Here’s a tweet posted yesterday from the Twitter account known as @BPGlobalPR:
That’s just one of a steady stream of sarcastic tweets that, as of this morning, has attracted more than 96,000 followers, almost 10 times more followers than BP has at its own Twitter account.
CNET News offers a good summary of who might be behind the fake account, and what has happened since it was created.
It’s just one more episode in the PR nightmare tied to the Gulf Oil spill.
What I find most bizarre about the fake account, which was created on May 19, is that Twitter hasn’t removed it. BP spokesman Tony Odone told AdAge.com:
“I’m not aware of whether BP has made any calls to have it taken down or addressed. People are entitled to their views on what we’re doing, and we have to live with those…People are frustrated at what’s happening, as are we, and that’s just their way of expressing it.”
My heart aches for the people and wildlife affected by the oil spill, and I don’t see anything funny about the sarcasm. BP has bigger PR problems than Twitter. But if I were counseling BP, I’d encourage them to contact Twitter immediately and ask them to either remove the account, or at least include a disclaimer. Here’s why:
- The fake feed is stealing BP’s brand.
- BP has proven it has little control over anything, including figuring out a way to stop the gushing oil. At the very least, it should try to minimize the damage however it can.
- The fake account I mentioned here has prompted several other imposters to create their own fake BP Twitter accounts. That means trouble multiplied.
Am I wrong?
PR and crisis communications experts, how would you counsel BP? Should the company distance itself from information like this that further tarnishes its already-battered brand? What should Twitter do about fake accounts like this one? Should it treat them all the same?
What about BP’s CEO who told a news reporter yesterday “I want my life back”?
Update on June 9:
BP finally asks Twitter to make BPGLobalPR to post a disclaimer, and Twitter finally gets off the dime. The disclaimer reads: “We are not associated with Beyond petroleum, the company that has been destroying the Gulf of Mexico for 51 days.”
What took so long?
[…] The Publicity Hound's Blog » Should BP pressure Twitter to remove … […]
Really bizarre that a big company like BP hasn’t gotten twitter to nix those tweets. But then I am hoping BP has more on it’s mind than bad publicity and erroneous tweets. If they are all huddled in a room working on a real solution to plug the hole instead of concentrating on publicity, I’m good with that.
Surely they have a crisis communcations team (don’t they?), and somebody from that team could be responsible for Twitter-related things.
I think its interesting that BP is of the position that people can say what they like; but they are being misrepresented. We’d probably be surprised at how many people think that account is real 😛 I like the idea of forcing them to post a disclaimer on the account. Allowing the account to continue could actually be good PR.
All the confusion that erupted when the account was first created is one of the lesser reasons that Twitter should remove it.
About the only thing BP is doing right is leaving that fake Twitter feed alone.
Trying to stop 100,000 people (and their followers) from tweeting negatively about the worst ecological disaster in history would mean they were taking their eye off the donut. But more importantly, it would magnify the resistance and create a real sh*tstorm, the likes of which have yet to be seen on the Internet.
If they tried to stop the Tweets, should they also try to stop reports like this one from Rachel Maddow? http://twitter.com/whatsnext/status/15154479216
If they squashed it on Twitter, you can bet your bottom dollar it would turn up somewhere else. Trying to contain it would be like – well trying to contain the leak. Neither is apparently possible for BP
Let the BP bashers tweet all they want—but not under BP’s brand name, and not under a Twitter account that, at first glance, appears to come from the company’s PR department.
I agree with you Joan. There isn’t anything funny about this crisis, it’s another 9/11 moment. Would they have set up a fake twitter account on that event. I think not. This isn’t funny…the blue waters of the Gulf (I live in Florida) are being destroyed. If BP won’t take down the site then Twitter needs to do it for them.
I think you are right on – I don’t want anyone creating a fake account about my business. Yes, we have a right to our opinions – so set up a blog or a twitter account that talks about this – but it should not be able to use BP’s name in their account or my name. There are so many other ways to allow people to talk about their opinions. Twitter, Facebook, whoever needs to remove this immediately.
If somebody crreated a fake account about my business, I’d fight it, for sure, even though it would be incredibly time-consuming.
Of course it should be taken down. Leaving it undermines the entire concept of Twitter. My newspaper regularly screens comments on its web site and blogs because we’ve seen cruel mean spirited things posted under the cloak of anonymity. The harmful potential of this oil spill has barely been touched upon and is no laughing matter. Ive seen how the Gulf Stream keeps the coast of Norway open to commerce year round way above the Arctic Circle and allows rhododendrons to bloom in northern Scotland. Who know what the oil will mean?
A note about editing out nasty comments on your company blog:
As painful as it is to leave these comments intact, it adds to the conversation and makes blogs more interesting.
BP is finished. They will have to change their name just as Venezuela’s Chavez had to change their name too.
It’s looking that way. Barry. BP’s PR has kicked into high gear. But unless they can cap that gusher, the best PR in the world won’t save them.
You are absolutely correct. People can speak openly and share their opinions but to misrepresent themselves simply is not funny nor is it right.
How funny would it be if they were doing the same with their church, ethnic group, etc?
That’s my point.
BP is the company that many people love to hate.
My impression is that BP (along with many companies large and small) underestimates the effect that social media has on their PR status.
(Always enjoy your posts. Thanks)
You[‘re right, Betty.
The potential for a crisis is one more reason why companies large aned small should have a blog in place (and use it), as well as a Twitter feed and a presence on Facebook.
Trying to create all of this in the middle of a crisis, and make it effective, is impossible.
Hmmmm….This one is tough for me. From a personal standpoint I absolutely agree that BP seems to be twiddling their thumbs while the Gulf drowns, which means that I won’t be able to enjoy the shrimp, crab, oysters and all the other fresh seafood.
Ok now for my business side. Absolutely, BP should be trying to shut this twitter page down. Just as you stated, BP’s brand is being hijacked, positive suggestions aren’t being made and the account itself isn’t really providing anything worthwhile. The tough part would be to request that it be shut down while recognizing our “sacred cow” of free speech.
Pamela, the one thing I failed ot mention in my post above is that the person behind the fake feed is selling t-shirts and raising money for the clean-up efforts. This week, I believe, they donated another $10,000 to the effort.
Even so, that’s not reason enough to leave the feed up as is.
Are you kidding? BP’s BRAND?
If these guys spend ONE OUNCE of effort to go against public outrage it PROVES they are not using all their resources to deal with the problem they have YET TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE.
Guess who OWNS BP’s BRAND? EVERYTHING AFFECTED BY THIS DISASTER. EVERY FISHERMAN, THE WILDLIFE, ALL OF US. It’s DYING IN BP’s BRAND. BP’s BRand created the SPIN that allowed it to be a serial offender in this deregulated probusiness nightmare we call a country.
When did BP buy the rights to destroy the Gulf of Mexico? They took it…but do they OWN IT? When does BP pay for destroying a large slice of the earth?
And you want protection for their BRAND!? I know it’s your job, but…really. I think you need to think about your brand by advocating this position.
Makes BP look WORSE? BP’s working overtime to make BP look not as bad as it is with PR! So an indy break out in bad taste rocks their PR boat? Can you imagine if they took YOUR POSITION?
“SAVE OUR BRAND!” our new campaign to improve our reputation in the world we are destroying?
They deserve to be skewered everyway – and they deserve to have as little control over the Public, PR and all what they generally DO CONTROL as they do over continuously destroying the Gulf of Mexico for 40 plus days and years to come.
You are OFF.
My take is that the fake twitter account is completely illegal. No one can steal a brand to make their opinions known, even if they are popular opinions.
On the other hand if BP protests it will further their downfall and reputation.
Twitter is the one responsible for taking a stand against the theft now that they know of it, and closing out the account without BP’s urging. That’s the only solution where no one gets their reps further damaged.
Then the fake account can re-open under their own name. Those followers will follow.
It’s also very bad for Twitter, in my opinion. Part of the Twitter brand – a negative part – is the fake celebrity accounts that keep cropping up. I’d be concerned that people will begin to think all tweets from famous figures might be fake. Pretty soon, they will have a brand more like the Onion: fake news that sounds like the real thing.
I can’t understand why BP would not take action…they should strongly pursue having this taken down. I’m thinking BP is concerned that they will only further enrage their critics and be perceived as ‘big brother’. Still, BP should protect their brand, communicating they understand the vitriol and that there are other places to express it…BP needs any communication perceived as coming from BP to accurately express their position.
Sorry, Joan, but these fake BP twitters are parodies and are protected by copyright/trademark law. By your reasoning, BP should try to block every political cartoon with BP and an oil slick in it. But a parodist can copy/mimic the company symbol/brand as long as it’s clear the intent is to criticize or mock the company, not to take advantage of the company brand to promote the parodist’s own products. BP is LEGALLY correct in saying people have a right to express themselves. Google “trademark law – parody” to clarify.
Parody is protected as a vital part of our freedom of expression. If BP acted to block that, it could find itself spotlighted for fighting criticism of itself, which I think you’ll agree would only be compounding its PR disaster.
“…as long as it’s clear the intent is to criticize…”
It wasn’t clear when the feed was created. There was a lot of confusion as to whether BP had anything to do with it.
[…] official PR feed. After I read Jeanne’s post, I wrote about it at my own blog and asked, Should BP pressure Twitter to remove the fake feed? I linked to the post from my newsletter and from Twitter and […]
this isn’t the first time we’re seeing fake accounts… there was a Sarah Palin twitter one during election season that was all the rage, and there’s also a long-running blog, The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs. I’m sure there’s many more. It would be nice to see a disclaimer, but twitter doesn’t have the right to take down just because the subject is viewed by many as in poor taste. It’s fairly clear to folks with common sense that this feed isn’t coming from BP.
Twitter, or any other social media site, has the right to take down whatever it thinks is violating its terms of service. Facebook does this all the time.
There’s a difference between “poor taste” and “violating terms of service.” Despite any brief confusion when the Twitter account was first created, it pretty quickly established itself as parody, intended to draw attention to BP’s culpability, and to keep people engaged in the issue of corporate greed so that things will change. (I’d also argue with the “poor taste” label regarding the Twitter account in question. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks it’s intent is to “make fun of” the tragedy itself.)
What I find most disturbing about this particular blog discussion, however, is that you, Joan (and, to be fair, others), would spend so much time defending BP’s brand, without giving due attention to how morally bankrupt BP’s actions have been. And calling for this Twitter account to be taken down, despite their donation of thousands of dollars to relief efforts? Unfathomable.
I understand that this is an exercise in PR tactics for you (engaging people on this issue in order to drive them to your blog) as much as it is an attempt to discuss PR strategy in general. I get that, I really do. But you are missing the MUCH bigger picture this time around: This is a pivotal event in our history. No hyperbole. The inexcusable actions of a corporation are, quite literally, destroying our planet. It is SO much more important and devastating than the status of BP’s “brand,” and you’ve paid only the barest, disingenuous lip service to that fact.
I realize that the branding issue is the one that links to your own endeavors, but using this as a PR opportunity for yourself WITHOUT engaging on the bigger issue of WHAT BP HAS DONE TO ALL OF US is just impossible. And your trying to do so makes you look shallow. (“…the company everyone loves to hate”?? Do you not see how insulting that glib comment is?)
I appreciate that there are many sides to this discussion, and I’m glad that you’ve chosen to include comments from people whose opinions differ from yours. But even that reads as just PR tactics. And yes, I realize that is the objective for this blog, and for your profession. But try this: Try to take yourself out of your profession for a moment, and re-read your own comments on here. Then think long and honestly about whether this person is someone you’d want to share your life with, completely unconnected with the PR profession itself. What’s that? You can’t separate yourself completely from your profession? Well, that’s exactly my point.
So, basically, your tactic worked in the short term, but it ultimately backfired in at least one case: You did engage me enough to visit your blog, to be appalled, and to add my reply. But that’s it. I’m done with this little community. It’s too disheartening. And while I have completely lost respect for your process as a professional, at least I’ve re-confirmed the ultimate importance of maintaining, and asserting, one’s own personal integrity regarding what’s truly important, even in the context of using marketing strategies to benefit one’s own business. I think that will continue to serve me better in the long run than it has you.
I’m not defending BP’s brand.
My point is that Twitter shouldn’t allow someone to hijack BP’s brand—or yours or mine or anyone else’s—and create an account that, at first glance, looks like it’s coming from a company’s PR department.
Either print a disclaimer or give the account a different name.
Thanks for adding some spice to this discussion, Mike.
BP is more focused on “damage control” than on being truthful and caring. They could help themselves in the PR department by muzzling their CEO at least. And rather than attacking fake Twitter feeds, they should do a better job of using their own. They didn’t tweet much before the disaster and even now just pimp their press releases. On Facebook, they have disconnected their brand from the disaster by hiding behind a Deepwater Horizon account. More on BP’s failure in social media:
http://merriamassociates.com/2010/05/social-media-slip-bp-can%E2%80%99t-tweet/
BP damaged more than its own brand. It also damaged the image of the communities involved and made it harder for them to compete for capital investment. Read about the work being done to help economic development professionals refurbish their community brands.
http://strengtheningbrandamerica.com/blog/?p=343