The BP oil rig explosion just hit the two-month milestone.

At last count, I was one of 10,332 writers (my horseshoe-far number) who weighed in with a perspective or two on BP’s crisis communications.

Make that 10,333, with the BBC highlighting BP boss Tony Hayward’s gaffes.

A byproduct of BP’s PR nightmare involves the resurrection of the Exxon Valdez tanker spill that occurred more than 20 years ago.

Using the Factiva database (global version), we pulled up the number of articles that mention the Exxon Valdez crisis up to its two-month milestone. We also captured the number of articles on the BP crisis that included the Exxon Valdez spill, again using the two-month period from point of accident.

You can see how the data plays out below.

For ExxonMobil brand stewards, this must make for a sobering read.

There have been almost twice as many articles mentioning the Exxon Valdez thanks to BP’s “gusher” than during the equivalent period when the Exxon accident actually happened.

Now, it’s true that the Exxon Valdez mainly serves as fringe fodder in the BP stories. Still, there’s a negative halo effect from the words “Exxon Valdez” being recounted 6,134 times in association with the BP tragedy.

Furthermore, as one rakes through this coverage, it becomes apparent that the BP crisis provides a reason for the media to dust off the Exxon Valdez story with a new peg for standalone attention.

That’s what The Guardian did under the headline “Exxon Valdez, and Still Waiting in Alaska“:

I just tripped across this interesting interview with lawyer Brian O’Neill, who has for two decades represented 2,600 Alaskans who made claims for damages against Exxon over the Valdez oil spill.

Those who subscribe to the escrow-fund-as-shakedown thesis might bear O’Neill’s tale in mind. Exxon fought the claims in court for nearly 20 years:

CNN: Did anything surprise you once you started representing the fishermen and taking on Exxon after the Valdez spill?

O’Neill: I thought that — like a lot of people think now with regard to BP — that Exxon would want to settle the case relatively early and move on and I was surprised a number of times with the fact that this was World War III to them, and they dealt with it that way …

For those counting at home, put this one under the negative sentiment category. 

That’s why ExxonMobil is going on the offensive by starting a blog (two categories: safety and miscellaneous) and flying CEO Russ Tillerson eastward to throw BP under the bus during testimony before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee last week:

Sticking to this system has required us to make some difficult decisions. We do not proceed with operations if we cannot do so safely. The American people have shown their support for deepwater drilling – but they expect it to be done safely and in an environmentally sensitive way.

Equally revealing, ExxonMobil is proactively reminding the world it spent $180 million trying to drill the world’s deepest offshore well before walking away from the unfinshed job because it was too dangerous.

The communications controlled by a company during a crisis - not the media coverage - provide the best indicator of competency (or lack thereof).

If you can’t get the communications under your control right, you have zero chance of winning over others to carry your story forward.

That’s why I characterized Toyota’s crisis communications as amateur hour. The company’s first open letter to customers hit the proverbial pothole and set a tone that’s still present.

Quick digression -

My original Toyota post was republished on MediaBistro where, if you scroll down, you’ll see my mom and dad posted a comment disagreeing with my take. I guess unconditional love only goes so far.

Back to the topic at hand -

On the other end of the spectrum, check out the BP letter that addresses the oil spill crisis.

I realize a number of publications ranging from Slate to Advertising Age pummeled BP for poor communications when the crisis first hit. While I agree that BP should have been more prepared and quicker out of the gate, the letter shows they’re on the right path.

Rather than allow the legal team to vet every syllable, BP articulates what they’re doing with open and straight-forward language. It’s clear that someone at or near the top decided that common sense should rule the day.

Now, before all the Mother Jones subscribers pile on, I’m not nominating BP for company of year. This is a communications exercise. Time will tell if the company’s behavior aligns with the words.

Moving on.

The contrast between how BP and Toyota start their respective letters illustrates the difference in mentality.

Toyota First Sentence: For more than 50 years, Toyota has provided you with safe, reliable, quality vehicles and first-rate service.

BP First Sentence: Since the tragic accident on the Transocean Deepwater Horizon rig first occurred, we have been committed to doing everything possible to stop the flow of oil at the seabed, collect the oil on the surface and keep it away from the shore.

Toyota squanders its opener with a walk down nostalgia lane and a narrative that seems out of a sales brochure penned by an intern. No, I take that back. I don’t want to insult our interns.

BP establishes street cred right off the get-go, “Since the tragic accident,” then crisply lays out its actions.

I can imagine Toyota arguing about an adjective like “tragic” in their war room. By the time copy was finalized, it would say “the unfortunate incident.”

To the next line:

Toyota Second Sentence: I am truly sorry for the concern our recalls have caused and want you to know we’re doing everything we can - as fast as we can - to make things right.

BP Second Sentence: BP has taken full responsibility for dealing with the spill.

This is rich.

Toyota isn’t sorry for the recall or the accidents. The company is “truly sorry” FOR THE CONCERN. This is the type of language gamesmanship that comes from legal owning final sign-off on the copy.

But you don’t need a linguist to translate “BP has taken full responsibility.”

This accountability from BP also accentuates the sign-off with two websites dedicated to the crisis (in contrast with Toyota blending its Recall Center into the main site) and toll-free numbers proactively asking for input:

We will continue to keep everyone fully informed about the events as they unfold. For current information on the spill and response plan, please use the following websites:

To make spill-related claims: (800) 440-0858

www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com

For assistance or information, please call the following 24/7 hotlines:

To report oil on the shoreline: (866) 448-5816

To report impacted wildlife: (866) 557-1401

No question, this was a professional job in which BP management got out of the way and allowed the communicators to perform.

Now, if BP’s management would only agree to that media training session. The Guardian interviewed BP CEO Tony Hayward who offered:

“The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”

Not good.

Related side note: Our curated “Toyota Crisis PR Resource” is still available. If you have thoughts or content for the page, by all means send them our way.

Literally thousands of PR blogs dot - some might say clog - the social media landscape.

When I started Ishmael’s Corner in 2008, I concluded the last thing the world needed was another digital pulpit spewing about embargoes, e-mail blasts to reporters, and the like.

Instead, this blog has strived to address storytelling in business communications, a concept that can be counterintuitive to many executives, particularly those coming from engineering orientations.

With that said, I’ve decided that every 88 posts or so, it’s OK to make an exception to the rule (and perhaps trigger some positive karma according to Chinese numerology).

With the caveat dispensed -

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the often contentious relationship that exists between influencers - defining this category broadly to include reporters, editors, bloggers, etc. - and the PR community.

You can count on a Michael Arrington diatribe about the PR profession every quarter, leaving the reader to conclude that without those pesky PR people, TechCrunch would be more efficient and world hunger would be solved.

Given PR’s focus on specific clients and a media property’s agenda to cover broad industries and issues, there’s bound to be some choppy interactions.

That’s OK.

It goes with the territory.

If the influencer doesn’t perceive a given client as relevant or a client delivers special treatment to certain influencers, it’s bound to cause bad feelings.

Is there a word that describes a relationship as being both symbiotic and adversarial (and don’t say “frenemy”)?

This dynamic existed when I entered the profession and I suspect it will still be there long after I exit stage left.

But here’s the part that bothers me and cuts to the core of relationship-building 101.

Too often, PR professionals only reach out to influencers when they need something in the form of:

* Cover my client

* Meet my client.

* Talk to my client.

Even without the aid of data visualization, one starts to see a trend emerge.

Consider for a moment what happens in everyday life if the only time a person contacts you is when they want something from you; i.e., an introduction, an e-mail address, money (sons and daughters don’t count).

When PR professionals fall into this trap, it limits how the relationship evolves.

But if you make a point of contacting influencers specifically when you DON’T need something, now you’ve got the basis of genuine relationship-building.

Of course, the information you’re sharing needs to be relevant - better yet, relevant and not in the public domain - to what the influencer tracks.

If the PR profession jumped on this bandwagon, we would go a long way toward resolving what the warden in Cool Hand Luke called, “a failure to communicate.”

P.S. Tom Foremski wrote in SiliconValleyWatcher about the importance of hyperlinks in e-mail interactions with media properties, which is worth a read and ties to the big picture of helping the influencer do his or her job.

Tiger takes center stage tomorrow to publicly share his mea culpa.

Every pundit and his brother has weighed in with a view. The local NBC affiliate was in our office today to interview our crisis guru John Radewagen.

So I’ll keep my view brief.

The statement on Tiger’s Web site doesn’t lead me to believe that tomorrow will have a happy ending:

Tiger Woods will be speaking to a small group of friends, colleagues and close associates at 11:00 a.m. EST on Friday at the TPC Sawgrass Clubhouse in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. Tiger plans to discuss his past and his future, and he plans to apologize for his behavior.

It sounds like he’s hanging out with the guys over beers.

I also think it’s the wrong move to not field questions after he speaks.

Yes, I understand as articulated on his Web site that “Tiger feels that what happened is fundamentally a matter between him and his wife.” By not fielding questions he hopes to control the tawdry side of this ”little” crisis.

His quandary is that the more he strives to control tomorrow, the less likely he’s going to come across as sincere and truly apologetic.

Because a Q&A session forces Tiger to be Tiger.

You can’t script questions.

There is one move Tiger could make that would absolutely show remorse.

If he shared that he continues to need more time to focus on his family and, as a result, won’t be playing in the Master’s this year.

That would show the man’s serious about rehab.

There’s nothing more precious to Mr. Woods than winning more major titles than Jack Nicklaus.

If he was willing to give up a shot at the next major, the making of “Tiger, The Sequel” could begin.

I shared half of my list of favorite posts from a cruise through the past yesterday.

Here’s the remaining five.

6) Iron Reporter: Wall Street Journal Versus NY Times On A Russian Train

I came up with the Iron Reporter concept for scrutinizing how two different reporters cover the same topic. In this case, my investigative reporting instincts dug up a tweet that possibly explains why Paul Glader from the Journal didn’t fair well against his compadre from The New York Times:

7) Power Of Contrast Comes Through In McDonald’s Story

Given the countless meals at McDonald’s during my youth, this was a disconcerting walk down nostalgia lane:

I can’t believe they’re doing away with the fiberglass seats. It was almost a rite of passage for every kid to misbehave in McDonald’s, inevitably fall off the chair and get conked on the head as a reminder from the karma gods to listen to their mom.

8) Borrowing From Crocodile Dundee, “Now That’s An Anecdote”

Media coverage on the Bilski intellectual property case before the Supreme Court spiked in November, allowing me to make my own case for anecdotes (like the Piggly Wiggly patent) and do some original reporting on the side:

I found Mr. Saunders’ Patent No. 1242872 and couldn’t help but notice the filing date of October 21, 1916 and the issue date of October 1917.

It’s comforting to know that even back then, the U.S. Patent Office moved at its own pace.

I love the language in the actual patent:

The object of my said invention is to provide a store equipment by which the customer will be enabled to serve himself and in so doing, will be required to review the entire assortment of goods carried in stock, conveniently and attractively displayed and after selecting the list of goods desired, will be required to pass a checking and paying station at which the goods select may be billed, packaged and settled for before retiring from the store, thus relieving the store of a large proportion of the usual incidental expenses, or overhead charges required to operate it, all as well be herinafter more fully described and claimed.

Apparently, English teachers back in 1917 were a bit more tolerant of run-together sentences.

9) A Mass Comms Curriculum Alone Short-sheets Tomorrow’s PR Pro

Social media extraordinaire Steven Farnsworth gave me a pulpit to address the future of PR skills, which I also posted in Ishmael’s Corner:

One of my favorite modern artists is Chuck Close who takes portraits to a different level. His painting and photography talent serve as only the starting point for his pieces.

Close has immersed himself in the printing process ranging from carving linoleum blocks to applying acid to his etching plates. Geometry – the use of a grid to break the face down into incremental units – and even topology also come to play in his art.

This collision of creativity and science produces stunning results not possible with only the “arts.”

10) The New York Times Interpretation Of An Enterprise Computing Story

It’s not easy to crack the mainstream media with an enterprise computing story. You need that fresh wrinkle to make for an entertaining read:

The story explains how the University of Minnesota took proceeds from licensing the “code” to Honeycrisp apples to help pay for a $6 million supercomputer.

Can you imagine the university’s computer scientists going door to door selling chocolate bars to raise this kind of dough? No way could they equal the windfall from the apple IP.

That’s a wrap. Now back to 2010.