BP Plc plans to name Robert Dudley to succeed Tony Hayward as chief executive officer as the board looks to recover the company’s position in the U.S., two people with knowledge of the matter said.
Dudley, the director of BP’s oil spill response unit, is ready to be announced as the company’s first American chief and to take the helm Oct. 1, one of the people said, asking not to be identified because a final decision hasn’t yet been made. The decision was reached in discussions with board members about how best to take BP forward and rebuild its U.S. position, the person said. The BP board meets today to “rubber stamp” the plan, the second person said.
“The fact he is American should help to keep things a little more straightforward in his dealings with the U.S. administration,” said Ted Harper, who helps manage $6.8 billion at Frost Investment Advisors in Houston. He doesn’t hold BP stock. “Dudley’s most important task will continue to be making sure that the well is capped.”
Warren Buffett, the billionaire “Oracle of Omaha” agreed with our previous assertions that BP CEO Tony Hayward (already pushed in the background, but still a symbol for the mess BP made) should be fired.
Good to know we’re on the right side of the Berkshire Hathaway investment genius.
Click on the link below to view the brief video on slide 7 “Buffett on BP.”
A key thing he said is that BP would be “listening” to all parties. A smart move, as this is the first step in making amends: letting people vent, express their feelings and list what they need to be made whole. This is a good first step in raising BP’s sunken PR ship. He also stayed out of the prickly federal moratorium issue.
The question is, will he make a difference over the long haul?
The Wall Street Journal’s blog has an excellent rundown of opinions from the punditocracy.
We’ll be watching, and yep, commenting on the PR moves made by all players in this tragic situation.
What do you think? The comments section awaits your thoughts.
BP’s chairman has apologized for saying the company cares about the “small people” of the Gulf Coast hit by the oil disaster — a comment met with anger by those who say they are tired of the company’s executives making insensitive remarks.
On Wednesday, Carl-Henric Svanberg told reporters in Washington: “I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don’t care, but that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people.” He later said he was sorry for speaking “clumsily.”
Okay, fair enough, English is not his first language, but this does not excuse his PR people–who should have vetted his remarks prior to the press conference. Certainly, CEOs can be intimidating and unwilling to do such things with underlings, but after the previous disasters it would have been prudent. I have worked as a public relations adviser in incidents of much less import and certainly a lower scale emergency, yet I insisted my boss go over his talking points with me prior to the interview. It’s what a public relations professional is supposed to do. Anything else is careless, spineless or just plain malpractice.
Also, remember when we said foot-in-mouth disease sufferer and BP CEO Tony Hayward should “take one for the team” and resign? How about another reason:
Of course, there is something to be said for taking a moment or two to “get his life back.”
Just a stunning lack of competence on the part of the BP P.R. team. I hate to pile on, but there’s just no excuse.
What should BP CEO (and foot-in-mouth disease victim) Tony Hayward do to ease the PR disaster of the oil spill?
Assigning one spokesperson who can stay on message is a start.
Two spokespersons (Hayward and COO Doug Suttles seems to be in a pissing match over who gets to shoot their mouth off in front of the cameras) in a crisis communications situation is almost never a good idea, especially when there is apparently no message coordination. Hayward needs to be silent. Some argue he needs to put on a hard hat and clean up the mess with crews on the beach. That’s ridiculous. People will perceive that BP is once again trying–and failing–to manipulate the story in their favor in a blatant way. As CEO, he needs to issue carefully vetted, printed statements only– and only statements that support what their designated spokesperson is saying to the media. If they picked Suttles, he at least has a presence that doesn’t suggest complete ineptitude and emotional vacancy.
Or…
Hayward should take one for the team and resign. He’s a dead man walking already; BP will certainly give him the boot once this whole mess is over. But I think it would speak volumes if he were to exit stage left now. It might just give BP a moment of breathing room with the public so they can get their PR act together. I can’t say I’m optimistic about this happening though.
And P.S.: BP’s apparent heavy handed attitude towards the media (i.e blocking access)is PR suicide.
To say the least I’m perplexed about BP and their response to the oil spill in the Gulf. I could (and may) write a White Paper on all the mistakes and missed opportunities, but for today let’s talk about their spokespersons.
They’ve made some obviously vague and tone deaf statements–especially recently with CEO Tony Hayward’s assertion that the spill’s environmental impact will be “very, very modest”:
Yeah, tell that to the fishermen, Tony. Their impending “modest” bankruptcies are no biggie.
Hayward’s wishful thinking out loud makes the situation worse for BP, particularly when his own COO Doug Suttles (who I give points to for making himself available to the media) apparently contradicted him on the Today Show this morning (last few seconds of this piece):
Two spokespersons in a crisis communications situation is almost never a good idea, especially when there is no message coordination. It’s certainly played a role in BP’s long-standing environmentally-responsible image–which now resides somewhere in the vicinity of that leaking well on the bottom of the sea.
Developing…we’ll have more analysis shortly.
In the meantime, what do you think? Should BP’s CEO stay out of the messaging, or does it really matter at this point?
federal moratorium issue.
Hayward needs to be silent. Some argue he needs to put on a hard hat and clean up the mess with crews on the beach. That’s ridiculous. People will perceive that BP is once again trying–and failing–to manipulate the story in their favor in a blatant way. As CEO, he needs to issue carefully vetted, printed statements only– and only statements that support what their designated spokesperson is saying to the media. If they picked Suttles, he at least has a presence that doesn’t suggest complete ineptitude and emotional vacancy.
Two spokespersons in a crisis communications situation is almost never a good idea, especially when there is no message coordination. It’s certainly played a role in BP’s long-standing environmentally-responsible image–which now resides somewhere in the vicinity of that leaking well on the bottom of the sea.
