Bp oil spill pr case study

Running head: BP REPUTATION

BP REPUTATION

STUDENTS NAME:

Tutor’s Name

Date

BP’S OIL LEAKAGE.

Q1. How would you assess BP’s response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

BP’s response to the Gulf of Mexico would have been assessed by recording their activities aimed at controlling the spill as well as measuring the effectiveness of these activities which simply means establishing whether or not the BP’s approaches to tame the spill brought about any hope. Interviews and questionnaires to members of public would seek the public opinions on the company’s response to the spill.

Q2. How could BP have prevented the damage done by its CEO spokesman? By discussing what would be communicated to the public before any statements would be made by the spokesman.

Q3. Had you been advising Hayward what would have suggested he say in the questions he was asked?

My suggestion would have been that he play down and cease from giving precise answers such as giving the exact volume of the leaks. I would also advise him not to predict anything for anything could happen and render the predictions null.

Q4. What should Walmart’s public relation posture be going forward relative to the bribery charges?

This would simply be allowing internal investigations to take place and play down any positive results.

TYLENOL MURDERS.

Q1. What might have been the consequences had Johnson & Johnson decided to” tough out “first reports of Tylenol related deaths and not recall the product

Had the company decided “tough out” the first reports Tylenol related deaths then it would have been concluded that indeed Tylenol product was poisonous and Johnson & Johnson was aware of that.

Q2. What other public relation options did Johnson & Johnson have in responding to the first round of Tylenol murders?

An alternative public relation option for the company was to carry out an investigation on what exactly had caused the deaths and explain it to the public if they were sure that Tylenol was safe.

Q3.did Company made wise decision by introducing extra strength Tylenol?

I think it was wise to re-introduce extra strength Tylenol. Chances are that customers could not trust it but its re introduction served to “ cleanse” the company or rather it was some sort of a statement that Johnson & Johnson was sure that their Tylenol products were safe.

Q4. In the light of the other companies, do you think Johnson and Johnsons acted quickly to remove the Tylenol products?

Johnson & Johnson should not have taken such a decision. First, the decision communicated “panic “in the company and second, other companies saw it as a way of “claiming responsibility. “

Q5. What specific reasons can be derived from the way they handle the public relations aspect of these tragedies?

The first reason was definitely to maintain their possibly scared customers and the second reason was to ensure that their products remained trusted and clear of any doubts.

Q6. What was media environment when Tylenol crises occurred? How might have the results different if the crises occurred today?

The media environment must have been” a shoulder to cry on”, they willingly offered a platform on which the company assured their esteemed customers on the safety of Tylenol and educated the public on what their product was made of. These results would have been a complete opposite had the crises happened today, the media would be an s hostile as the desert. It would be the first to point fingers no to mention how they would broadcast all the negative public opinion.

Q7. How do the website sections demonstrate Johnson & Johnson concerns for customers? How do you think they would use this website if the new health scares surfaced?

The website demonstrates the companies concern for customers by availing a website to allow the customers air their concerns and present their products. If any health scares surfaced the company would use the website to assess the situation and avail possible solutions through the same.

WALMART’S BRIBELY SHUT DOWN

Q1. Had you been public relations officer to CEO Scott at the time of the bribery allegations, what would you have counselled him to do?

Had I been the advisor to CEO Scott I would counsel him to first not to shut down internal investigations for it would have led to a clear honest p[picture of what was actually happening in the company and still manage to lock out the public from the results of the internal investigation whether positive or negative. This means that that external investigation would have been avoided had the CEO thought of internal investigation. Second, it would have been wise to report the existence of the internal investigation to the US in time rather than waiting for whole seven years.

Q2. How would you characterize Walmart’s internal and external response to the bribery charges?

I would characterize the company’s response to bribery charges as vague. First the internal investigation was shut down, second the internal investigation was too brought to light after seven years, and third the top official who was appointed to investigate the allegations was a Walmart’s top official target. It’s therefore not clear whether Walmart brought forward evidence to clear them of the bribery allegations or they simply downplayed the allegations.

Q3. How significantly do you think the bribery allegations impacted the company’s reputation?

Chances are that these allegations did not have a great impact on the company. First it is because the allegations did not have a direct impact on the customers or the employees. Second, no solid evidence was presented to the public to confirm the allegations.

Q4. What should Walmart’s public relations posture be going forward relative to the bribery charges?

This would allow internal investigation to take place and play down any positive results that could suggest bribery.