Brands Behaving Badly, Summer 2010 Gold Medalist, BP

Ok, we all knew it was going here.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, we're going to do our best to add some insights on the BP disaster from a branding and brand strategy perspective.

Admittedly, it's not easy to frame the Gulf disaster as a branding issue. But as people who live and breathe this stuff it's hard to look at this mess and not think about the consequences when businesses fail to live up to their brand promises—and how it would have been avoided had BP simply lived their brand. It's also become apparent how much more attention BP has attracted—at least partly because of the strength of their brand—than the two other highly culpable, but less well-branded businesses, Halliburton and Transocean. 

BP seemingly did so much right in repositioning and reinventing themselves. They hired Landor, one of the most accomplished branding firms in the business. The old-world petroleum giant was first to the punch in positioning themselves as a leader of the green/alternative energy revolution. Years before $4 a gallon gas made the world start thinking hard about alternative energy, BP separated themselves from the crowd of oil multinationals by optimistically pointing towards a renewable energy future—and redefining what an oil company could be. 

Their rollout for the new brand was impressive, and it was hard to not stand up and take notice. When brand rollouts are done well it's hard not to be optimistic about the future. That's what they're designed to do.

BP's big mistake was not living up to their brand promise. We all now know how they have the worst recent record for OSHA safety violations of any oil company. And to some degree, when it comes to oil operations that are increasingly difficult to run, as oil becomes increasingly difficult to obtain, we should't be surprised.

It takes a little more than one bad actor to create a disaster like the Gulf oil spill. Disasters of this magnitute usually happen when there's a systemic, industry-wide push to discard risk in search of profits. We saw it in the financial services sector, and in this case, we saw it clearly when each major oil-company's gulf-disaster response plans were identically flawed. BP is the oil industry's Bear Sterns.

So while we know BP is one of the worst offenders, the BP disaster was less an aberration, and more the likely outcome in an industry where the chase for dwindling oil profits lead to increasingly risky behavior. And honestly, did any of us believe that oil companies drilled in environmentally responsible ways? But BP jumped ut in front and said "we're going to be a different kind of oil company." Exxon, sort of refreshingly, has been silent on a strong rebranding initiative promoting their commitment to being an alternative energy leader. When it comes to their brand, we simply expect less from them.

And its because of this bold claim that the Gulf disaster is magnified all the more. I mean, they're the oil company with the bright, sunny, floral logo. They made a pact with us and then violated the terms. To see how cynically BP viewed their brand promise, you can look to one specific instance in California.

Since 2002, BP has had in its corporate code of conduct, a specific instruction to "make no political contributions, whether in cash or in kind, anywhere in the world." In this, they would to stay above the fray of the kind of political influence peddling the oil industry is famous for. That's why, of course, since 2002, BP has donated at least $4.8 million to political groups in North America alone. 

In and of itseslf, we don't find this notable from a brand perspective. Violations of corporate codes of conduct (much different than a brand promise) are to be expected pretty much from every multinational. And influence peddling is part of the game; everyone knows that. In this case, it's how BP spent their money that matters most. 

In 2006, one of BP's greatest areas of focus was throwing money at successfully defeating California's Prop 87 in 2006. What's Prop 87? An initiative put on the ballot that would have created “a $4 billion program to reduce petroleum consumption through incentives for alternative energy, education and training. Funded by tax on California oil producers." (smartvote.org) 

It's one thing to lobby for looser regulations that make it easier for you to run your core operations, even if it is oil exploration That sort of corporate behavior is standard practice and none of us should be surprised. But BP's brand strategy was built on the premise that they would move us "beyond petroleum." Not that they wouldn't make money on petroleum, but that they would help us move to a better place. They made their brand about delivering alternative energy at scale—and then undercut the development of the market for it at the same time. 

So for us, it's less about the Gulf disaster itself. It's BP's very lound and public lie that's so shocking. We expect stuff like this from the Exxons of the world; BP told us they were different. But like so many companies, their branding was actually PR in disguise,

The irony here is that the fantastic surface rebranding job BP did is now coming badk to haunt them. Landor's incredibly well-designed identity has now become an anchor around the company's neck. The visual simplicity, beauty and power of their logo has made itincredibly susceptible to manipulation. You've seen the T-shirts and street art of their redesigned oil-stained logo everywhere.

Irony on top of irony, Greenpeace has taken advantage of this opportunity and launched a campaign to redesign the company's logo to publicize their own cause. BP's logo is being used by an environmental group to fight against oil companies and promote the very kind of clean environment BP told us they stood for. 

As a result, BP's visual identity, and possibly their name are no longer viable. They'll have to wait for the dispersant to settle and then rebrand themselves again.

How's that for a strategic design challenge?