order to comunicate with Washington insiders and decision makers who also watch the show. Even under cap and trade Joe Lieberman can still give BP a few free carbon credits.
BP is a poorly run concern. Instead of making some hard choices about the future BP's decision makers cut costs by deferring maintenance, play endlessly with the org chart and announce yet another new marketing initiative.
Look for US marketing and refining to get sold to someone like Valero. What's left will get asset squeezed into nothing.
Large institutions don't do paradigm shifts well. It's much easier to build from the ground up. Leaner, meaner startups will eat their green initiatives for lunch.
Well, I'd drive a mile out of my way not to buy from Exxon. So, I suppose there some room out there for a good PR person to do their stuff.
Exxon's great crime was to try to corrupt and obfuscate the science around global warming (I agree that they should be prosecuted for this). For the last five years, I have avoided gassing up with them, and I wish more people would do the same.
Institutional advertising is not usually directed to consumers but to voters, regulators, legislators, taxation committees, opinion leaders, distributors of graft, etc. An oil industry company's ad might to a small degree be trying to gain favors for that particular company, but mostly the message will be "Us folks in the oil industry are really very nice, not anti-environmentalist at all".
Commercials on TV say BP is doing everything it can to move beyond petroleum and benefit the environment.
Great idea.
1. For maintaining oil dependency and huge profits - it helps perpetuate the mass delusion that the technologically illiterate have that "if only there is a little more solar and wind research, a little geothermal added for pizazz...there will be miracle energy cures from unestablished science" (a few years ago their ads were all about magic miracle solar, beautiful wind, and wonderful ethanol). Ethanol is off the talking points in 2008.
That mass delusion prevents people from making the serious hard choices of:
a. Ending mass immigration that has more than negated all conservation gains since the 1st Energy crisis.
b. Sacrificing some of the paralyzing environmental restrictions for vital, critical energy from offshore, oil from coal and oil shale we need to continue to exist as a society until we can make a 30-40 year transition off oil as an energy source.
c. Avoiding other demon sources like coal, nuclear and fusion.
2. It helps recruit engineers and keep them until the Lefty brainwashing is purged from their brains in 10 years or so.
3. It gives oil firms political margin. All industries do it. "We're the nice guys" - to counteract the instant worship "noble environmental activists" (who helped get us in this horrific mess along with Open Borders People and Overpopulation deniers)
1. BP's had a bad streak of problems at refineries that wind up with dead Americans on their hands. This isn't the only PR you want coming out of your company.
2. BP isn't an American company. Energy providers have swallowed the pill that says they don't get to run the show anymore, so they're all out to get what subsidies they can in future alternative energy programs. To that end, BP's invested heavily in totally rebranding its American operations (Beyond Petroleum) and doing things like expanding the huge solar facility they have in Frederick, MD. A commitment to alternative energy in America, or at least the appearance of one, will be important if BP wants to compete with Exxon and other American oil companies for pork.
3. BP's also had management problems that've left it behind other Oil companies as far as growth and stock price goes... their huge investment in Green PR (coupled with some real R&D investment) is somewhat akin to GM's Volt that was in The Atlantic last month.
Don't you know people who still avoid Exxon in retaliation for the Valdez spill 20 years ago? - Preston
Except BP was also in part responsible for what happened (see Greg Palast on this). The greenwashing of BP in part has to do with BP trying to avoid any association with the Valdex spill, e.g. so that way if anybody tries to make BP pay up for their liabilities, they will pay political hell for "picking on the most environmentally friendly outfit in the biz".
Comments closed July 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Maybe when we see a BP station on one corner and a Shell station across the street with the same prices we'll fill up at the BP station.
Posted by teofilo | June 28, 2008 5:45 PM