Companies using paid search as a branding vehicle is nothing new, however using it as a PR tool is something BP has recently done, with mixed opinions.
Since the oil spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, BP has leveraged paid search campaigns in Google and Yahoo to steer users away from the negative brand listings on the search engine results pages (SERP). Whilst some will perceive this as paying for positive press, others will simply see it as BP adhering to its corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy and keeping the public up to date with its commitment to the clean-up efforts. After all the user will only click on the BP ad if it’s of interest to them.
It could be argued that there are also some financial motives behind this unprecedented move. In just 6 weeks, BP has seen approximately 40% wiped off its share price, with a further $1.43bn incurred to date by the clean-up efforts. Whilst clearly a small scale paid search campaign is going to have little direct impact on the share price and profits of BP, it will be interesting to see what impact it has on consumer / user sentiment, and therefore long term perception of the brand.
A search for keywords such as “oil spill” and “Gulf of mexico oil leak” displays a number of results about the catastrophe and the damage it has caused. Most of the results on the search engines are very negative and are likely to be having a very damaging impact on the BP brand image. Whilst the paid search ads cannot paint a positive picture on the disaster, they do allow users to keep up to date with BP’s official response. BP will be feeling that the more interest (clicks) it can drive to these “Gulf of Mexico Response” pages, the more the public are prepared to listen to its side of the story.
I estimate BP is likely spending in the region of £15k per week on the Gulf of Mexico Response paid search activity, a tiny sum in the grand scheme of things providing it does help to stem / change the current negative impression of the brand. No doubt BP will be monitoring consumer sentiment in the social arena and hoping that some, if only a few, of the negative comments move towards a more positive / neutral scale. If this does happen BP can feel justified in its paid search investment as it will have helped, in part, to effect positive change to customer perception of the brand.
Equally, and a point that BP would argue, is that investing into paid search and providing people with the latest information, is a small price to pay when providing users with accurate up to date detail, direct from those closest to the disaster.
Social media has a huge role to play in relation to CSR. However, social media purists would argue that BP’s paying to alter user perception goes against what social media is all about – free, user generated content. Whilst BP’s using paid search to alter opinions via social media is up for debate, one thing is for sure, more and more companies are investing heavily into monitoring and reacting on social media conversations, so why should BP be any different?
Companies have a responsibility to engage and provide information to their customers. In doing so, they should consider all viable options open, the internet, search engines and social media included. Afterall, more and more people are turning to these media as their first port of call when it comes to finding or obtaining up to the minute information on world events.
The BP oil leak is no different. Is BP trying to manipulate what the public see on the SERP in order to protect its brand, or is it adhering to CSR and giving users the information they are looking for?
BP is simply acting in the users best interest and giving the public access to official information and updates that they are looking for. If by investing into paid search BP is also protecting its brand, then all the better!
Matthew Whiteway
Director of Campaign Management (Paid Search)
Greenlight