This entry was posted on Thursday, October 7th, 2010 at 4:00 pm and is filed under Communication Ethics, Negative Messages, Social Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
We can only assume that BP’s website has been hacked. As of October 7, 2010, the “Contacts” page in the “Gulf of Mexico Response” section of BP’s website links to a parody Twitter account, @Oil_Spill_2010. The downloadable PDF (see link above) has current captures of the BP webpage, the parody Twitter account, and BP’s real Twitter account.
This is not the first Twitter parody account associated with the spill, either. Another spoof account, @BPGlobalPR, currently has 188,000 followers—ten times more than BP’s own Twitter account.
Aside from the matter of tighter website security to prevent hacked links, this situation highlights the challenge of responding to negative information in a social media environment. Here are some related questions to discuss with your students:
- Are parody efforts an effective form of protest communication?
- Are such parodies ethical from the perspective of all stakeholders?
- In general, how should a company respond to social media attacks on its reputation, particularly in the case of a Twitter account such as @BPGlobalPR, which has a much larger following than the company’s own account?
- Should BP engage @BPGlobalPR directly (by having a company representative respond to its tweets) or indirectly (relying on its own PR efforts to counter the negative information)?
- How should a company respond if someone is spreading demonstrably false information about its products, operations, or executives?