Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980

G Model PUBREL-1236; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980 Burton St. John III ∗ Communication and Theatre Arts, Old Dominion University, BAL 3010, Norfolk, VA 23529, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 October 2013 Received in revised form 27 November 2013 Accepted 11 January 2014

Keywords: Advertorial Corporate personhood Mobil Oil Climate change Energy

a b s t r a c t Since at least the early 20th century, the corporation has arisen in the US as an entity that attempts to help individuals make sense of the world through the use of public relations. Public relations scholarship, however, tends to focus on how corporations primarily articulated their worth through touting how the products and services they offered were constructive to society. This study, however, through a review of Mobil’s “Observations” advertorials that ran from 1975 through 1980, reveals how a corporation attempted to build an influential persona by offering a corporate personality, that is an empathetic fellow traveler who is also believable and aspirational. This examination of the presence of the corporate persona points to lingering concerns, especially regarding how well the corporation can realize and communicate its corporate character in a world that is increasingly complicated by the rise of non-traditional information sources (e.g., social media), and interlocking, systemic concerns (e.g., climate change, economic/ecological sustainability). Public relations can assist in better understanding such factors so that the corporate persona can act in ways that benefit stakeholders and society. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Sense-making, or the ability to use guideposts to navigate the reality of everyday life, has long been informed by an array of institutions – family, church, education, and government clearly have long-established roles in this arena. However, since at least the early 20th century in the US, the rise of industry has provided society an additional sense-maker: the institution of big business. But the corporate entity as a strategic sense-maker for society is a relatively recent development. It is true that, by the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, corporations began to see the value of articulating what they offered society, what they stood for and, in the process, assert some kind of desired order within society. That is, by the early 20th century, business observed that other institutional fields like religion and government intentionally pursued and influenced relationships through public relations activities and the corporation decided to, over time, do the same (Lamme & Russell, 2010). In particular, some scholars (Ewen, 1996; Marchand, 1998; Tedlow, 1979) tracked how corporations used an array of messaging tactics in the early to mid-20th century US to assert they were beneficent contributors to the nation. However, these studies tended to focus on how corporations touted their worth through asserting how their products and services were constructive to society. What is needed in the literature is a focused examination of how the corporation uses public relations – in this case the advertorial – to, instead, primarily put forward a corporate person that offers accessible, sense-making narratives. This study, through a review of Mobil’s “Observations” advertorials from 1975 through 1980,

∗ Tel.: +1 757 214 7071. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004 0363-8111/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: St. John III, B. Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004

G Model PUBREL-1236; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2

B. St. John III / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

reveals how a corporation attempts to build such an influential persona by offering a corporate personality that is an empathetic fellow traveller who is relatable by being believable, and influential by being aspirational. This examination of a significant attempt to convey the corporate persona points to lingering concerns regarding the challenge of realizing and communicating the corporate character in a world that is increasingly complicated by the rise of non-traditional information sources (e.g., social media), and interlocking systemic concerns (e.g., climate change, economic/ecological sustainability).

2. The corporate persona and institutional advertising While there is an abundance of the literature that addresses the legal aspects of corporate personhood (Krannich, 2005; Mayer, 1990; Ripken, 2009) there is a limited amount of public relations scholarship that theorizes the corporate persona. Cheney (1991, 1992) observed that the corporation is an entity composed of many individuals and appears to speak with a collective voice or corporate personality. In its public messaging, the corporation reveals its “nature or character,” in effect presenting itself as a “personal, individual agent,” becoming a “natural person” (Cheney, 1991, p. 5, emphasis in original). Brown, Waltzer, and Waltzer (2001, pp. 28–29) said that one of the chief aims of a corporate public relations campaign is “defining the persona of the organization [and] making the public aware of its identity, interests and activities”. Later, Kerr (2005) noted the importance of the rise of the corporate voice and persona, but largely conceptualized it from within the development of legal precedents. In contrast to such legal framing, scholars (Crable & Vibbert, 1983; St. John and Arnett, 2013; St. John, 2011) have described occasions where the corporate persona is offered up as a heroic figure that attempts to be relatable to citizens by stressing the values it shares with the common person (e.g., the desire for personal and societal progress, the belief in the common sense of the average American, the importance of personal initiative). Accordingly, the advertorial is a particularly appropriate communication format for assessing how a business entity conveys its corporate persona. Advertorials, where a company or interest purchases space (or time) in a media outlet to articulate its perspective, arose in the early 20th century (Brown et al., 2001; Ewen, 1996; Marchand, 1998). Sethi (1977) found that a particular form of the advertorial – advocacy advertising that was designed to influence public opinion in favor of a corporation’s position on societal issues – arose markedly in the 1970s. Specifically, the advertorial has been identified as form of lobbying that (1) signals the interests and views of a corporation and its stakeholders to policymakers, and (2) attempts to influence the mass public (Kollman, 1998; Newsom, Turk, Kruckeberg, 2004). Within the literature on advertorials are examinations of Mobil’s use of the approach in papers of national repute – most significantly, the New York Times – as a particularly notable use of institutional advertising. Murphree and Aucoin (2010) pointed out that researchers have examined Mobil’s use of the approach across three decades (1970–2000) with an eye toward how the organization was working to insert its corporate speech into the marketplace of ideas. Mobil indicated it had three goals for the use of institutional ads: (1) build a reputation as outspoken and responsible, (2) put forward major issues for public debate, and (3) broaden the spectrum of viewpoints beyond what the major media traditionally offered (Brown & Waltzer, 2005). An analysis of Mobil ads in the New York Times from 1985 through 2000 found that Mobil often used a text-heavy version of the format to recount the company’s good deeds, and assert that it was an entity that aligned itself with the values or concerns of the broader public (Brown & Waltzer, 2005). However, this same study found that Mobil’s ads in the New York Times were mostly about advocating the company’s position on policy issues (Brown & Waltzer, 2005). But there is another dimension of institutional advertising that needs increased attention: how the ads attempted to illustrate that the corporation has human-like attributes that make the entity more relatable to the average citizen. Heath and Nelson (1986, p. 81) asserted that Mobil’s advertorials were centered on raising the profile of the corporate entity, “promoting full First Amendment and free enterprise rights for corporate citizens.” Smith and Heath’s (1990) review of Mobil’s advocacy ads found that the company used the long-form op-ed format to portray the company as an authoritative, morally upright citizen that looked out for the public interest. While Mobil’s short-form “Observations” columns have largely been overlooked, other scholars have briefly described Mobil as projecting elements of a persona within the long-form, text-heavy Mobil op-eds. Smith and Heath (1990, p. 53) observed that Mobil used these ads to project a “friendly expert” personality, an entity determined to educate the uninformed. Kerr (2005) also tracked how Mobil conveyed that it was a good citizen that was reasonable and concerned about society. Similarly, Brown and Waltzer (2005, p. 203) noted that the long-form op-eds attempted to show Mobil’s persona as that of the “responsible public citizen.” More recently, Murphree and Aucoin (2010) noted how the Mobil ads were crafted to “build a benevolent, authoritative image” (p. 8), making it clear that Mobil “could be known as a person” (p. 9). And these ads’ portrayal of Mobil tended toward a particular character: the likeable curmudgeon who was feisty, earnest, knowledgeable, and willing to speak out on issues it believed the individual needed to know. Herbert Schmertz, the Mobil public relations executive who oversaw the advocacy advertising, described the approach: . . .We wanted to take the offensive without being offensive. Our messages would be urbane and, when possible, good humored; they would not be pompous or bland . . . Our ads would . . . on occasion, serve to wheedle, cajole, josh, and admonish our readers. (1988, p. 205) However, in examining primarily Mobil’s long-form issue ads that appeared in such sources as the New York Times and Time magazine, these works largely ignored another form of advocacy advertising pursued by Mobil – the less text-heavy “Observations” columns that appeared across the country from 1975 until the early 1980s. Please cite this article in press as: St. John III, B. Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004

G Model PUBREL-1236; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS B. St. John III / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

3

3. The personal appeal of “Observations” As 1974 ended, Mobil was still laboring under criticism from fuel shortages that accompanied the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and was also emerging from the lowest profits since 1960 (Mobil, 1975a). Going into 1975, the company faced the challenges of higher taxes, federal regulations on oil prices, and the removal of the depletion allowance (which, Mobil maintained, subsidized oil exploration and, therefore, helped keep oil prices low). Moreover, the federal government saw the oil industry as too big and was in the third year of pursuing a break up (divestiture) of the major oil companies (Crable & Vibbert, 1983). Mobil chairman Rawleigh Warner noted that the government mistakenly believed divestiture would increase competition. Instead, he said, it would actually raise “the barriers to entry into various energy industries . . . diminish supplies, and raise costs, all to the detriment of the American consumer and US energy security” (Warner, 1977, p. 18). He asserted: Those of us in business . . . have a responsibility to convey to the public what the consequences of the government’s present approach will be. Once the people understand the issues, I have no fear about their willingness to express their views to their elected representatives. In my opinion this would help us get on with the very big job that lies ahead. (Warner, 1975, p. 10) By early 1975, Mobil was ready to expand on their advocacy campaign but do it in a way that moved beyond the policyfocused, long-form advertorials they used in the major newspapers. Schmertz determined, especially after talking with a contact at Parade magazine, that there was an opportunity to run a more conversational kind of column in Parade and other publications. The ads would reflect the Mobil op-ed themes, Schmertz said, “but they would do so more breezily and informally” (1988, p. 213). Column ideas were gathered from throughout Mobil, “from clerks and secretaries to top executives” with an eye toward a “balance between items of general information and messages pertaining to the oil industry. . .” (Mobil. A Case History, n.d., p. 4). Then, on June 22, 1975, “Observations” began appearing in Parade and Family Weekly Sunday magazine supplements in 43 US newspapers (Mobil, 1975b) and, at its peak in mid-1980, reached about half of American households through 500 newspapers (Crable & Vibbert, 1983; Schmertz, 1988). The “Observations” pieces presented chunks of information – stand-alone pieces, about four to six per each column – in the form of news briefs, commentary, art, and quotations from notable historical figures. Across the six years (1975–1980) analyzed in this study, many of the items offered appeared scattered and conversational. However, Crable and Vibbert’s (1983) study of “Observations” maintained that there were at least two strategic approaches at work: (1) an epideictic appeal, or communicating in such a way as to show that the communicator’s values are consonant to the recipients, and (2) less discussion of policy in favor of messages that would be accessible for the everyday person (rather than tailored for the opinion leaders that were reached in Mobil’s long-form op-eds).1 Undoubtedly, Crable and Vibbert’s analysis offers a compelling window into how a corporate interest “encourage(s) individuals to identify their interests with those of the energy giant” (1983, p. 389), however it stops short of examining how “Observations” was used to also encourage individuals to envision such a large corporation as a relatable and influential persona. 4. Method “Observations” pieces normally offered four types of items: (1) briefs (or short text blocks) that began with bold words in the first line, (2) illustrative items that had no captions that accompanied some briefs, (3) editorial cartoons, and (4) bottom of the column stand-alones like favorite quotes or important facts. For this study, only the briefs were analyzed, and only those pieces that were: (1) primarily based on the voice of Mobil and not some other secondary source (e.g., quotes from books, or special reports, and (2) spoke to a topic related to energy). A textual approach (Wimmer & Dominick, 2010) was used. “Observations” was examined to see how Mobil employed broad approaches (e.g., emphasis on energy-related topics, use of tone, and types of direct appeals) to offer up different aspects of the company’s corporate persona. After thematically coding the briefs into recurrent types, similar briefs were collapsed together until major categories emerged. 5. Findings From this approach, this study finds three major themes in Mobil’s conveyance of its corporate persona in the “Observations” columns. First, Mobil sought to portray itself as an empathetic fellow-traveler; that is, it was a person who was connected to the values and concerns of its fellow Americans. Second, the company attempted to display that it was a believable person – it not only knew facts and data that were important to its fellow citizens, but it made that information believable because it communicated how such information was pertinent to individuals’ lives. Third, Mobil presented itself as an aspirational leader, pointing to specific areas where it insisted on taking the lead so as to help the country move forward and thrive.

1 Their observations mirror similar conceptual terminology offered earlier by Tompkins and Cheney (1985) in their discussion of corporate attempts to show linkage to existing audience values, through the appeal to commonly held premises (the enthymeme). Crable and Vibbert’s discussion of the epideictic appeal also appear to resonate with the observations of Ellul (1965, p. 75) who found that certain forms of mass-mediated persuasive appeals were “integration propaganda” that emphasize the “sharing of beliefs . . . and reactions.”

Please cite this article in press as: St. John III, B. Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004

G Model PUBREL-1236; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS

4

B. St. John III / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

5.1. Mobil as the empathetic fellow-traveler Mobil’s “Observations” columns, rather than discuss extensively how the oil business worked, depicted the company as a persona that cared about the economic well-being of society. It often used language that attempted to display its awareness of Americans’ concerns about the need for more energy, and then addressed those concerns by stressing that its efforts to meet the country’s energy needs would help the financial situation of all Americans. “Observations” columns allowed the company to demonstrate that it was in touch with Americans’ concerns about the fuel shortages of the era. Mobil made the point that Americans were forced to deal with shortages because of the lack of a concerted national energy policy to develop our own resources – and Americans were willing to do what was necessary to face up to the situation. It pointed out that a majority of people, according to national polls, wanted rationing and “so would we” (Mobil, 1979a). Mobil said that, even though Americans were willing to do what was necessary to cope with limited oil, citizens also were of a similar mind as the oil company: the country needed to develop more energy sources. For example, several nationwide and regional polls revealed that people wanted offshore drilling, said Mobil, but politicians did not seem to get it. “On this issue, the politicians clearly lag behind the balanced point of view of the majority of the people,” said the oil company, and officials needed to listen so that the country could develop more of its own energy (Mobil, 1975c). It reported that labor union representatives in both New Jersey and California were calling for more off shore drilling as a way to create jobs; again Mobil empathized, proclaiming, “It’s time our elected officials heeded the men and women whose jobs are on the line” (Mobil, 1975d). After discussing how Alaskans, Nevadans, and Coloradans were frustrated with government land control policies that stifled energy development, Mobil noted that surveys revealed that most Americans wanted to develop more energy sources, especially in wilderness areas. “The sensible solution is to have recreation and energy,” it said (Mobil, 1980a). “Observations” lauded how some Americans were already showing ways to move into new energy sources. The company said it was pleased to see that Californians voted in 1976 to encourage nuclear power plant development in that state. “So often, when the facts are out on the table, we Americans vote good sense,” it said, claiming the vote was a recognition of the need to strike a balance between environmentalism and development of domestic energy sources (Mobil, 1976a). “And what make sense for atomic power is also important to wider use of abundant coal and more drilling for oil and natural gas off our coasts,” it said (Mobil, 1976a). Furthermore, it said, the company tracked how Americans displayed a “can-do attitude” about new energy sources by pursuing wood chip burning, waste incineration, sludge decomposition, and solar power (Mobil, 1980b). Strategically, these series of briefs attempted to display that Mobil was in touch with the average person’s concerns and frustrations about the limited amount of domestic energy and how such shortfalls forced Americans to develop other energy sources. Mobil shared these messages to allow it to better establish an overarching theme: the company understood it had a vital role in helping its fellow citizens achieve their economic well-being through energy. The way to do this, it said, was by actively encouraging all to work together to develop a wider range of energy sources and thereby improve the country’s financial condition. One key element of this appeal was the message that everyone had a stake in a capitalist system that was the foundation for building a better energy system that served everyone well. To this end, the company referred to the country’s distribution of wealth as an economic pie that all could share in. For example, it noted that a Roper poll found that 58% of Americans were for continual moderate growth as opposed to boom cycles. Mobil said it was encouraged by that finding as it maintained that only a “bigger economic pie can provide enough slices for everybody” (Mobil, 1977). The company was adamant that capitalism put the lie to “people who seem to think that doing without is a good thing.” Saving energy was only half the job, it said, “The other half is to provide enough energy – secure domestic energy – so deprivation won’t be necessary” (Mobil, 1979b). The company said that the “doing without” advocates were often environmentalists who were not carefully considering the fact that the public wanted to have a balance between environmental protection laws and finding new energy sources that would help insure economic growth. “We don’t think an elite class should decide what’s good for us,” it said. “A lot of people don’t have it made yet, and [they] need energy to climb the ladder” (Mobil, 1979c). Such language was emblematic of Mobil’s attempts to show that its character reflected the values of the average American. That is, it believed in the power of the American individual to overcome difficulties and that, with such persistence (and the free market) each American had the opportunity to better their lot in society and improve the country. 5.2. Mobil as the believable person Scholars (Crable & Vibbert, 1983; Murphree & Aucoin, 2010) have traced how Mobil presented an expert voice within the long-form op-ed ads that appeared in national publications. Similarly, Mobil used “Observations” to offer its expertise, but did so through the character of the believable person. That is, it not only knew facts and data that were important to its fellow citizens, but it made that information tenable and relatable because it communicated how such information was pertinent to individuals’ lives. Mobil used this approach in two key message areas: (1) the need to harvest more energy and what the means for communities, and (2) how a company’s “bigness” can help the average person. Early in “Observations,” Mobil said that politicians and the press continually overstated the amount of profit in the oil industry. In the first half of 1975, Mobil’s profits were only about 1.4 cents per gallon, it said, and that profit was needed to attract the investments needed to search for oil (Mobil, 1975e). But Mobil was quick to emphasize that the language of Please cite this article in press as: St. John III, B. Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004

G Model PUBREL-1236; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS B. St. John III / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

5

“profits” and “investment” were actually about the company demonstrating that, by harvesting new sources of energy, it had a stake in American communities. Jayton, Texas was a small struggling town until the nearby discovery of oil. Now taxes paid by the oil companies almost completely fund the school district, allowing for several improvements, it said, including a swimming pool and football stadium. It said such results pointed to a good argument for expanding off shore drilling to more parts of the country’s coasts (Mobil, 1976b). In fact, its $1 billion investment in new offshore drilling in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf could bring about 870 million barrels of oil and 11 trillion cubic tons of natural gas to the US market, helping reduce everyone’s dependence on costly imports, the company said (Mobil, 1978). Mobil added that offshore drilling actually helps the environment and the economy. In Louisiana, there have been consistently larger fish catches since the early 1950s; “seems the offshore rigs acts like reefs, where fish like to hang out,” it said. Moreover, state oil revenues were pumping more money into Louisiana’s K-12 schools and universities (Mobil, 1980c). And Mobil was also looking into how alternative energies, like wind and solar, might be able to offer new sources of energy that would be practical, yet avoid “a nightmare future of stripped forests, crowded wilderness, scenic pollution and social changes few Americans are ready for” (Mobil, 1980d). Mobil also took on an area that, upon first consideration, might prove difficult to talk about, and still appear relatable to the average reader – arguing against the idea that the bigness of a company is bad. It proclaimed that politicians were duping the American public about the myth of the power of big oil. Mobil said that its industry was constrained by higher energy taxes, foreign governments’ increased control of the oil marketplace, and the recent removal of price controls. The company stated that there was a mythical belief in the power of the oil companies and that the industry had been made scapegoats. “If we sound angry about it, we are,” it said (Mobil, 1976c). Several months later, Mobil reprinted a reader letter that read: “I know oil companies are huge and rich. Wouldn’t I pay less for gasoline and heating oil if the biggies were broken up, and made to compete harder?” Mobil replied that bigness brings cost savings to the customer. For example, Mobil recently lost money in marketing and refining, and any buyer of those parts of its business would have to raise prices to get a good return on investment. “So you’d pay more, for essentially the same product you’re getting now. That’s just plain common sense,” it said (Mobil, 1976d). Furthermore, the break up of big oil businesses, or horizontal divestiture, would hurt the country because it would also break up the capital and resources these companies used to find other energy sources. Additionally, rather than being a threat to other energy producers, big oil companies provide healthy competition that spurs growth in other industries like coal and uranium mining (Mobil, 1976e). Mobil also pointed out that food chains were being criticized for bigness – however, net profits for the food industry, like the oil industry, were low. “The moral, of course, is that bigness can help the consumer by bringing down costs through big volumes,” it said (Mobil, 1976f). “Observations” provided facts and information about the need for more energy, and how oil company “bigness” was important, but it made sure to articulate how these messages were pertinent to the average American. In this way, it attempted to bolster its appeal by making such information, and therefore itself, relatable to the readers. 5.3. Mobil as an aspirational leader Studies (Brown & Waltzer, 2005; Kerr, 2005) have found that Mobil’s long-form op-ed ads were designed to show that the company was the voice of reason that took stands on issues that, ostensibly, would show it was a good corporate citizen that cared about society. “Observations” had a similar tone, but the Mobil persona was conversational and less detailed, choosing to show Mobil as a fellow citizen who articulated aspirations for the country. Mobil used two approaches to effect this construct: (1) it called for a national energy policy, and (2) it asserted its forward-looking character by offering highlights of its new energy harvesting procedures. In a very early “Observations” brief, Mobil noted that the Soviet Union had recently surpassed the US as the largest producer of crude oil. This was a reminder, said Mobil, that the country needed a “sound national energy policy” (Mobil, 1975f). The right policy would help reduce the country’s dependence on imported oil by stressing energy conservation, industry/government research cooperation, accelerated off-shore drilling, and the phase out of price controls, it said (Mobil, 1975f). Mobil noted that Americans were sending a signal to politicians about this policy need by turning to more fuelefficient cars. “Maybe Washington will finally get the message and provide the sound energy policy the country needs,” it said (Mobil, 1976g). Additionally, America’s policy for developing nuclear sources of power was poor; “our country is becoming a nuclear alsoran” as 43 nations around the world were establishing nuclear power, it said (Mobil, 1979d). There already existed ways to safely and reliably store nuclear waste fuel, it said, and the lack of a clear plan for developing nuclear power “could be risking the nation’s energy future,” the company warned (Mobil, 1979d). At one point, Mobil decided to use “Observations” to offer up its own proactive policy suggestion to find more sources of oil. It would forgo any price increase beyond inflation on oil currently in production, provided “the oil we find in the future could bring the world market price, without new taxes” (Mobil, 1979e). If profits became excessive, it said, such a development might spur national officials to develop a policy to address the country’s desperate need for more oil (Mobil, 1979e). Mobil’s aspirational leanings also appeared in discussions of their new energy initiatives. It said it was investing in ways to economically convert sunlight into electricity, and was involved in developing solar cells. Mobil saw its efforts as a long-term proposition; for example, solar would meet only a small proportion of energy needs by the mid-80s, it said. Instead, as Mobil detailed at different times over the six-year span of the columns, it was developing catalysts, testing fracking processes (to extract gas from underneath rocks), pursuing liquid synthetic fuels, converting some coal and wood into gas, and developing Please cite this article in press as: St. John III, B. Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004

G Model PUBREL-1236; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS

6

B. St. John III / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

new ways to drill deeper for offshore gas. The company stressed that its aspirational view for America was tinged with pragmatism. In a spring 1980 column, it told the fable of four little pigs who were on a mission to build energy-efficient homes while avoiding the wolf. The first pig used experimental sources – fusion power, microwave satellites – but it took so long he was exposed to the wolf. The second pig went the way of existing alternative sources – wind, solar, tidal power – but everything was so expensive he had to fund it through a speaking tour; the wolf easily found him, too. The third pig constructed a highly insulated house, but building its thick wall took so long that the wolf got to him. A fourth pig was more pragmatic: he installed solar where practical, made his home more efficient, and developed energy that was near his home; the wolf could not get to him. The moral, said Mobil: “To keep the wolf from your door, you can’t be pig-headed about your options. Which is why America must develop all its energy sources – oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power for today and whatever will work for tomorrow” (Mobil, 1980e). Mobil’s aspirational appeal was a component that logically complemented the other two projections of its corporate persona. The company’s character was more than just empathetic and believable; “Observations” continually conveyed the message that the company’s character was that of a true leader that would help its fellow Americans by pushing for a new national energy policy while also innovatively (and sensibly) developing new energy sources. 6. Discussion/implications Looking back on Mobil’s “Observations” columns, Schmertz maintained the ads had significant impact during a turbulent time for the oil industry. For example, he said, data from Parade magazine revealed a high readership score for the columns, with readership numbers sometimes higher than the scores for Parade’s editorial content (Schmertz, 1988). Mobil commissioned a survey and found that those exposed to the ads were influenced by the columns’ messaging on items like nuclear power and “skepticism about solar energy” (Schmertz, 1988, p. 214). Still, as Crable and Vibbert (1983) pointed out, Mobil attempted to address a complicated arena that featured, at a minimum, political uncertainties about the country and its energy needs, and the actions of other oil companies. It would be difficult to claim that “Observations” alone had any clearly identified impact, they said, even though Mobil, throughout the “Observations” years, achieved record profits, avoided divestiture, and achieved the decontrol of oil prices. Instead, they emphasized that the columns contributed to Mobil establishing itself as “the principal voice of big oil,” a “self-proclaimed American hero” that held center stage about energy issues in the public arena (Crable & Vibbert, 1983, pp. 392, 394). Indeed, such a conveyance of a beneficent corporate persona needs to be carefully considered as a significant outcome of “Observations.” About a year before “Observations” began, one of Mobil’s long-form op-ed ads described what the company saw as the proper role of government in dealing with the energy market. “What is going to be critical [for government in] carrying out a national energy policy is flexibility, resourcefulness, dedication, adaptability, and risk-taking,” it said (Mobil, 1975g). But, as this study has found, these attributes actually describe how Mobil saw its own persona as depicted through the “Observations” columns. That is, it was a fellow-traveler who cared about the average citizen, was armed with good information and expertise, and demonstrated it had the willingness and capability to take on new, sensible energy ventures for the common good. However, this kind of corporate persona – the reasonable, empathetic corporate entity who wants the best for its fellow citizens – can be problematic, even when the corporation takes actions that appear to be in line with its professed character. Waddock (2007) examined how companies can, indeed, act in ways that appear to co-mingle both their professed corporate citizenship and their drive for success in the marketplace. The dark side of such a successful merging of persona and action is that such an achievement can also lead to the externalization of “hidden or even unrecognized costs to society,” impinging on “true value for customers,” and “ecological sustainability” (Waddock, 2007, pp. 80, 82). This complicated dynamic is important to consider because the enduring projection of the corporate persona should not be underestimated. Indeed, there are substantive parts of Mobil’s corporate persona that continue to appear subsequent to its becoming ExxonMobil in 1999. For example, in ExxonMobil’s 2012 Corporate Citizenry Report, the company says: We help provide energy that is fundamental to improving the lives of billions of people around the world. Access to energy underpins human comfort, mobility, economic prosperity and social progress. It touches nearly every aspect of modern life. (2012, p. 4) With this proclamation, ExxonMobil also asserts that its very existence, and of course, its corporate persona, touches nearly every aspect of the average person’s life. In this way, ExxonMobil continues asserting the sense-making power of the corporate persona. The corporation goes forth to provide a beneficial service, and, in the process, exemplifies values that each citizen can relate to (e.g., prosperity, progress). The larger question, as Waddock pointed out, is what may be the costs of a blurring of the lines between what constitutes a successful corporate entity versus what makes for a meaningful, successful life for an individual. For example, it may be a successful barometer to ExxonMobil (and other oil companies) that, since the spring of 2010, an average of 40% of Americans either do not believe, or are not sure, that there is evidence of climate change (Borick & Rabe, 2012). Furthermore, a fall 2013 Pew Research Poll revealed that only 34% of Americans stated that new climate change policies should be a top priority, with only 44% indicating that climate change is a result of human activity (Pew Research Center, 2013). Such survey results may be encouraging for oil companies, who have sunk costs into fossil fuel processes and need to extract these sources to insure their return on investments and continued profitability. But there is another factor here: such a continuing strain of public denial and uncertainty about the existence of climate change suggests Please cite this article in press as: St. John III, B. Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004

G Model PUBREL-1236; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS B. St. John III / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

7

that Americans are willing to continue to see the oil companies as authoritative, reasonable and, therefore, relatable. The oil industry, say observers, tells consumers that attempting to limit the use of fossil fuels is a specious proposition based on uncertain and incomplete science that unreasonably risks driving up the price of gas, eliminating jobs, and ruining the US economy (Banning, 2009; Spencer, 2010). These assertions are a continuation of messaging that “Observations” carried about what constitutes reasonable risk. For example, in a summer 1980 “Observations” column, Mobil said that everyday life brings all sorts of “fresh perils,” like too much sunshine or “harmful rain,” but that it was not possible to develop a “risk-free” society through government regulation because “everything people do everyday involves a slight measure of risk” (Mobil, 1980f). The company concluded with the warning that avoiding risk and fighting change may be a short term solution, “but for the long pull, it’s a way to certain stagnation” (Mobil, 1980f). With this statement, Mobil offers up the reasonable, risktaking corporate persona who is willing to take the initiative to provide a beneficial product to all Americans. Furthermore, by appealing to Americans’ penchant for valorizing the self-starting individual,2 such a message of energy harvesting as never being 100% safe could well explain how a significant amount of Americans today do not see fossil fuel-induced climate change as a significant risk.3 Mobil’s “Observations” provides a window into this capacity of the corporate persona – one that, by being empathetic, believable, and aspirational, is relatable enough to help inform how the individual makes sense of the world. This is a particularly distinctive challenge in today’s communication arena, as the traditional news media – the well-established mediated vehicle through which corporations attempted to convey their personae – are gradually being rivaled by social media as a source of information. For example, individuals who receive news links through Facebook and Twitter point to friends and family as the single largest source of these links (Mitchell, Rosenstiel, Christian, n.d.). Of course, this implies a level of agendasetting that is more proximate to the individual, an immediacy that, at first glance, may make it easier for the availability of corporate persona-related messages. That is, in the case of Mobil’s “Observations,” the oil company constructed op-ed columns whose availability to the average reader were determined by (1) what mass outlet (e.g., Parade) decided to accept it, (2) what local newspaper decided to carry Parade, and (3) the reader purchasing a Sunday paper that carried Parade. Now, that same reader may simply receive messages about a corporation through association with friends or family via social media. However, social media presents its own challenges. Friends or family provide their own agenda setting – the links they share about corporations can be accompanied by their own commentary, or non-factual information. Furthermore, the nature of social media can work to clutter the landscape when it comes to conveying the corporate persona: a late 2013 check of Facebook pages with Exxon in the title revealed 72 different Facebook profiles, ranging from refineries to individual gas stations – with no clear corporate character conveyed across the various profiles. A similar check of Twitter revealed 25 different accounts that included official Twitter pages for ExxonMobil in the US and the European Union, along with pages that included convenience stores. Not surprisingly tweets varied wildly: in late 2013, the official US ExxonMobil Twitter site asked for nominations for teachers to attend an ExxonMobil-sponsored academy, while an affiliated gas station touted its barbecue ribs. It is clear that the promise of social media to convey the corporate persona is, at this stage, to be more fully determined. In the meantime, public relations scholars and practitioners should guide the corporation into better understanding, and coping with, at a minimum, two pressing factors that complicate the realization and communication of the corporate character: (1) an era of non-traditional information outlets that appeal to self-selected audiences, and (2) the increasing complexity of interlocking systemic concerns (e.g., climate change, economic/ecological sustainability). By doing so, public relations practitioners and scholars can inform the company, and its persona, in such a way that the corporation first makes better sense of the world, and then acts in ways that benefit stakeholders and society at large. Acknowledgement This research was made possible by funding from the Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Initiative, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA. References Banning, M. E. (2009). When poststructural theory and the contemporary politics collide – The vexed case of global warming. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6(3), 285–304. Bercovitch, S. (1978). The American Jeremiad. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Borick, C., & Rabe, B. (2012). Continued rebound in American belief in climate change. In Governance Studies at Brookings Report. Retrieved from: http://www.brookings.edu/ /media/research/files/papers//6/11%20climate%20rabe%20borick/nsapocc belief spring%20formatted.pdf Brown, C., & Waltzer, H. (2005). Every Thursday: Advertorials by Mobil Oil on the op-ed page of the New York Times. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 197–208.

2 Scholars (Bercovitch, 1978; Lipset, 1996) have observed that American values tend to place primacy on the concept of the individual striving continually to improve his or her lot. According to this value system, institutions like the state or large corporations are not the primary sources of societal improvement, but, at best, vehicles through which people can realize their visions of achieving the lives for which they were created. 3 Despite a significant level of uncertainty among the American public about climate change and its links to fossil fuels, a 2011 national survey found that about 75% of Americans agreed with the statement “Smarter energy choices are the key to creating a future that is healthy and safe because fossil fuels create toxic wastes that are a threat to our health and safety.” See the Civil Society Institute at http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/110311release.cfm.

Please cite this article in press as: St. John III, B. Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004

G Model PUBREL-1236; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS

8

B. St. John III / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Brown, C., Waltzer, H., & Waltzer, M. B. (2001). Daring to be heard: Advertorials by organized interests on the op-ed page of the New York Times, 1985–1998. Political Communication, 18, 23–50. Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Cheney, G. (1992). The corporate person (re)presents itself. In E. L. Toth, & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 165–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Civil Society Institute. (2013). Survey: Congress, white house focus on fossil fuels, nuclear power is out of touch with views of mainstream America. Retrieved from: http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/110311release.cfm Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1983). Mobil’s epideictic advocacy: “Observations” of prometheus-bound. Communications Monographs, 50, 38–394. Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda: The formation of men’s attitudes. New York: Random House. Ewen, S. (1996). PR! A social history of spin. New York: Basic Books. Heath, R. L., & Nelson, R. A. (1986). Issues management: Corporate public policymaking in an information society. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Kerr, R. L. (2005). The rights of corporate speech: Mobil oil and the legal development of the voice of business. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Krannich, J. M. (2005). The corporate “person”: A new analytical approach to a flawed method of constitutional interpretation. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 37(1), 61–110. Lamme, M. O., & Russell, K. M. (2010). Removing the spin: Toward a new theory of public relations history. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 11, 281–362. Lipset, S. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York: W.W. Norton. Marchand, R. (1998). Creating the corporate soul: The rise of public relations and corporate imagery. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mayer, C. J. (1990). Personalizing the impersonal: Corporations and the bill of rights. Hastings Law Journal, 41(3), 577–667. Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., & Christian, L. (n.d.). What Facebook and Twitter Mean for News. The State of the News Media 2012. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/mobile-devices-and-news-consumption-some-good-signs-for-journalism/what-facebook-and-twitter-meanfor-news/ Mobil (n.d.) A Case History. Brochure. Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. The University of Texas, Austin, TX. Mobil. (1975a). Toward a National Energy Policy: What Went Wrong? Brochure. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1975b). Herbert Schmertz letter to Managers. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1975, July 20). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1975, August 31). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1975, October 26). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1975, October 12). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1975g). The Role of Goverment. Advertisement. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1976, August 1). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1976, September 5). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1976, May 16). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1976, February 15). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1976, November 21). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1976, February 22). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1976, January 18). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1977, October 16). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1978, August 20). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1979, August 5). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1979, October 14). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1979, October 28). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1979, April 1). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1979, July 22). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1980, July 6). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1980, February 17). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1980, March 16). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1980, April 27). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1980, May 11). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Mobil. (1980, August 30). Observations. Exxon/Mobil Archives. Murphree, V., & Aucoin, J. (2010). The energy crisis and the media: mobil oil corporation’s debate with the media, 1973–1983. American Journalism, 27(2), 7–30. Newsom, D., Turk, J. V., & Kruckeberg, D. (2004). This is PR: The realities of public relations (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Pew Research Center. (2013). Climate change: Key data points from pew research. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climatechange-key-data-points-from-pew-research/ Ripken, S. K. (2009). Corporations are people too: A multi-dimensional approach to the corporate personhood puzzle. Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, 15, 97–177. Schmertz, H. (1988). Reaching the opinion makers. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Strategic issues management (pp. 199–237). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Sethi, S. P. (1977). Advocacy advertising and large corporations: Social conflict, big business image, the news media, and public policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Smith, G., & Heath, R. L. (1990). Moral appeals in mobil oil’s op-ed campaign. Public Relations Review, 16(4), 48–54. Spencer, T. (2010). Breaking the climate change deadlock. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(4), 223–235. St. John, B. (2011). Re-contextualizing Americanism: The national association of manufacturers’ Jeremiad of free enterprise during the Roosevelt era. In J. A. Edwards, & D. Weiss (Eds.), The rhetoric of American exceptionalism (pp. 63–81). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. St. John, B., & Arnett, R. (2013). The National Association of Manufacturers’ Commmunity Relations Short Film Your Town: Parable, propaganda, and big individualism. Journal of Public Relations Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.795868 Tedlow, R. (1979). Keeping the corporate image: Public relations and business. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tompkins, P., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organization. In R. D. McPhee, & P. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Waddock, S. (2007). Corporate citizenship: The dark-side of success. In S. G. May, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 74–86). New York: Oxford University Press. Warner, R. (1975). The free market: Key to more energy. Remarks at mobil annual meeting. Warner, R. (1977). The US energy crisis – Horizontal divestiture. Fordham, NY: Remarks at the Fordham Forum. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2010). Mass media research: An introduction (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Please cite this article in press as: St. John III, B. Conveying the sense-making corporate persona: The Mobil Oil “Observations” columns, 1975–1980. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.004