On March 24, 1989, one of the worst recorded oil spills occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska (Seitel, 2011, p.100). A 987-foot tanker from Exxon Mobil Corp., the Exxon Valdez, spilled 260,000 barrels of oil after the intoxicated ship captain “ran aground on a reef 25 miles southwest of the port of Valdez” (Seitel, 2011, p.101). The oil spill damaged over 1,300 square miles of coast line and caused the death of various sea life, including over 4,000 Alaskan sea otters (Seitel, 2012, p.101). Exxon Mobil’s public relations approach to the crisis received criticism and the mistake affected the company nearly twenty years later. The first criticism against Exxon was the fact Chairman Rawl did not go to Alaska himself after the disaster, but instead sent lower ranking executives in his place. Seitel (2011) states it is important to “…defend, and maintain an organization’s reputation” (p.96). As a top manager of the organization, Rawl should have gone to Alaska to ensure the public that the company had direct involvement with the clean up efforts. The organization should have sent Chairman Rawl to the port of Valdez to show the company was genuinely concerned enough about the issue to involve top level management. Another mistake Exxon made revolved around how the company interacted with the media.
…show more content…
The company decided that the site of the oil spill would be the media headquarters. However, this decision was an issue because “Valdez was a remote Alaskan town with limited communications operations” (Seitel, 2011, p.101). Phone lines were frequently jammed and journalists had a difficult time reporting on the oil spill because of the restrictive communication barriers. As a result, it was speculated that Exxon was covering up information. The company should have been sensitive to the media elsewhere in the world and updated them through press conferences held at suitable locations and times. Furthermore, the lack of media relations resulted in “…accusations of an Exxon cover-up” (Seitel, 2011, p.101). Exxon should have made the truth easily available to journalists. Exxon would have shown responsibility and avoided a negative reputation if they had been in contact with the media immediately after the oil spill and throughout the recovery process. The final mistake Exxon made in dealing with the Valdez oil spill was in regard to the timing and content of their response to the crisis. Rawl waited a full week until he publicly announced the oil spill and when he did he blamed others (Seitel, 2011, p.101). Seitel (2011) suggests “a cardinal rule in a crisis is: Keep ahead of the information flow-try not to let events get ahead of you” (p.101). Exxon should have initially made a statement that addressed the general occurrence of what happened as soon as they received the news. This crisis affected not only the company internally, but also communities, the oil industry, government, and the environment. Information needed to be distributed to the publics as soon as it was available. The overall public relations strategy Exxon took in response to the oil spill was a low key approach. The company should have been more proactive and taken a middle-of-the-road strategy. If the company would have done this they would have addressed the oil spill to the media immediately, had the chairman go to the
The company decided that the site of the oil spill would be the media headquarters. However, this decision was an issue because “Valdez was a remote Alaskan town with limited communications operations” (Seitel, 2011, p.101). Phone lines were frequently jammed and journalists had a difficult time reporting on the oil spill because of the restrictive communication barriers. As a result, it was speculated that Exxon was covering up information. The company should have been sensitive to the media elsewhere in the world and updated them through press conferences held at suitable locations and times. Furthermore, the lack of media relations resulted in “…accusations of an Exxon cover-up” (Seitel, 2011, p.101). Exxon should have made the truth easily available to journalists. Exxon would have shown responsibility and avoided a negative reputation if they had been in contact with the media immediately after the oil spill and throughout the recovery process. The final mistake Exxon made in dealing with the Valdez oil spill was in regard to the timing and content of their response to the crisis. Rawl waited a full week until he publicly announced the oil spill and when he did he blamed others (Seitel, 2011, p.101). Seitel (2011) suggests “a cardinal rule in a crisis is: Keep ahead of the information flow-try not to let events get ahead of you” (p.101). Exxon should have initially made a statement that addressed the general occurrence of what happened as soon as they received the news. This crisis affected not only the company internally, but also communities, the oil industry, government, and the environment. Information needed to be distributed to the publics as soon as it was available. The overall public relations strategy Exxon took in response to the oil spill was a low key approach. The company should have been more proactive and taken a middle-of-the-road strategy. If the company would have done this they would have addressed the oil spill to the media immediately, had the chairman go to the