BP (NYSE:BP) has already paid out millions to Florida for its tourism industry after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, to deal with the misperceptions the beaches in the state were filled with oil.
That worked during the oil spill successfully, as tourism did very well over the duration of the oil spill in Florida. Now the state is asserting wrong perceptions still remain, and BP should pay to have that removed through advertising campaigns.
The problem is it's quite possible this is a recessionary slowdown and not related to BP at all.
Allegedly some surveys have potential tourists saying they still believe the Florida beaches are filled with oil, but the question that should be asked is whether or not they were going to vacation there in the first place as colder weather hits the nation.
As far as next summer, to ask those making vacation decisions on whether or not they'll come there next year doesn't make much sense. After nine months or so, most would have to think the beaches are are clean of debris and oil.
Either way, Florida has asked for another payment of $75 million to use for their advertising budget. I think this time around BP should say no, as they're increasingly being tapped to pay for budget shortfalls that are result of the ongoing recession and not necessarily the oil spill.
Your pieces are getting much better! A couple of things I would recommend:
ReplyDelete-More empirical evidence- ie. how much they've already paid out to Florida, perhaps whether Louisiana receives similar payments etc.
-Make your opinion less explicit. If you want this to be more of a news article than an opinion piece, don't mention that you think BP should stop paying Florida, instead say things like it seems that there is a lack of correlation between the spill and Florida's reduced tourism.
Some of my favourite articles for writing style (although they can be opinionated) are those in the economist. I would recommend reading those and modelling your writing style to those