The good: I saw in some of the early media stories the inclusion of the ExxonMobil message of, "We're sorry this has occurred and the inconvenience caused. We're working with all authorities. Our emergency crews responded. Cause under investigation." All the right and normal stuff.
The not so good: When I did my first Google search on this the first article I came to was Reuters. Headlines were that 30 schools were instructed to have their students shelter in place. Now this is big news. 30 schools? Shelter in place? For a lot of parents that is very very scary stuff. It wasn't long after that I read other reports saying that initially shelter-in-place instructions were either considered or sent and rescinded, but that Reuters article still shows up high in Google search.
I'm a strong believer in "fact checks." Organizations at the center of the news have an obligation, I believe, to monitor for false information and correct it as quickly as possible. I believe this is now job No. 1 for crisis communications. Yet, nowhere did I see ExxonMobil attempting to counter this incorrect information.
That brings me to the company's Web presence. In the Google search for ExxonMobil Torrance of course I came up with lots of news stories about the incident. I saw a link to the refinery's website.There was nothing there about the incident. I find this troubling, possibly inexcusable. Where are people in the local area going to go? I know that most major companies have policies where in situations like this the corporate comms people take over. So I went to the corporate site and did find a press release. So that, as far as it goes, is good. But I didn't see any ongoing updates, any situation reports, any flow of information. I assumed it was happening on Twitter. If so, I would expect a Twitter feed on the news page of the main site. I haven't found it yet. And when I went to Twitter, I found a single tweet. I did like the link to the press releases, but as it was the only incident update I was able to find, it certainly didn't provide the kind of depth of information someone seriously interested in this incident would be looking for.
In the meantime, the local media are doing their best to add to the concern through FUDO (fear, uncertainty, doubt and outrage). The Los Angeles Times, for example, finds it appropriate to run a story of the refineries in the area providing a "history of destructive explosions."
I know I'm being hyper-critical but it seems in this era when hashtags like #refinery take over the storytelling of your incident, when you've created an earthquake-size scare in a major American city, and when the local media are playing off this incident to hype fear and outrage that somehow the game would be stepped up a bit. What would I expect: A near continuous feed of information about the event facts and follow up on Twitter. A feed from Twitter on a separate page or website set up to deal with the incident, with strong links from the refinery's website and corporate site. Fact check continually, particularly on items causing significant fear and anxiety. Addressing the expected concerns about safety and environment record. In other words, taking the situation seriously and communicating commensurate with public concerns.
