November 4, 2025
by Stephen T. Messenger
Communication is only effective when we truly understand our audience. From ancient philosophy to modern crises, the most skilled communicators succeed by tailoring their messaging to who is listening, the emotional context, and the purpose behind their words. When this alignment fails, even well-intentioned messages can backfire dramatically. A powerful illustration of this principle comes from one of the most infamous corporate communication failures in recent history: the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Deepwater Horizon
In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, killing 11 workers and releasing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico over 87 days. The disaster devastated marine life, coastal economies, and public trust.
Tony Hayward, CEO of British Petroleum, was the face of the company during this crisis. He was charged with communicating humility, empathy, and accountability, showing that BP understood the gravity of the situation and was taking responsibility.
However, at one point, he let slip a statement that would become infamous: “I’d like my life back.” The public perceived this as tone-deaf and self-centered. Rather than showing concern for the victims and the environment, he highlighted his personal inconvenience.
This created emotional dissonance. The public, grieving and angry, could not connect with his words, and the fallout was immediate. The impacts through global media coverage were condemnation by national leaders, a plummeting BP stock price, and, ultimately, Hayward’s removal as CEO. This example demonstrates the consequences of failing to understand the audience, context, and emotional tone in communication.
The two methods of understanding rhetorical analysis and Aristotelian Appeals can help us avoid these same mistakes.
Rhetorical Analysis
Before we write or speak in public, it’s important to understand how the message will resonate with our audience. Rhetorical analysis is a fancy term from High School English on the study of how communication strategies affect the audience. It allows us to understand why some messages resonate while others fail catastrophically.
Rhetorical analysis has three key components.
Audience. If we don’t consider who we’re speaking to, we’ll probably miss the mark. Hayward failed to accurately gauge his audience. The public was grieving and angered by the disaster. By focusing on his own fatigue instead of the victims’ suffering, he completely misread the emotional state and expectations of those listening.
Purpose: We have to know why we’re being asked to write or speak, then think about whether we should inform, persuade, entertain, motivate, or something else. The purpose of Hayward’s repetitive communications was to reflect apology, reassurance, and accountability. His actual statement was the opposite, undermining his purpose entirely.
Context: We need to understand what’s going on in the background historically, socially, and culturally. The BP situation was a national and global crisis, with intense media scrutiny and public outrage. Understanding this heightened context was critical, and Hayward’s casual, self-centered comment ignored it.
Aristotelian Appeals
Our Greek philosopher friend talked about the principles of persuasion. He believed there were three main ways a speaker or writer could influence an audience.
Ethos is in establishing credibility and trustworthiness. When we engage any audience, we must first get them to trust us. Hayward’s credibility collapsed. The public could no longer trust him to lead BP responsibly because he was perceived to be unconcerned about the human and environmental toll.
Pathos is the emotional appeal to an audience. It’s how we pull at the heartstrings or connect with them to the story in an intimate way. Hayward’s statement completely failed to align with the audience’s emotions. The public wanted empathy and acknowledgment of loss; instead, they received self-pity. This emotional disconnect amplified outrage and made the message ineffective.
Logos is the logical reasoning or evidence that we use to persuade others of our message. When we pontificate with opinions, we lose our audience by not making a rational, sound argument of our point. While Hayward’s statement was not inherently illogical, it was irrelevant to the rational concerns of the audience, such as accountability measures, cleanup efforts, and corporate responsibility. Logic alone cannot salvage a message when emotional and ethical alignment is unbalanced.
Hayward’s words demonstrated how ignoring the situation, failing to establish credibility, misreading audience emotion, and neglecting logical appeals can create public communication failures. When we think through these items beforehand, we can avoid the pitfalls.
The Street Fair Pivot
I’ve faced my own lessons in understanding audience and context, though on a much smaller scale. I was once asked to speak at a local street fair to what I thought was a small group of city officials. I had planned a structured talk about the military, economic impacts, and our community links.
When I arrived, I realized my perception did not match reality. The audience was thousands of people, ranging from families, party-goers, and children who expected entertainment, not a formal briefing. Looking at the crowd, I knew my original message had no chance of landing, and I had to pivot quickly, injecting humor and energy into the event.
Much like Hayward, my initial mistake was failing to read the situation and audience. The lesson was clear: knowing your audience, understanding context, and choosing the right appeals are critical, even when the stakes are far smaller than an international crisis.
Know Thine Audience
Many leaders have thrived in this space. Winston Churchill, in his 1940 “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” speech, motivated the nation to resist Nazi oppression through emotional appeal. Martin Luther King, Jr. inspired change through his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech using pathos, ethos, and logos. And public speaker Tony Robbins is an expert at using personal credibility, emotional stories, and logic to inspire others.
From BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster to small-scale public speaking, the principles remain the same. Effective communication requires a clear understanding of who our audience is and what they feel. It forces us to think about the purpose of our message. Quality communication requires knowing the context of our environment. Finally, it helps us use ethos, pathos, and logos to engage, persuade, and connect.
Failing in any of these areas can transform a message from effective to disastrous. The key to successful communication is not just what we say, but how, when, and to whom we say it. By aligning messaging, audiences, and context, we achieve maximum impact.
Click here to sign up for The Maximum Standard’s weekly email where you’ll get a leadership vignette delivered for free every Tuesday morning!
We’re always looking for authors. We coach first time authors (and anyone) through the writing process if you need a little help. It’s worth taking the first step and showing interest.
Subscribe above to join The Maximum Standard community. We are looking for others to lead along with us, write about leadership, and improve organizations. Clicking above will place you on our weekly, free email distribution list – no ads, no fluff. Just leaders connecting with leaders. Join us!
The Maximum Standard 