BP, ChevronTexaco, and ExxonMobil

I read a headline in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday describing an offer by the Saudi government to operate its oil industry at maximum capacity. The Saudis, who rely heavily on oil revenues, hoped to neutralize any chance that a shortage in global oil supply would create an overall economic downturn and reduce, perhaps permanently, skyrocketing demand for their oil over the long term.

The fact is that no matter who you talk to, global energy demands will increase by at least 50% by 2030. America in particular has enjoyed a one-time blessing in “black gold” bounty since the precious substance’s discovery in Titusville, PA in 1859. With this essay loitering over my weekend while gasoline prices remain at record highs, the oil industry seemed as interesting an industry as any to analyze through the filter of their online public relations activity.

I think the public that British Petroleum (BP), ChevronTexaco, and ExxonMobil seek to serve includes the global consumer-public at large as well as the more-interested, investor-public. Two of the three oil companies I analyzed display pictures of people on their home pages. BP was the exception, but in the pages beyond their home page, testimonials and Q&A featuring regular folks’ concerns and statements were abundant.

When I accessed these Sites, ChevronTexaco had been carrying a picture of a young child of dark complexion, possibly to create some sense of acknowledgement that Chevron’s oil exploration in Africa, like that of all three companies, was under some measure of international scrutiny. This seems to me an example of a PR tactic where the corporation identifies a threatening, vulnerable, or unpopular perception based on some widely understood fact—in this case, that oil exploration has harmed people in emerging nations—then co-opts negative stories, even criticizing its own industry to neutralize skepticism. Each of the three companies’ Web sites caters to a varied, global audience whose shared commonality, aside from oil dependence, appears to be skepticism over industry conduct and long-term industry viability.

This was the most striking similarity I encountered on all three Web sites. The facts are in: oil, at its best, is a necessary evil. By subtly conceding their industry’s culpability in environmental and humanitarian dilemmas, oil corporations may preserve this image that they are doing what they can to improve our “quality of life,”—I saw this weighty verbiage in at least one location on all three sites.

War in the Middle East, Asia’s projected energy demands, and all-around market uncertainty create anxiety among shareholders. Those with dollars invested in BP for instance, may look towards the company’s mantra of sustainability and care not about environmental responsibility nor a less-dependent future. Rather, sustainability has a different connotation for the shareholders of oil securities. This more specialized, economically-interested audience sees dollar signs in front of price volatility. But what is the sustainability of any industry that trades in inarguably finite resources?

Serving the target audience:

BP has the cleanest, “greenest” theme with the catchy warmth of their sunburst-like logo reinforcing their image as a sincerely responsible petrol company. ChevronTexaco has the most bland, conservative Site, while ExxonMobil’s seems to communicate an air of technological authority—as if perhaps when the oil runs dry, Exxon will be there with new technology to keep our economies chugging?

I found ExxonMobil’s scrolling banner to be the cleverest use of rich Web content to present large amounts of content, while avoiding a cluttered appearance. The graphics and images filling the scrolling banner are just catchy enough, and the topics sufficiently diverse and interesting, to keep the casual visitor’s attention for the 15 seconds it takes for the banner to scroll through its seven categories represented by clickable images. Below the scrolling banner, a list of “quick links” provides access to press-related information, and other components of the online company identity. BP and ChevronTexaco’s sites are more traditional and quite similar with link bars that connect to six or seven different areas of content including company information, investment, environmental concerns/sustainability, and press relations.

As these are global operations serving global consumers, a visitor can access region-specific corporate Sites. Very little, if any, change in appearance, architecture, or content presentation is noticeable on these separate Sites.

Each of the three main Web sites carries well over one hundred pages of content. To check out the Site architecture, it’s helpful to access the Site map, or Site index provided at the top of each homepage.

For specific information inquiry, the three Sites provide a search box. The search feature is another way to get a sense of the breadth of these sites; BP’s search feature called up 51 separate pages, presentations, or files when I searched for “Iraq.”

Stickiness and return visits:

The popularity of blogs may be attributable to the fresh perspective and content they offer up on a daily basis. If fresh content brings people to blogs, then perhaps the “news” or headlines features of each of these Sites is analogous to the same purpose of posting on a blog. ChevronTexaco and Exxon use “latest news” subheadings to call the visitor’s attention to new developments that affect their respective corporate images. BP’s site updates content under their “press release” subheading. By the dates on each release or news story, I was able to determine that each company releases new content on its site at least twice weekly.

One recommendation I have for all companies engaged in heavy PR activity is to offer your news releases as RSS feeds. None of the three offer their content in RSS. Corporate Web sites bore me, and I think any corporate message would enjoy greater “stickiness” were it offered as a syndicated message that come to my browser’s bookmarks or newsreader’s inbox. The closest approximation I could identify was an email newsletter offered on all three Sites.

Press access:

The Web has in some ways put the “public” back into “public relations.” As a direct two-way, gatekeeper free medium, PR efforts no longer rely on broadcast or print journalism to reach the masses as they once did. Still, the prominence of journalists as an elite target audience is evident on each Site.

Barriers to access were a non-issue for information provided on any of the Sites. No areas appear to be off limits. BP’s feedback-form was indicative of the limited interactivity available on the three Sites. While vulnerable to mischief, perhaps a carefully moderated comments section where visitors could read actual Q&A between corporate reps and the public would help build community and provide a sampling of public opinion useful for marketing purposes.

All three Sites offer links to their media offices, with BP’s being by far the most specific with over 25 phone numbers throughout the world. The amount of material provided specifically for the press reinforces an earlier notion (before this week's module) that the Web has provided PR professionals an unprecedented means to compose concise, standardized corporate communication and present it in a universally accessible manner.