by Steve Adubato, PhD

Sometimes it’s not what you say that matters in a crisis, but rather the context in which your comments are received. Consider the case of BP, British Petroleum, the company responsible for what could very well become the largest uncontrolled oil disaster in American history that is currently devastating the Gulf of Mexico.

BP’s current CEO, Tony Hayward, is trying to communicate a lot of the right things in this crisis. So far he’s been pretty good, except for one totally contradictory statement; “This is not our accident, but it’s our responsibility.” (You can’t have it both ways, Tony.)

But here’s the deal. Often when it comes to crisis communication and a company trying to protect its reputation or brand, its track record matters a lot more than what it says in the moment. In BPs case, no matter what they say today, their message in response to the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe is seen in the context of an abysmal safety and environmental track record, which communicates volumes.

In 2005, a BP refinery exploded in Texas City that killed 15 people. At the time, BP reached an agreement with the federal government to fix things. They apologized profusely and said it would never happen again. But just four years later, the federal government found that BP had over 700 safety violations based on an agreement reached after the Texas City incident. BP was fined $88 million for not doing what it said it would do. But it goes back even further. In 2000, by its own admission, BP dumped hazardous waste into Alaska’s North Slope. The next year, it promised it would clean up polluted air from its refineries after it reached a settlement with the Department of Justice given BP’s violations of the Clean Air Act.

There are countless incidents of BP having sloppy and dangerous practices involving its oil refineries and every time they apologized and promised to do better. But, communicating around a serious incident is often seen in historical context. So, who can us for being skeptical of BP or ANY oil-related multi-national corporation given the industry’s track record? Consider the Exxon Valdez incident of 1989, in which 11 million gallons of oil were spilled into Prince William Sound. All these years after that horrible environment disaster, there are over 20,000 gallons of toxic oil remaining on the beaches of Alaska. An entire fishing industry, not to mention the wildlife, was nearly decimated. This isn’t BP’s fault, but beyond its own past problems, it is painted with a broad brush for the actions of its industry.

So, sometimes a company and its leaders can say all the right things. They can apologize. They can promise to fix things and do better. But at a certain point, your audience just doesn’t buy it. They are never going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your credibility is shot. Your brand and reputation have been destroyed. It looks like that’s the case with BP. They’ve reached the point of no return, no matter what they say or do now.

It’s like the husband or boyfriend who has a consistent track record of cheating on his partner, and when he gets caught the 10th time says; “Honey, I’m so sorry. It will never happen again. I promise.” He is saying all the right things, but how much does it really matter to his wife or girlfriend? Like they say; “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Try to fool me more than that and I frankly couldn’t care less what you have to say. That’s where BP is today. Their communication is just about worthless.