COMMENTS
I don't think so at all. If it's unethical for BP to outspend and control this message, what message is it ok to bid on? Only product-related keywords? It's important for BP to be driving the bus of public opinion so that they're not thrown under it. If they were black-hatting this then there would be an issue, but this is driving traffic via PPC for keywords important to your business - there's no precedent that says that they have to be only related to sales. PR damage control is legit.
If, for example, there was a bunch of negative noise about an ARG experiment that went awry, would that company be wrong to bid on "HubSpot ARG" and link it to the explanatory article so that they could realistically deliver their message to consumers? I don't think so :P
</rant>
In what way is it unethical? Because it pushes down other news results? And those news results are also "buying" space, right? It's the same thing exactly. People are getting news from paid search ads.
I see what you are trying to drive towards but this is a way for BP to at least get a message out there, lord only knows everyone else is talking for them (sure, what they say is propoganda but still...). From what I can see, all they are doing is providing news. Will you write a post every time there is a flood and insurance companies geo-target their ads to appeal to those affected.
Toyota did exactly the same thing a few months ago when they had all their issues. I don't see what the difference is and why this prompted a blog post over that.
Moreover, define unethical...in this case, I don't think it applies. If they were using this as a platform to exonerate themselves, passing the blame or disseminating falsehoods. I hear the BP COO say these very things every day in his TV interviews. Is that unethical too?
I agree I do not think it is unethical at all, if anything I commend BP for stepping up to the plate and making it as easy as possible for people to find out "What BP is doing" about the situation.
They are being proactive in communicating the facts to prevent rumors and lies about the company and how it is handling this aweful situation--Kudos to BP!
It's not unethical because there is general consensus/knowledge regarding how PPC works - the person with the biggest wallet wins. But it is a highly questionable strategy because it is perceived to be "spin" rather than transparency and they should be spending all their time and effort plugging the hole rather than managing expectations. My opinion is that they are stupid for using this tactic and it has created far more ill will, than benefit
Unethical? In no way shape or form.
It feels as though this post is designed to get people to respond. Blogging 101 I guess... ;)
@Dan - so they should cease ALL marketing perhaps and divert ALL their financial resources to plugging the hole? Face it, Marketing and PR will always have its separate budget. In all honestly, I don't think a simple paid search campaign can add to the ill-will BP is facing for allowing millions of gallons of oil into the gulf of Mexico - they already have enough ill-will to last a lifetime.
I am not sure it is unethical, but it does put them in a bad light and makes them look shady. People go there looking for unbiased information on the oil spill, and they get a PPC ad by BP explaining how they are helping. Overall, given the circumstances, it seems like a bad marketing strategy.
I suppose it is not unethical in the technical sense, but I did feel a pang of guilt clicking through to see what info the page had - like I had a part in contributing to the spike in BP web traffic which is what makes this feel dirty. What a tangled web.
Pleazzzzzze! Are you serious? It's unethical for a company to attempt to control its own image? What, like it's a zero sum spending issue between the cleanup efforts and PPC? Let's hope that's not the case or the taxpayers will be funding the cleanup.
So by this standard, any type of crisis brand protection campaign is unethical, such as a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal or a TV ad campaign.
I have no love for BP, but they are in one heck a situation (yes, largely of their own doing) and it doesn't do any of us any good for them to go out of business, since we want them to bankroll the cleanup and to support the industries that have been affected. There are millions of people slamming them, most of which have no idea what they are talking about and now it's unethical for them to try to save their image?
Ridiculous.
I don't think so. It's a stretch to accuse a company that is aiming to control its image and the situation of being unethical. Are the newspaper ads they take out in the Times unethical? Fundamentally, it's the same thing and, to @Dan's point, that's pretty much how newspaper advertising works too.
I'm glad to see that the majority here thinks BP is certainly within its rights to spend its money on this PPC campaign. On the HS Facebook page, opinion is running the opposite direction.
There's so much attention being focused on this one spill, which I do admit is a disaster, but the oil industry has been destroying - and enriching - south Louisiana for decades.
I grew up in south Louisiana and have seen first hand the rising water, disappearing land, and saltwater intrusion resulting from the multitudinous canals cut through the marsh. If you want to see some of my photos and read about it, go to:
http://hub.am/dgtyIA
It's actually quite clever of them, especially since BP is the #1 search term.
It's about as unethical as it is for beer and liquor companies to advertise at NASCAR and Indy car events. Think about it, they're advertising drinking at an event that centers around driving, two things that when put together are often fatal. The point is we could spend all day looking for companies to scold and label as unethical.
I think Mo hit the nail on the head. It would be ridiculous to think that BP wouldn't do everything in its power to recover its image. There are thousands of people who work for BP, many of whom have families. I don't know about anyone else, but I hate to hear about people losing their jobs regardless of what company they work for.
I wonder if the author is using a baiting headline or is being provocatively stupid.
If PPC is "manipulating" results, Google needs to go into the oil business. It's not unethical for BP to communicate with an interested audience (not that they are doing a good job of it.)
You know it's not, but you are getting people to engage with the topic. :)
What great comments so far! As the author, I was actually responding to the article I linked to at the beginning of the article (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/08/bp-manipulating-search-results-google-oil-spill/), which explains that the critics, not myself, are accusing BP of "manipulating" search results and claiming their PPC campaign to be "unethical." I wanted to question the critics' use of these two words to describe BP's strategy, and I knew readers would have some great opinions either way (as is evident by all these comments) and engage in some thought-provoking discussion around the topic.
Thanks, everyone -- keep up the great comments!
I don't think its unethical but it is a lost cause and waste of money.
BP has posted this Oil Spill video on YouTube and disabled comments to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKcrDaiGE2s
How about that for a PR move.
This isn't unethical at all. BP is clearly using the ppc ads to inform consumers looking for information and has an appropriate landing page. Consumer choice about clicking through to BP information, which they indicate on the ad. Seems like an ideal way to get their message out.
I agree the efford is controversial. Like most new things are. Here in Germany we had a very inacurate report of BP's PPC campaign, they actually said the company bought keywords from Google and Yahoo so it appeared something very black hat was going on. For me it was clear from the beginning a PPC was meant but I don't think this is what other people will think after this reports.
As far as I heard the PPC costs a few $10K, I don't think this kind of money would bring the big difference to the effords taken in the gulf and the coast lines.
Don't you always say to respond to negative news about your company or you?
Otherwise other people will tell the story for you.
I think it's a great idea since the BP is the number 1 search term!
Has anyone thought that they are buying the PPC's because it keeps out the bad news from buying them? That is why it is unethical.
This "critic" got it wrong in saying "What it effectively does is that it bumps down other legitimate news and opinion pieces that are addressing the spill" -
They just bid higher so that their ad would be there instead of another ad. An ad would be sitting there anyway. I think it was smart to control that top ad slot.
I think that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. BP is paying for that spot, and as horrible as this spill is - the page they link to shows they are doing their best to keep the public updated and is an easy way to find claim information for gulf natives. BP has to be proactive online and while their damage is undeniably damaged, I think this ad and content is providing a service to the public.
BP has the right indeed to pay for clicks as they see fit, this is two fold, control the external buzz about it online and the marketers within BP are able to justify their existence to their shareholders. Any press is good press as they will spin their actions to the best of their ability.
Big Oil has had and will have the control for some time to come. The minuscule cost of PPC to get their voice heard is what they should be doing. Let's hope that they continue to make progress and the US makes progress on less dependence.
What BP is doing in a PPC campaign isn't unethical because it is clearly marked as "sponsored link." I think they are banking on people clicking on that first link without really paying attention. Do I like this tactic in a crisis campaign? It wouldn't be the first tactic I'd use.
Nope. Not unethical. Just the PR group doing its job and attempting to be strategic. When imagining what might be going on behind the scenes in BP PR, it is easy to feel the professionals' pain. Enormous operational oil spill SNAFU aside, I would die a thousand deaths if my CEO made thoughtless comments on the world stage. The point is BP executive management is void of good corporate citizenship. That’s unethical. PR can build a brilliant crisis management plan. It’s up to management to have the sensibility and concern to execute it properly. When will they learn?
BP as a for-profit firm who has to compete for investors needs to do what they can to offset the rhetoric being put out by the white house. This is non blackhat brand management
BP is unethical as was Standard Oil before them. BP is also responsible for a major oil spill in Alaska, right now as we blog away. As in its unethical failure to have recovery equipment in place in the Gulf as it is contractually obliged to do, it's unethical failure the Alaska case to maintain the pipe line as it is obliged to do by contract, is creating unimaginable damage to the planet, nature and mankind.
What about the ethics of standing by and letting BP fiddle while the oceans are being morbidly polluted?
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."
the majority of posts can claim kudos and high marks from Dogbert. ...my ex marketing friends were right abou to this proffesion, uHave to leave ur conscience @door. ...amazing! from the mouth of babes!
Unethical, no. Poor judgement, yes. If they concentrated on being more open, honest and forthcoming in an effort to do the right thing, they wouldn't have to worry about managing their brand image.
BP damaged more than its own brand. It also damaged the image of the communities involved and made it harder for them to compete for capital investment. Read about the work being done to help economic development professionals refurbish their community brands.
http://strengtheningbrandamerica.com/blog/?p=343