BP’s Brand Hyprocrisy

The Beyond Petroleum positioning of BP may have been little more than hundreds of millions of dollars spent in greenwashing.

According to The Power Grid column in yesterday’s New York magazine, BP’s investment in hydrogen, wind, solar, and biofuels amounts to just 6 percent of its overall capital expenditures.

While this is certainly a significant amount in terms of dollars (or pounds) spent, it pales in comparison to what BP spends annually on oil exploration and production.

And this does not include, writes John Heilemann, “the tens of millions of dollars that BP has spent on lobbying against safety regulations, even as it’s compiled the most abysmal safety record of any major oil company.”

One key point in the article: safety violations by BP over the past five years totaled 760, as compared to only one for Exxon Mobil.

As we wrote yesterday, media monitoring firm General sentiment calculates that BP has lost $1 billion in brand value since the Gulf Oil spill.

It’s not the fact that BP had an accident that makes this brand suspect; it’s the manner in which they have tried to pass off blame and responsibility that bothers most.

Add to the above the 700,000 “friends” who have signed on to one of the three Boycott BP pages on Facebook, and you have a brand that is approaching free fall.

Sadly, the BP Board doesn’t seem to get this yet. By the time they do, it will be too late. (Another reason why Marketing needs to be brought into Corporate Boardrooms.)

The tombstone for the BP brand is being readied, and the graveyard of Enron, WorldCom, HIH Insurance, and myriad others awaits.

Telstra Backflips on Fee for Paying Bills

Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications provider, has withdrawn a controversial A$2.20 fee imposed in September for customer payments made over-the-counter or by mail for monthly phone bills.

“This decision has been taken because it is the right thing to do by our customers,” a Telstra spokesman said. Telstra CEO David Thodey announced the decision to cancel the deeply unpopular fee at the company’s annual general meeting last week.

In our Monday Morning Marketing Memo dated 7 September, we wrote “If Mr. Thodey and his colleagues at Telstra are truly serious about improving customer satisfaction across the company, they need to have a serious look at the fees and surcharges that are not only driving customers crazy, but are also driving customers like me away.”

It appears that the senior management of Telstra has listened to customers like me, who spoke out vociferously against the imposition of this new fee, particularly at a time when Telstra’s corporate reputation and customer service levels are both being hammered.

One leading journalist in Australia referred to “the friendless Telstra” in an article last month, while the headline in an article last week read “Telstra arrogance towards customers exposed as Thodey moves on admin fee.”

As Mr. Thodey told the Telstra annual meeting audience, “We tried to impose this charge without first listening to the people it would affect.” He also admitted that the payment fee has caused customers to defect. [Nothing surprising in that!]

Removing this fee is a major first step in renewing customer preference for the Telstra brand. Hopefully Telstra has learned a great lesson about the need to listen to customers and engage its customer base in a proactive, two-way dialogue.

The other critical lesson here is the need for Marketing to have a presence in the Corporate Boardroom. Telstra’s Board is stocked with lawyers, accountants, financial managers and technical experts. Someone with a marketing focus could have easily advised the Telstra Board that this payment fee was not going to be readily accepted by the company’s customer base.

GM Promises New Focus on Customers

CEO of the “new” General Motors, Fritz Henderson, said last week that “business as usual was over at General Motors” and that the carmaker “would focus on customers, cars and culture.”

No wonder GM, once the world’s largest carmaker, went broke! Apparently in the “old” GM a focus on customers was not a component of their usual business practices.

It amazes me how many companies, and Boards of Directors, fail to maintain a focus on customers. When too much attention is placed on internal processes, financial scorecards, and empire building, the poor old customer just gets lost in the shuffle.

General Motors is a classic example of why there needs to be a greater presence for marketing expertise in the corporate boardroom. Until this happens, we will continue to see many industrial stalwarths, such as GM, collapse, causing pain to thousands of employees, families, suppliers and even entire communities.

Let’s hope the “new” GM gets it right this time!