1. What benefits would BP have gained from starting a serious social media campaign a year before instead of a month after the oil spill? Be as specific as possible.
2. While the parody account was positing on Twitter, BP asked for the account to be shut down. The social media site refused, saying that parodies were allowed under its terms of service. Is there a better way BP could have handled the accounts making fun of them?
3. BP was criticised for underestimating the extent of the oil spill at first: The company is underestimated the leak’s size by as much as a fifth of the real amount. Would BP have been
better off to report a higher number and perhaps risk overestimating the extent of the leak? Why or why not?
4. Go on YouTube and view Tony Hayward’s apology. Was this a well-constructed social media message? Should YouTube have been used differently, the same, or not at all in presenting BP’s case? Explain your argument.
5. Do some external research and look up the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Compare and contrast Exxon’s and BP’s responses to their respective crises. How successful were they in comparison? How much of a difference can be attributed to a change in the times, different
corporate cultures, or media strategies? Cite your sourc
