1. What would you have recommended Chairman Rawl do upon learning of the Prince William Sound oil spill?
I would have advised Chairman Rawl to travel to Alaska once he found out about the spill. In order to take action on the situation I think it would be important for him to see what happened instead of hearing about it from other people. Especially when it got to the point that he was unable to find someone to brief him on what was going on. If he traveled to Alaska then he would have been able to get the information first hand.
2. How would you have handled the media in this case?
In this case, I would use the media to get the public involved and find out what they think about the situation, and keep a two-way path of communication with them. I want to know how they feel, and I want to keep them informed with what’s going on to deal with the oil spill.
3. What would have been your timing in terms of public relations responses in this case?
I would have wanted to get the information out as soon as possible. I think that Exxon should have responded as soon as possible. The longer they wait, the more it seems to the public that they’re not very concerned about the issue at hand.
4. What would be your overall public relations strategy if you were Exxon’s public relations director?
I would have taken a middle-of-the-road strategy because it’s important to let the public know what’s going on and what’s being done to solve it, but it shouldn’t be taken too far like with the aggressive approach. Taking too strong of a strategy could backfire and upset more people. On the other side, a low key strategy could upset people as well because it could seem like Exxon wasn’t doing enough to help. This is why I think a middle-of-the-road approach is best.
5. Do you think this case will ever qualify as a “textbook example” of what not to do in a crisis?
I believe it is. After all, the situation was handled poorly. Although, even if it is a textbook example of what not to do, it seems like it didn’t impact much. Seeing the recent BP oil spill had been handled poorly, maybe even worse than the Exxon one, we haven’t learned much from the previous incident. I think it’s good to have an example like this though, because hopefully enough people will learn from it.
6. Now that Exxon has merged with Mobil, what is the corporation doing about the environment issues?
I was unable to get the website in the book to work. I was able to find out that their company policy is that they are going to comply with environmental rule and regulations set down by the government, encourage concern and respect for the environment, emphasize every employee’s responsibility in environmental performance, communicate with the public on environmental matters and share its experience with others to facilitate improvements in industry performance. I also found out that this seems to be a general policy between most gas/oil corporations.
Muffy Lavens 
I am in total agreement with the idea that Rawls should have traveled to Alaska and apologized in person. I think people want a personal apology when environmental disasters like this happen. The problem was on his shoulders, and he did not take the initiative to make things right.
I am also in agreement that the low key strategy doesn’t work, and never will with these kinds of crisis. It seems to me that just trying to hide from a thing like this is just disrespectful. Rawls was careless in the way he handled this.
Good comment regarding the timing of public relations to this situation. I agree that the public relation reaction to a situation like the one in this case is very time sensitive and needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. Also, I agree that this situation should be considered a “text book example’ of what not to do. You would think BP would have taken a lesson from Exxon and would have handled their own oil spill in a better fashion.
I agree with you on the first question. Rawls use poor judgement by not going out to Alaska right away to get to the bottom of the issue. He should have flown out to the site where the oil spilled right away. This would have shown that he is a concerned chairman and it would have shown that Exxon cares about the spill. Since he did not fly out, it made Rawls look like he was writing the situation off as no big deal. Also, since he made the comment that the spill was not that bad and contradicted what reporters were saying also made him look bad. In bad times like that one, one has to step up to the plate and take it as it comes; they shouldn’t hide away from the issue.
I agree with your approach to solving the issue. I also think that Exxon should have gotten information out to the public as quickly as possible because it would show that they are concerned with what happened and that they want to do something to fix the problem.
I agree that even though most companies think that this is the proper procedure to use when a situation like this occurs, I believe that there should be a new “normal” way to solve the issue that makes more of an impact. Looking at the more recent BP oil spill, it also should have been handled in a more direct approach, like you said. If we cannot learn from our past, then what is the point of having a set of guidelines with they do not help the situation.