Fixing industry's image
One aspect of identifying and solving any problem is to determine if the basis of the problem is emotional or logical. Education is a solution to a logical problem. I contend that the industry's image problem (OGJ, Nov. 10, 2002, p. 15), i.e., intense dislike and mistrust, is emotionally based, and changing this sentiment is unlikely.
While the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board's efforts to clean-up old well sites deserves an 'atta-boy,' efforts such as these will not demonstrably change the image problem.
When oil, natural gas, or products prices rise, oil industry profits also rise and the media reports the increase. This occurs simultaneously with the average US consumer having to make a choice between eating or heating and driving. When faced with such a tough choice, who cares what the reason is? your explanation for your good news is not nearly as critical to me, as my bad news.
The 'face' of the industry is no longer the neighbor next door. When the industry consolidated operations to improve profitability, many times the human face disappeared from the local community. Today, the face of the community is either the CEO or management. Randomly take a survey and ask how the CEO or the management of a US oil company is perceived. Wall Street may love their results, but the average US consumer probably doesn't, and the farther away from Houston, the worse the perception. Always blaming the media for bad press is escapism from reality.
Within the disciplines of political science and economics, studies exist that an abundance of natural resources is considered a curse. Political science conclusions are based on case studies, while economics is based upon econometric modeling. In general terms, countries blessed with an abundance of natural resources grow at lower rates than economies not so fortunate and the 'resource-blessed' populations are worse off. The existence and the causes of this negative relationship are still hotly argued within academic circles, but it is 'out there.' As a result, like it or not, an emotional response to such information is a 'guilty-by-association reaction' to dislike any industry involved.
The recent increase in oil company television advertising is an attempt to address the emotionally based issues associated with the industry. Many of these advertisements are focused on the environment, which is an important issue, but what about the ones expressed above? Will the cynical US consumer really view these advertisements and change his opinion regarding the above issues? Will educating the consumer make his budgeting choices any easier; will education place a neighbor next door; will education help him understand why oil and gas companies are dealing with countries whose people are poor even though the country is rich in oil and gas?
While the answer to all these questions is 'probably not,' funding for education or advertising should be continued and expanded, but the outcomes from such expenditures should be realistic. At best, the consumer will logically understand why prices go up, why centralization keeps costs lower, and how the industry is proactively participating in protecting the environment and spending on economic development. But emotionally, the consumer is still going to dislike the industry because the consumer is dependent on energy in his daily life, and there is no alternative to oil and gas. Without a choice, the emotional response is to feel like a hostage, and who enjoys that reaction?
DeAnn Craig, Consultant
Denver
