• 40
British consumer research firm YouGov BrandIndex polls 5,000 adults every weekday to allocate a so-called buzz rating to some of the most important consumer brands in the world. The buzz rating of a brand can fluctuate wildly if, for example, a new product or service is announced. Let loose a piece of really good news and your buzz rating can hit 100 points. But negative news about a brand can send the buzz factor plummeting to minus 100 points. Sounds like TMZ-style ratings for corporations to us, but it's an important gauge of customer sentiment anyway.

As you might imagine, the past couple weeks have been a major buzz kill for BP, as millions of gallons of oil are floating across the Gulf of Mexico. The explosion of the oil platform and resulting oil disaster has lead BP to a buzz rating of about negative 60; a drop of over 100 points from pre-explosion levels. BP's score has dropped so far that the oil company has surpassed Toyota as the company at the bottom of the buzz barrel. Toyota's buzz rating dropped from superstar status to corporate cad in a matter of a few days due to its recent recall woes.

With thousands of square miles of contaminated sea water, a potentially ruined Louisiana fishing industry, a badly damaged ecosystem and no immediate fix for the problem, we're thinking Toyota's problems pale in comparison to BP's. Yet amazingly, BP's buzz rating isn't all that much worse than Toyota's.

[Source: TPM | Image: Mark Wilson/Getty Images]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 5 Years Ago
      Rule change 2 years ago let BP avoid filing 'blowout scenario' which is EXACTLY what happened:


      Hmmm... lets see, the same people that were running the show back 2 years ago are also the same people that love the idea of government taking a "hands-off" approach to business and letting them do as they please, because after all, businesses will ALWAYS do what's best, right?! And these same people are the ones that have been pushing to limit damages that companies can be sued for. Just imagine - a company can do literally billions of dollars of damage, and these people want to limit any possibly judgment against them to only a few million! Brilliant! /s

      Fines aren't enough in this case... these people need to face criminal charges. And time in jail isn't enough in my book... facing a firing squad wouldn't be too severe in my book.
      • 5 Years Ago
      It's BP and Halliburton fault. Halliburton screwed up capping the oil well and BP for not having a real plan for when this happened. They didn't even have a dome ready and it took them four days to realized, "Oh crap, the fail safe ain't working." THEN, they tell the government. Even when they have the dome ready they can't even use it cause of the ice forming up. I don't think they lie but genuinely believed that the fail safe worked. They themselves thought it was next to impossible that this scenario would happened and so they didn't have a plan for this.

      It's going to take BP about a month or three, I don't really remember, to drill to the site and fill it with concrete. By the time, the whole marsh lands will be polluted and we won't be able to clean that crap. I will have to pay more money to eat shrimps and seafood in general T_T.

      Most of the teabaggers are saying this is Obama's Katrina. -_-

        • 5 Years Ago
        Ah positive thinking:


        1) Offshore Wind power
        2) Nuclear power - dude it works, three mile island failed correctly, and lots of developed countries have been using this for a long time. Newer technologies have cut the nuclear waste's half life in half.
        3) garbage power - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html
      • 5 Years Ago
      Oil is dirty, and disasters happen. This isn't the first, and it won't be the last.

      If you don't like oil, stop driving. And eating, and everything else...
        • 5 Years Ago
        Oh for heaven's sake don't be so silly. How many oil spills have there been.
        Accidents happen, although of course some people always have to blame somebody.

        As I said, oil is dirty. Get used to it. And capitalism has everything to do with it.
        • 5 Years Ago

        My response was to the report, which appeared to demonstrate no willingness to understand that these things can happen, even if there had been the very best the best management and planning. I don't doubt that BP may have made oversights, or even cut corners; anything is possible. But even if they did neither of these things there could still have been a disaster. We are dealing with very deep drilling here, and much of the technology is experimental, at best. My point was made as a response to the reaction of apportioning blame instantly without any attempt to understand.

        Yes; I know this is predominantly an American site, and I know how much we all, and Americans more than any others, depend for everything on oil. And given this reality we must expect terrible happenings from time to time. They unfortunately cannot be completely proofed against.

        Boycotting BP stations and threatening vengeance is indeed a stupid knee-jerk reaction, and one that sane minds avoid. However, I agree that the American mentality seems often to apportion blame before engaging brain; they are a deeply litigious society.

        However, I hope it doesn't mean war, and I hope the well will soon be capped and something learnt from the mistakes. Given that the US needs all the oil it can get I am sure they will be drilling in the gulf again before too long, and I am equally sure that one day there will be another oil disaster somewhere.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Capitalism has nothing to do with it
        ... that is at best pure stupidity, and at worst it's down right criminal.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Riiight... so it's KNOWN to be a dirty - and very profitable - business, so the best way to deal with that is to cut corners and get your buddies in government 2 years ago to sneak you through safety requirements so you can save a couple of bucks.

        Great logic there champ.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Colin Smith, we're dealing with a site within American boundaries and therefore Americans themselves here. It's important not to lose sight of this fact. We know that this could be handled in a dignified manner, getting all hands to the pumps to ensure the problem is dealt with as quickly as possible given the sheer logistical problems they're up against, looking into the design flaws which caused the explosion in the first place and then working vehemently to minimise the possibility of such an occurrence elsewhere. Or, you could simply pass all the blame on the foreign company leasing the rig, boycott their petrol stations, threaten to bomb their offices, pick off their executives with a kalashnikov rifle and send the bombers in to to nuke their country in retaliation. The rest of the world knows which reaction is going to be more likely.
      • 5 Years Ago
      The sad thing is that they are probably still more environmentally sound than many oil companies out there.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Oil spills might be "normal", but this is the closest one that will be in many Americans faces. The damage will be seen for a long time, could change how we eat, how much our sea food cost, etc. It could ruin the whole coast.

      I honestly hope it helps push newer technology and other forms of energy. The transition could take decades or longer, but if we don't get started on it now, it will never get done.

      As much as I love cars, I'm starting to dislike the lack of advancement. I think the "fun" cars should be reserved for weekend fun, but the daily commute cars should be fuel sippers. Depending on where people live, its not like you can even go fast or have fun in rush hour traffic. A cozy TDI would be just fine for that. On the weekend, break out the fun, but I wish everyone would just do their part to do what they can to use less oil.

      Energy is needed and oil isn't going away any time soon, but ludicrous oil use is over.
      • 5 Years Ago
      BEtter yet even if BD did not get gas from the middle east, they still hiked up prices to match competitors who faced a shortage not long ago. Now you can cite supply and demand, but I for one do not think it is right to have customers lubing and bending over a barrel. I guess if they were "beyond Petroleum" we wouldn't be in this mess.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I'm not buying gas from BP AGAIN.

        • 5 Years Ago
        It does rather put it in perspective when Toyota, a company whose defect has never been proven or really understood by anyone, pays $16.4 million in fines, when a company who has probably destroyed an entire state's economy is likely to walk away scot-free.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "And save the lecture about the oil business. My family pretty much lives it."

        So does mine. My dad has five degrees relating to physics, geology and geomorphology. He has been in the oil industry for over 35 years as a geologist, exploration manager and now a VP, and has worked for at some point nearly every major company, including BP. He's worked in the field for many years, including on oil rigs. He doesn't think this was BP's fault (as I suspected before I asked him about it), but they have no choice but to clean up the mess.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I guess it also needs to be pointed out that Transocean was the rig owner. Not Halliburton like Making11s states.
        • 5 Years Ago
        nardi, you do realize that BP does get much of its oil from the middle east, right? Most oil companies have hubs and/or get much of their oil from the middle east. To stop funding terrorism in the middle east, we would have to stop depending on oil overall. Even if we would exploit all of the oil wells in the U.S., it would not be enough to meet U.S. demand and we would still have to import oil.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Funny thing is that this is not BP's fault.

        BP is just leasing the oil rig. And they did not build the systems that failed to stop the blowout.

        Who did? Halliburton.
        • 5 Years Ago
        If any of you guys are still buying gas from BP stations, I'd genuinely like to kick your a**es. Because the only way to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen, is to vote with your dollars and punish companies like BP into 'cry mama' submission. The only way for you and I to do that is to nail their retail operations. Shop elsewhere.

        Offshore oil carries huge and permanent risks. BP did not respect those risks at all. Will Chevron? Or Shell? I assure you, they're watching BP's situation carefully.

        And save the lecture about the oil business. My family pretty much lives it.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "You can always buy your gas elsewhere and fund middle eastern terrorism."

        Regarding U.S. oil consumption, this is pretty far off the mark. About 40% of the U.S.'s oil is domestically produced, and Canada and Mexico account for ~20% and ~15% (respectively) of that which is imported. Saudi Arabia is the biggest Middle Eastern contributor, at about 15% of imports. Iraq contributes ~5%.

        Oil is an extremely dirty business, but its contribution to unsavory Middle Eastern regimes is a bit exaggerated. They do equally nasty things in South America and former Soviet countries, for example.
        • 5 Years Ago
        ARCO is BP. Add them to the list of places not to go. Here is a chart of which companies own which stations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_Oil.svg

        You'd think that a company who was just fined $87 million for that major accident in Texas five years ago would be more focused on safety and lying low. These guys (and I include the rig's owner, Halliburton, in that) need to pay for this, and they need to pay $1 billion in fines minimum. Here is a list of Halliburton subsidiaries http://en.allexperts.com/e/l/li/list_of_halliburton_subsidiaries.htm
      • 5 Years Ago
      I am surprised that nobody has blamed Bush for this yet.
      • 5 Years Ago
      As long as we fly on jets, we need to drill for oil. Accidents happen with all energy (I just read a story about three men who fell from a windmill in Germany). Look at the death and destruction being brought on by the construction of the Three Gorges Dam. Clean energy- NOT. Unless we want to live in the Stone Age- and I know some of you liberals do- we will have to deal with accidents like this. Period. Let's try and avoid them, but don't expect perfection.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Imagine if an American company did this to the British?

      Anyway how do I get rid of this constant validating comments thru my email even when I log on? Can you just log on once and post comments?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Twesam - remember the Torrey Canyon?

        Nobody did anything to anyone else. My God, you make it sound like some sort of act of sabotage. It was an accident, and in such a dangerous industry, accidents happen. Grow up.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @ Bloke:

        I know it's an accident, don't get all moist and misty eyed. Since you're all grown up to the triple digits, I was expecting you to read between the lines. Given the anti-American sentiments lately, especially with your new PM, I was wondering what would happen if the roles where reversed?

        • 5 Years Ago
        "I know it's an accident, don't get all moist and misty eyed. Since you're all grown up to the triple digits, I was expecting you to read between the lines. Given the anti-American sentiments lately, especially with your new PM, I was wondering what would happen if the roles where reversed?"

        Has it occurred to you that 95% of the world's population doesn't give a toss about Americans and their interests first and foremost?
      • 5 Years Ago
      The irony of the spill is that the environmentalists have put pressure on the oil industry (via the governments, state and local) to prevent drilling on land and when on the water, out of sight of land. The horizon is ~20 miles so in order to not see a oil rig, it must be over 20 miles from shore. That means deep water, in this case 5,000 feet deep. There is no way that drilling in that much water can be easier, less expensive or easier to clean than drilling on land. Or less risky.

      BTW, the "stop drilling off shore" edict from the feds/states has NOT stopped China, Cuba (yup they are drilling in the gulf) or Vietnam (yup, them too). Be reminded that during Katrina there were 132 rigs damaged, but no spills.

      Like it or not for our lifetimes oil is going to be in our future in a major way. And our kids future also. To think or believe otherwise means you have not educated yourself. We have the energy under our near oceans and under our lands. Enough to be energy self sufficient. We lack the will. California could clean up it's debt problem ($20B) by drilling off shore.

      Like the other post said, as long as the drilling envelope is pushed there will be accidents. Learn from them and take every precaution possible to prevent further spills or to make them as small as possible. Everything you eat, touch, or use is in some way connected to oil. That is not going to change anytime soon. Take that to the bank.
        • 5 Years Ago

        "First of all, it's usually wealthy land owners that are the ones that pushed offshore drilling out past the 20 mi mark... they don't want their million dollar seaside homes having a view of an oil rig after all."

        This is not true. Do not confuse wind and solar power with oil rigs. It's the wealthy that have kept wind power from their view (although since the death of Kennedy there is to be a wind farm near by). As you should know, solar is the least efficient of all energy sources, about 20 times more expensive than oil. Wind is a close second at about 16 times. It's not the wealthy keeping the rigs from being drilled in Alaska, nor is it the wealthy keeping the ocean rigs away from California...it's the environmentalists. (BTW, I have a M.S. in Ecology)

        "An oil rig is still an oil rig be it 15 miles out or 30 miles out... it's going to be in deep water either way. There are oil rigs that are 50+ miles out. Oil rigs go where the oil is - trying to blame environmentalists for this is ridiculous at best."

        Again this is not true. There is no way drilling in 800' is more risky than drilling in 5,000' and the closer to the shore, the shallower the water. Yes, oil companies will go where the oil is and they have approval to drill, but no oil company is going to drill in close to shore these days. Particularly when no one wants to see the rig. Unfortunately, it is the environmentalists that have the biggest sway with our elected officials and that sway - in my view - is one of the reasons we do not have a coherent energy policy. Exploration is very expensive (as are wells themselves) and at the moment there is no exploration beyond 50 miles, the distance with current administration approval. A floating rig costs over a billion dollars. There is no way an oil company is going to pop for that kind of cash not knowing which way the political wind is going to blow.

        "Also your claim that we supposed have all the oil near our shores to be sufficient is also rather comical."

        You need to reread my post. I did not say drilling near our shores was sufficient. Hopefully we can agree that we need an energy policy in our country. A policy that encompasses all forms of energy, hydroelectric, wind (From my north farm In Iowa I can see 300 windmills - I won't mention the absolute land destruction when these are installed), solar, coal, geothermal, oil, natural gas and nuclear. We need them all. I also own land in Wyoming and near-by there are permits for over 12,000 natural gas wells (~5,000 drilled so far). Again it's the environmentalists that have been a thorn in the side of the driller since the field was initially drilled. Environmentalists have a place, a good place in that they keep drillers honest. They force the drilling to occur in the safest way possible. That's a good thing, but until we all run our cars and our lives on wood, oil it's going to be. And there will always be the chance for an accident.

        There is oil sand that covers most of the state of North Dakota and there was another large discovery in the NE. We have enough coal to last for several hundred years. There are huge deposits of oil shale in Colorado. Geothermal in Utah, Nevada and Wyoming. It all needs to be looked at as a matter of public policy. It needs to be done. And if done it will be in the cleanest way possible. Environmentalists will see to it. And that's a good thing. But unfortunately many environmentalists within the framework of environmentalism are on the fringe and don't want any drilling/mining/etc. at all.

        Yes, we have enough energy reserves to be self-sufficient, but as I said we lack the will. Will we ever be self-sufficient...no. I don't believe we will ever be. Could we...yes if we set our minds to it and with a national energy policy but both political parties are guilty of not pursuing that end.

        You say it's up to the individual. Yes it is, but under the guidance of a reasonable policy. For example, the current proposal under the new Cap and Trade bill is to prevent the sale of your home if you don't comply with a local inspector to meet energy standards. After that will be fines. This is 100% the wrong way to go. Instead give people a reason to do and buy energy efficient things. Like a tax credit or rebate. Tighten remodel and building codes. I don't want another government program any more than the next guy, but how about throwing some of this money that's being thrown around, money we don't have, at the rail system with a goal to get the majority of 18-wheelers off the highway.

        Here's another idea. When was the last time you saw in print or heard on the news HOW energy is used. What percent is used for transportation, what percent for buildings, etc., and within those areas, how does that break out. Yeah, me neither. There is a group that wou
        • 5 Years Ago
        environmentalists eh? I think if they have it their ways they want no oil drilling at all. As for the land versus ocean argument I doubt that but I would like to see the source of this conclusion if you have it. I'm curious because I'm actually to a degree an environmentalist (green party) too so this is something new to me.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Seems that you've confused quite a few things in your post there.

        First of all, it's usually wealthy land owners that are the ones that pushed offshore drilling out past the 20 mi mark... they don't want their million dollar seaside homes having a view of an oil rig after all.

        An oil rig is still an oil rig be it 15 miles out or 30 miles out... it's going to be in deep water either way. There are oil rigs that are 50+ miles out. Oil rigs go where the oil is - trying to blame environmentalists for this is ridiculous at best.

        Also your claim that we supposed have all the oil near our shores to be sufficient is also rather comical. The true answer is that no we don't. We absolutely have oil reserves, but not even close to being self sufficient in the long-term and definitely not at a reasonable cost. We have doubled the percentage of oil that we import in just 3 decades - mostly thanks to our lazy attitude toward energy use. God forbid anyone ever mention conservation and using our resources efficiently... talk like that used to (and to some degree still does) bring about hateful glances from yahoos that think it's our god given right to waste as much energy as humanly possible. However, we DO have the resources overall to be energy independent, but that involves using much more than just oil... and it sure as hell isn't gonna happen without a good energy policy to promote alternative forms of power.
        • 5 Years Ago

        "I think if they have it their ways they want no oil drilling at all."

        You are definately on the mark with that statement. The radical side of environmentalism does not want drilling, any time, any where. They are unwilling to craft a reasonable approach - it's the 5% that cause the problems and the 5% that take up 90% of your time. It's so much easier to roll over to the fringe demands rather than fight it every step of the way. The squeaking wheel.... Still it has to be done or we will be overwhelmed.

        "As for the land versus ocean argument I doubt that but I would like to see the source of this conclusion if you have it. I'm curious because I'm actually to a degree an environmentalist (green party) too so this is something new to me."

        I'm not sure I understand your question? If it wasn't clear, I meant it is far easier to drill on land than in water, it is a magnitude less expensive, and much easier to clean up if their is an accident...as we are now finding out. And, the deeper the ocean well, the more difficult it is to clean up should there be an accident. We are finding that out too.

        With every country that can spell oil drilling in the Gulf does anyone in their right mind believe those other countries have safety in mind the same way we require of those drilling w/in the U.S. economic zone. If an ocean well drilled by Vietnam, or Cuba has a blow out, do you think for a minute they will fix it - or care.

        For example...did you ever even read or hear about one of the largest, if not the largest, oil spill ever - in the Gulf of Mexico? It was in June of 1979 - 140 million gallons of crude. The largest deposit of oil in the gulf is off the Yucatan Peninsula and the rig in question dumped oil for over a year.

        As an aside. Here's something else to think about. Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon. Russia has signed a contract with Syria and Turkey for nuclear energy. Saudia Arabia is inquiring about the same deal. Why? Because our current foreign policy of allowing Iran to go forward with it's nuclear program unsettles the entire Mid-East. Make NO mistake, Israel will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They will strike and strike first, and they will use a nuclear weapon if required. With the first detonation of a nuclear weapon, however small, against a country in the middle east, the price of a barrel of oil will jump overnight to $300-$400, minimum. The question is, what are we, the U.S., doing about having the energy policy we need to move beyond such an event. Right now...nothing. As I said before, the country, indeed the world, moves on oil. A disruption of any magnitude, real or perceived will throw us in to a mess the likes of which can't be imagined.

        It pains me to see our country so misguided, rolling over to every politically correct and environmentally fringe element - from both sides of the isle. Until our elected officials stand up and say, "No" I fear we will wallow around, directionless, just like we have been for so long now.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Dear god people. It was an ACCIDENT. They are trying to fix it. End of story. It's not like they went ahead and intentionally put all the oil in the water.
    • Load More Comments