Pining for Amoco

June 17, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As if BP didn’t have enough to worry about, it now must convince the American press to stop using its old name, British Petroleum.

British Petroleum shortened its name to the initials in 2001 and the media obliged. By the time the spill erupted April 20, British Petroleum had all but vanished here in the states.

Then the old name made a huge comeback. It was mentioned in 12 percent of all references to BP by May 3, according to The Economist. The old name has leveled off near 8 percent of references, but that’s still uncomfortably frequent for other British companies fearing a backlash against anything Britannia.

Maybe British Petroleum execs feared Americans would snub a blatantly British oil company after its 1998 acquisition of Chicago-based Amoco Corp. Amoco was the successor to Standard Oil Indiana, which was founded by John D. Rockefeller when he opened a refinery in the northwestern Indiana town of Whiting in 1889.

BP could have kept the ghost in chains by changing its name completely, says David Cranfill, president of Indianapolis advertising firm Three-Sixty Group Inc.

Cranfill thinks the BP shorthand leaves customers confused and possible even with an empty feeling. Just what does BP stand for, anyway? he asks. If it weren’t for pumps at the convenience stores, one wouldn’t know the company sells gas.

“Whenever you brand a company, the most important thing is to make sure that within that brand you capture or convey the company’s identity as opposed to an image,” he says. “There’s no product that’s related to the name BP.”

Mentioning his fondness for the Amoco stations in his neighborhood, Cranfill adds, “I’ve never felt any real connection to BP.”

What about you? Any thoughts on the name change? About how BP’s handling the spill?
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT