Shell social media oil spill a 'coordinated online assassination'(theage.com.au)
theage.com.au
Shell social media oil spill a 'coordinated online assassination'
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/shell-social-media-oil-spill-a-coordinated-online-assassination-20120719-22bpe.html
115 comments
I'm still perplexed that Oil companies bother to advertise at all. What's the point? I'd keep a low profile if I were them. People don't really choose where they fill their car on the company do they? It's more dictated by price and whether the station is en route to work.
Good point about Greenpeace keeping the oil companies on their toes. Sad though that it has to be this way.
To me drilling for oil - is almost money for nothing. I'm baffled that these companies aren't behaving more responsibly.
Good point about Greenpeace keeping the oil companies on their toes. Sad though that it has to be this way.
To me drilling for oil - is almost money for nothing. I'm baffled that these companies aren't behaving more responsibly.
> To me drilling for oil - is almost money for nothing.
You might want to learn about the high costs of exploration and building rigs and wells and all the innovation that has been occurring for decades to extract greater percentages of more kinds of oil out of more kinds of places. Something like gold diggers in the 1800's might have been a lot closer to "almost money for nothing." Maybe even oil back then. But any resource that was easy enough to get for almost nothing has already been used.
You might want to learn about the high costs of exploration and building rigs and wells and all the innovation that has been occurring for decades to extract greater percentages of more kinds of oil out of more kinds of places. Something like gold diggers in the 1800's might have been a lot closer to "almost money for nothing." Maybe even oil back then. But any resource that was easy enough to get for almost nothing has already been used.
If Exxon made a net income of $41 billion last year (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/whi...), then it's pretty much money for nothing.
BP's deepwater disaster indicates that not enough is being done to protect the environment, it hasn't stopped risky drilling. That should never happen again. Some of those profits could be turned over into environmental preventative protection. These companies smack of pure greed to me.
BP's deepwater disaster indicates that not enough is being done to protect the environment, it hasn't stopped risky drilling. That should never happen again. Some of those profits could be turned over into environmental preventative protection. These companies smack of pure greed to me.
Exxon made a profit of $41bn on a turnover of $480bn - about an 8% profit margin. That's not really "money for nothing". That's a healthy return on a gargantuan investment.
Some tech stocks profit margins: AAPL: ~30%, MSFT: ~30%, GOOG: ~25%. 3-4 times higher than Exxon. Do those companies all make money for nothing too?
Some tech stocks profit margins: AAPL: ~30%, MSFT: ~30%, GOOG: ~25%. 3-4 times higher than Exxon. Do those companies all make money for nothing too?
Exactly. You beat me to it. See source here, namely Tables 2 and 6: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42364.pdf
Also here: http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin
Note that it was closer to 5% in Q2 2009.
Also here: http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin
Note that it was closer to 5% in Q2 2009.
But it would be much lower if these companies were held accountable for the massive environmental impacts that they have (beyond the direct impacts of a spill). Excluding things that are even "debatable" like climate change, pollution and the effects thereof are not. These socialized costs would make oil companies unprofitable.
I agree that oil companies benefit from externalities that aren't accounted for, but I'd really like to see a numerical demonstration that it would make them unprofitable - I'm totally unconvinced that oil demand is that elastic, and I think they'd be able to pass the increased costs on to customers.
Oil is more scarce and useful than money, it's hard to see what would make extraction unprofitable. A carbon tax would mostly disincentive wasteful consumers. I wonder if anything could prevent exploitation of shale gas with a really low EROEI.
Wouldn't another tax on fuel just hurt low-income consumers?
I'm not rich - I drive because I want/need to, not because it's cheap. Sometimes I drive for fun, to get out of town for a bit, and I don't have the most fuel efficient vehicle, so that could be considered wasteful. If gas cost $5,$6,$10/gallon where I live (Chicago) I would still drive. Someone working minimum wage, students, kids, and retirees, increased fuel cost could prevent them from driving altogether.
I'm not rich - I drive because I want/need to, not because it's cheap. Sometimes I drive for fun, to get out of town for a bit, and I don't have the most fuel efficient vehicle, so that could be considered wasteful. If gas cost $5,$6,$10/gallon where I live (Chicago) I would still drive. Someone working minimum wage, students, kids, and retirees, increased fuel cost could prevent them from driving altogether.
It will hurt some consumers if they change nothing, but cheap oil is not a right, and being dependent on it now or in the future should be discouraged for good reason (mostly because a lasting ecological catastrophe is worse than diminished standards of living). Some hints that will help commuters save money: better public transport, carpooling, working from home, moving out of suburbia.
Those things are all very much debatable. Unfortunately reasoned debate rarely occurs, what we get instead is hyper-partisan shouting matches.
Please look up the cost of, say, a deep water drilling rig. It is not free.
People did react to the Exxon Valdez oil spill which IMO woke the oil companies up as to the value of pure image advertising.
There was a good TV program of a tear down of a decommissioned shell/esso rig from the North Sea oil field. On yesterday (Sun 22nd July.)
Apparently there was a shift in European law, that now forces companies to tidy up after they've finished. Brought about after pressure from Greenpeace for Shell trying to ditch the Brent Spar in an underwater trough.
Quite how you'd do this with anything deep sea is beyond me. Worth a watch though.
Apparently there was a shift in European law, that now forces companies to tidy up after they've finished. Brought about after pressure from Greenpeace for Shell trying to ditch the Brent Spar in an underwater trough.
Quite how you'd do this with anything deep sea is beyond me. Worth a watch though.
Re the low profile: regularly paying a large media group for ad space in exchange for no bad publicity would make sense to these companies. Large groups buy unprofitable newspapers for similar reasons.
>It provides an effective counter to the millions (billions?) of dollars the oil and gas industry expends in advertising and lobbying.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Oil companies continue to exert immense influence over governments because of the taxes they pay and the contributions they make to politicians and their parties. That's meant to be "countered" with mundane jokes on fake twitter profiles and memes on reddit? Forgive me for being cynical. If anything it's a great situation for oil companies. It gives people the illusion they're actually doing something when really it means nothing and the status quo remains.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Oil companies continue to exert immense influence over governments because of the taxes they pay and the contributions they make to politicians and their parties. That's meant to be "countered" with mundane jokes on fake twitter profiles and memes on reddit? Forgive me for being cynical. If anything it's a great situation for oil companies. It gives people the illusion they're actually doing something when really it means nothing and the status quo remains.
He's not being sarcastic, I think. I've got a somewhat similar background and I agree with his stated view.
Citizen and consumer activism keeps the bastards (more) honest. One thousand motivated and angry citizens with a plan can act as a very good counterweight to hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing (and lobbying). Really!
Mundane jokes seem trivial, occupation of capped oil wells in the North Sea seem like a bit of a jape. But the effect of these and all the (cute) Greenpeace donation collectors is consciousness-raising and creation of citizens and consumers who ask hard questions, and that scares the politicians no end. It scares Big Oil too and keeps them (more) honest.
The status quo that you speak of is vastly different to that during the 80's and totally alien to the status quo in the 50's, at least in the rich West. Perhaps you've not really noticed the change. I've worked on and off in the oil and gas industry since the 80's and I see a vast, vast change both in the public's attitude, and also in the mentality within the companies themselves.
Citizen and consumer activism keeps the bastards (more) honest. One thousand motivated and angry citizens with a plan can act as a very good counterweight to hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing (and lobbying). Really!
Mundane jokes seem trivial, occupation of capped oil wells in the North Sea seem like a bit of a jape. But the effect of these and all the (cute) Greenpeace donation collectors is consciousness-raising and creation of citizens and consumers who ask hard questions, and that scares the politicians no end. It scares Big Oil too and keeps them (more) honest.
The status quo that you speak of is vastly different to that during the 80's and totally alien to the status quo in the 50's, at least in the rich West. Perhaps you've not really noticed the change. I've worked on and off in the oil and gas industry since the 80's and I see a vast, vast change both in the public's attitude, and also in the mentality within the companies themselves.
I'm by no means suggesting that citizen/consumer activism short of violence is useless. In the past the 'Yes Men' and other groups have dragged the 'forgotten' issue of the Bhopal incident back into the news, generated significant bad PR and gotten politicians attention. I just fail to see the value of this particular stunt. Have people learned anything new? I doubt it. Are people writing to their elected officials, organizing petitions or boycotts? Not that I see. It's actionless preaching to the choir - "oil companies are evil" etc.
A lot more people have seen one of these banners via social media than the real Shell advertisements. Some of them will have talked about it. Some more will look at the cute animals and hate Shell. I suspect that Greenpeace will be able to count on some of these people next time a cute fundraiser knocks on their doors...
Here's the thing tho': pranks are fun. Developing alternative energy sources is hard work, and what sponsorship does Greenpeace do in that area? Not much...
That, and not any conspiracy theory, explains everything.
That, and not any conspiracy theory, explains everything.
I agree: I don't give money to Greenpeace because they're a marketing organisation that raises cash to do more marketing.
But: there is a school of thought that without broad community support, all the hard work won't add up to much.
They might be partly right, I pay more for "green power" than my neighbours do for "glowing-in-the-dark power", and don't own a car despite how much easier it'd make my life. I guess someone's marketing worked on me...
But: there is a school of thought that without broad community support, all the hard work won't add up to much.
They might be partly right, I pay more for "green power" than my neighbours do for "glowing-in-the-dark power", and don't own a car despite how much easier it'd make my life. I guess someone's marketing worked on me...
You don't give money to Greenpeace because you are ignorant.
Explains everything?
There are people working on alternative energy. They get less subsidy money from the government than the oil industry, which is plenty profitable on their own. You can re-read that sentence if you didn't believe it the first time.
It takes all kinds. Science and PR to protect the science. The political can be very connected to the scientific when the industry threatened with displacement is very politically active.
There are people working on alternative energy. They get less subsidy money from the government than the oil industry, which is plenty profitable on their own. You can re-read that sentence if you didn't believe it the first time.
It takes all kinds. Science and PR to protect the science. The political can be very connected to the scientific when the industry threatened with displacement is very politically active.
I'd be really interested to see a detailed accounting of the oil industry subsidies you refer to. When I've looked into this in the past, all I've been able to find are things like the depreciation of capital assets, which, while it could be considered a subsidy, is not specific to the oil industry. The numbers are very big, but that is because the oil industry makes some of the largest capital investments in industry.
Oh look, Google: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks...
Here in the UK, of every pound you spend on petrol, 80p of it is tax. 400% tax. You'd have to do a hell of a lot of subsidizing to override that.
Oil companies don't really pay taxes in the US. Or they do at effectively very low rates, but they are given right back in the form of subsidies. The power they wield is largely through the amount of lobbying and advertising they can do, which means they can destroy the careers of most politicians with a minor opex increase (and that is probably something they can write-off in their taxes, because of other laws they have bought). Essentially it's extortion.
It's very true what you are saying about non-western oil and gas. People forget that the biggest oil spill ever was caused by a totalitarian government on purpose and not by a multinational oil corporation by accident.
In the west, corporate brands make easy targets, but since the companies want to protect their brands it is quite effective at making things better.
In the west, corporate brands make easy targets, but since the companies want to protect their brands it is quite effective at making things better.
I'm curious / young / ignorant -- can you give me a link or name of the big oil spill caused by the totalitarian government?
They're most likely referring to the spill and fires set by Iraq in 1991:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires
Thanks!
[deleted]
Wow. This is absolutely fascinating. With this campaign, Greenpeace has shown more Internet savvy than the vast majority of professional "viral" marketers.
I'm not going to weigh in on the moral aspects of this incident, as I don't particularly care. I'm far more interested in the mechanics of how this was pulled off, as it has huge implications for corporations, activists, and even political candidates. I could easily see some Obama supporter pulling something similar and creating a firestorm around the Romney campaign.
Love it or hate it, these tactics are here to stay. It will be incumbent upon entities with interests in online perceptions to guard themselves against these kinds of attacks and, should the pros outweigh the cons, engage in them as well.
I'm not going to weigh in on the moral aspects of this incident, as I don't particularly care. I'm far more interested in the mechanics of how this was pulled off, as it has huge implications for corporations, activists, and even political candidates. I could easily see some Obama supporter pulling something similar and creating a firestorm around the Romney campaign.
Love it or hate it, these tactics are here to stay. It will be incumbent upon entities with interests in online perceptions to guard themselves against these kinds of attacks and, should the pros outweigh the cons, engage in them as well.
Greenpeace enlisted the amazing Yes Men as consultants via their thinktank: http://www.yeslab.org/.
A brief glance at their previous work shows that spreading hoaxes via social media seems to be their modus operandi.
And traditional media - their Bhopal apology hoax was done via a TV interview.
you seem to have forgotten the words "fsking amazing" between apology and hoax
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI
I was trying to stay fairly clinical about it because it's pretty controversial. But yes, I did have a good giggle when I first saw it on The Yes Men Fix the World.
I'm far more interested in the mechanics of how this was pulled off
Here's an earlier analysis:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholiday/2012/06/15/how-green...
I could easily see some Obama supporter pulling something similar and creating a firestorm around the Romney campaign.
Political campaigns already use similar tactics to create/shape news.
Here's an earlier analysis:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholiday/2012/06/15/how-green...
I could easily see some Obama supporter pulling something similar and creating a firestorm around the Romney campaign.
Political campaigns already use similar tactics to create/shape news.
I have to say I'm laughing, I was completely screwed by a Shell-franchised service station back in 1992 and I have held a grudge since. I never buy Shell gas unless there is no other choice. Formerly I was a loyal customer, if I needed gas I would always go to Shell if I could (since then I've learned that gasoline in any given area pretty much all comes from the same wholesale terminal and it doesn't really matter which station you buy it from).
In the larger sense, lampooning ads is as old as advertising. They are pretty obviously not "real." Not sure why this is news.
In the larger sense, lampooning ads is as old as advertising. They are pretty obviously not "real." Not sure why this is news.
This would be absolutely suicidal for a political campaign.
What's shocking to me is the blatant manipulation of the mob. Maybe this has gone on forever, but seeing it happen in real time on sites like Reddit is tripping me out. While I think my BS filter is more sophisticated than most, on the morning it was released I sent the Shell party video to a colleague to ask if he was there not realizing it was a spoof. Turns out he happened to know there was no such party.
I feel like the internet is becoming an increasingly dangerous place, and subtly so.
I feel like the internet is becoming an increasingly dangerous place, and subtly so.
If you are shocked by the "blatant manipulation of the mob", the advertising you see all around you every day, everywhere must put you in a permanent state of catatonia.
How come the combination of internet and activism is suddenly "dangerous", and not the pervasive and misleading propaganda we've been subjected to for generations?
Shell can no longer drown out the opposition with millions of dollars and now it's a problem?
How come the combination of internet and activism is suddenly "dangerous", and not the pervasive and misleading propaganda we've been subjected to for generations?
Shell can no longer drown out the opposition with millions of dollars and now it's a problem?
We have laws against false advertising. What specific false advertising is Shell currently bombarding us with?
Greenwashing is their primary mode of false advertising, here are two examples:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/13/corporates...
http://www.care2.com/causes/shell-tries-to-greenwash-frackin...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/13/corporates...
http://www.care2.com/causes/shell-tries-to-greenwash-frackin...
From your 4-year-old article:
Shell had responded to the challenge that the accepted definition of the phrase "sustainable development" was "development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
Is that definition highly controversial now?
In any event, that certainly does not constitute a massive propaganda campaign against the public.
Shell had responded to the challenge that the accepted definition of the phrase "sustainable development" was "development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
Is that definition highly controversial now?
In any event, that certainly does not constitute a massive propaganda campaign against the public.
In any event, that certainly does not constitute a massive propaganda campaign against the public.
Well it depends how much they spent on it no? I'd guess that Shell spends vastly more on putting it's point of view across than Greenpeace is able to.
Well it depends how much they spent on it no? I'd guess that Shell spends vastly more on putting it's point of view across than Greenpeace is able to.
Depends on which "we" you're talking about. But in the US, these are rarely enforced, and then only against blatant lies that have substantial financial impact.
It's perfectly legal to mislead, confuse, shade, distort, bamboozle, trick, and distract. And you can lie outright if the lie is small. Or if it qualifies as puffery, which basically the kind of lie we have come to expect from people selling stuff.
For example, Shell can say "We care about the environment" and show pictures of frolicking wildlife. They aren't obligated to say, "but we care about profits more" and show some pictures of oil spills.
My favorite example is Airborne, a purported cold preventative that does precisely nothing. They lied in their advertisements for years and made fistfuls of money. After more than a decade somebody finally sued them, and eventually the FTC beat them down as well. The result is that they had to give some of their ill-gotten gains back, and now lie by implication rather than by direct false statements.
But that only happened because a) they were provably wrong, and b) they had enough money for class action lawyers to decide it was worth years of effort to take a whack at their money pinata. As long as your lie isn't provably costing money and provably false, you're basically golden.
It's perfectly legal to mislead, confuse, shade, distort, bamboozle, trick, and distract. And you can lie outright if the lie is small. Or if it qualifies as puffery, which basically the kind of lie we have come to expect from people selling stuff.
For example, Shell can say "We care about the environment" and show pictures of frolicking wildlife. They aren't obligated to say, "but we care about profits more" and show some pictures of oil spills.
My favorite example is Airborne, a purported cold preventative that does precisely nothing. They lied in their advertisements for years and made fistfuls of money. After more than a decade somebody finally sued them, and eventually the FTC beat them down as well. The result is that they had to give some of their ill-gotten gains back, and now lie by implication rather than by direct false statements.
But that only happened because a) they were provably wrong, and b) they had enough money for class action lawyers to decide it was worth years of effort to take a whack at their money pinata. As long as your lie isn't provably costing money and provably false, you're basically golden.
Said laws are pretty flexible, I wouldn't rely on them giving you a significant boost of certainty in many products you buy. But apart from actual lies, I believe the intent of the phrase "drown out" is supposed to convey that they can just put so much noise out there it's not feasible for an average Joe who doesn't really care to be able to detect the signal. Noise doesn't have to be false.
"Drowning out"
I tried googling for some example campaigns, but I couldn't find any examples. I would assume it would almost be impossible to do so in the age of the Internet, reddit, facebook, and twitter. Do you have any examples of Shell drowning out environmentalist groups like Greenpeace?
I tried googling for some example campaigns, but I couldn't find any examples. I would assume it would almost be impossible to do so in the age of the Internet, reddit, facebook, and twitter. Do you have any examples of Shell drowning out environmentalist groups like Greenpeace?
I didn't mean to imply there actually has been such flooding by Shell, just that it's not about the truth of advertising. I'm a citizen of the internet with AdBlockPlus, but I remind myself that a huge number of people still watch television and read magazines and newspapers. Greenpeace had about $22m in total expenses in 2009 and 2010 each, Shell made $31bn in 2011 profits alone. Is there anything stopping Shell from dropping a few billion on advertising if they wanted to (and convinced the share holders it was a good idea)? They have the money to flood the most popular media outlets, but a top google result highlighting an "aggressive ad campaign" (http://adage.com/article/news/shell-oil-breaks-industry-sile...) suggests they only spend about $15m per year in advertising. When it comes down to it, they probably don't even need to bother. Consumers will get their gas from the lowest-priced gas station they know of. I actually think this action by Greenpeace works in Shell's favor purely due to association when people see the Shell logo as they're driving down a street for gas. I imagine for the common folk Greenpeace hopes to manipulate it produces more of an "oh you" reaction than "I hate you and will never buy from a Shell station!" one, if the image macros are even believed to be official. "Everyone knows" the oil companies are evil (or at least corrupted and in bed with the government).
For the record, this was also a top google result about a 2011 advertised claim being thrown out as misleading. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2011/10/19/shell-ads-banned-ov... Not that it says much, I'm sure I can find instances of every multibillion dollar company lying (as well as Greenpeace and PETA).
For the record, this was also a top google result about a 2011 advertised claim being thrown out as misleading. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2011/10/19/shell-ads-banned-ov... Not that it says much, I'm sure I can find instances of every multibillion dollar company lying (as well as Greenpeace and PETA).
It's an uneven playing field. In order to play on their pitch (i.e. show TV ads, billboards, magazine ads, etc.) you need to have a lot of money. If you don't have money, you can't get your message across. It's lobsided and unbalanced.
It's about as honest a debate as a soviet election where all other political parties are banned.
It's about as honest a debate as a soviet election where all other political parties are banned.
What Shell may have done -- namely, claiming jobs creation and downplaying environmental cost -- is something very different than what Greenpeace did here.
Greenpeace (and cohorts) did...
Photochopped some ads, hosted them, put up a website, made a fake twitter account. Made fun of a company's brand by pointing out the downplayed environmental cost.
Yes, very different.
Photochopped some ads, hosted them, put up a website, made a fake twitter account. Made fun of a company's brand by pointing out the downplayed environmental cost.
Yes, very different.
I'd pity them save for the fact that big oil has been 'blatantly manipulating the mob' for decades now, at the detriment to our environment.
The dangers of the mob are very real though, as many people's lives have been ruined (or nearly ruined) through some misinformation that goes viral.
The dangers of the mob are very real though, as many people's lives have been ruined (or nearly ruined) through some misinformation that goes viral.
I guess the interesting part to me is that, with the advent of news aggregators and social networks, the internet kind of removes the filter. A blatant lie can take off like wildfire and burn a lot of people before anyone can mobilize to put it out. Maybe I give journalists too much credit, but before the advent of the internet as we know it today, these organizations (whether big oil or Green Peace), had to filter the information through some sort of intermediary first. Now they have direct access to millions of people.
Yeah it's definitely a double-edged sword. Like the person whose house was posted to Craigslist with a "come and take what you want", which people did....and only too late did the owner find out -- and of course, he made no such offers. But the mob was quick to act and didn't ask many questions.
On the brighter side, there's quite a few exposés that we now witness that would have never seen the light of day otherwise (or would have been relegated to B-theaters, flea markets, and mail-order catalogs).
On the brighter side, there's quite a few exposés that we now witness that would have never seen the light of day otherwise (or would have been relegated to B-theaters, flea markets, and mail-order catalogs).
Maybe free speach has something wrong in it when taken to the word.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." -Mark Twain
Isn't it about time we embraced the semantic web? At least then we'd have an audit trail.
No. Those are pretty orthogonal notions (if you're talking about the idea that you excerpt existing pages that's not really what semantic web means nowadays), and the semantic web remains a terrible idea.
What we need is a more efficient legal process for online statements that cross the line into defamation, and better collaborative filtering (the whole point of sites like reddit is that the truth should out).
What we need is a more efficient legal process for online statements that cross the line into defamation, and better collaborative filtering (the whole point of sites like reddit is that the truth should out).
Reddit is almost comically credulous, show them something they want to believe and they'll be all over it.
Please, no. Don't try to make us feel superior by disparaging the other aggregator. Even if there was a competition, blanket statements on a community would not impress.
And yet it was the Reddit comments that pointed out that the "Shell" Twitter account cited in the article is also (probably) fake.
> blatant manipulation of the mob
I am sorry but a LOT of the big, influential NGOs are very guilty of that and of abusing polemic and demagogy. They seem to think their generally just causes/ideals justify almost all means. Sometimes they are more clever to play their cards right like in this case, sometimes they do a really terrible job and it backfires like when they attacked Apple over the completely made-up energy consumption of a shared hosting facility. But either way they are and always have been consciously using rhetoric means to manipulate people or to at least be heard. This is nothing new - haven't you ever been stopped by them in the streets when they are trying to sign you up for monthly donations? The tactics they are using there are nothing short of slimy car salesmen and ripe with psychological mind-frakks. This is nothing the internet allowed to happen, it has always been there. But the "good old days" when mostly techs were using the web and when the general signal-to-noise-ratio was better are over.
I am sorry but a LOT of the big, influential NGOs are very guilty of that and of abusing polemic and demagogy. They seem to think their generally just causes/ideals justify almost all means. Sometimes they are more clever to play their cards right like in this case, sometimes they do a really terrible job and it backfires like when they attacked Apple over the completely made-up energy consumption of a shared hosting facility. But either way they are and always have been consciously using rhetoric means to manipulate people or to at least be heard. This is nothing new - haven't you ever been stopped by them in the streets when they are trying to sign you up for monthly donations? The tactics they are using there are nothing short of slimy car salesmen and ripe with psychological mind-frakks. This is nothing the internet allowed to happen, it has always been there. But the "good old days" when mostly techs were using the web and when the general signal-to-noise-ratio was better are over.
But advertising in the traditional way isn't blatant manipulation of the mob? Sorry, this doesn't pass the laugh test.
For me, this just makes Greenpeace look bad. I wonder when we will see an "online assassination assassination": a purposely concocted lie that looks like it is spread by another party, designed to "backfire".
I dislike Greenpeace with a fervour shared with few other groups.
They constantly try and damage companies, which has a very real flow-on effect on peoples livelihoods. Usually their campaigns are built on a base of lies and usually over something the target company has very little control over anyway.
The damage they do to legitimate environmental concerns with their jack-assery is untold. In truth they are just a corporate machine built to collect more donations.
I go out and pick up rubbish, help monitor local wildlife and generally try and help out. This afternoon I told off a pair of kids trying to destroy a tree for kicks and made sure they didn't come back.
The only people I meet from Greenpeace are very unpleasant and a Greenpeace shirt never appears at local cleanups and volunteer days.
They constantly try and damage companies, which has a very real flow-on effect on peoples livelihoods. Usually their campaigns are built on a base of lies and usually over something the target company has very little control over anyway.
The damage they do to legitimate environmental concerns with their jack-assery is untold. In truth they are just a corporate machine built to collect more donations.
I go out and pick up rubbish, help monitor local wildlife and generally try and help out. This afternoon I told off a pair of kids trying to destroy a tree for kicks and made sure they didn't come back.
The only people I meet from Greenpeace are very unpleasant and a Greenpeace shirt never appears at local cleanups and volunteer days.
Honestly, I think the jury is back on Greenpeace. Either you already think they look bad, or you are a fan of their work. I don't imagine many people are going to be forming new opinions on them in 2012.
I don't even consider Greenpeace environmental movement. For me they are just attention whores with unknown motives.
I expect this sort of action from The Yes Men, as they are 'culture jamming' activists and this is their modus operandi. Considering the levels of influence multinational corporations such as Shell have on our world and on leading world governments I don't have an issue with a little impersonation to draw attention to issues such as these.
I do have an issue with a charity doing this. Funds donated by Greenpeace supporters will have gone towards creating this assassination. IMO that's not justified.
As funny as these spoofed ads are, isn't this exactly the sort of thing that libel laws are for? This is a fake site purporting to be, in fact, an official Shell site. I guess their domain name isn't hosted by GoDaddy otherwise the URL would probably already have been redirected to shell.com.
As funny as these spoofed ads are, isn't this exactly the sort of thing that libel laws are for?
No, not really. This is what charges of criminal impersonation are for.
No, not really. This is what charges of criminal impersonation are for.
Yes, in theory this is against the law and Shell could sue them. However, that might not be a good PR move. Greenpeace might fight back, they could go to trial, try to get documents, make claims about "Shell trying to censor talk about their artic drilling" etc.
Shell hope this will all just blow over. Litagation will not help it blow over.
Shell hope this will all just blow over. Litagation will not help it blow over.
The Yes Men have a track record of impersonating big corps, maybe they count on the companies deciding not to add more fuel to the fire with lawsuits?
Clever, but maybe not very wise. Doesn't this open Greenpeace up to all sorts of liability?
You can bet Shell's legal team is already going over this in detail, and their response is not going to involve a bunch of retweet whoring on twitter.
You can bet Shell's legal team is already going over this in detail, and their response is not going to involve a bunch of retweet whoring on twitter.
These guys engage in actual naval combat on the high seas. I don't think they're afraid of lawsuits. If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't go anywhere near either side of that battle anyway.
The vandalism by the local chapter this year has been hilariously misguided. They destroyed a GM crop experiment that was investigating the damage GM crops do, attacked a building they thought processed cage chickens but actually cut off the supply of free range eggs and destroyed fences that were protecting reintroduced native animals from predators in protest against culling kangaroos.
We must destroy the village to save it? ;)
We must destroy the village to save it? ;)
At the end of the day that's why I'm perfectly happy with Greenpeace/etc doing their battling from the web. They get the ego rub they desperately desire and no fingers are brought close to dangerous machinery.
In theory, yes, Shell could sue. But it'd generate more PR and more negative attention. Shell want it to blow over. Litagation will not make it blow over.
I wonder what would people think if
a.) Someone fakes a YC startup b.) Shell fakes Greenpeace
We will remember this moment as the fake wars.
a.) Someone fakes a YC startup b.) Shell fakes Greenpeace
We will remember this moment as the fake wars.
a) If a tree falls in a forest?
b) Congressional hearings, a revitalization of public interest in conservation, and Shell would be dealing with the fallout for decades.
The damage will really be done when Shell respond in kind and fake greenpeace campaigns spring up everywhere.
Disinformation warfare.
Disinformation warfare.
The article all but suggests that Shell actually do this. While part of me thinks Shell doing its own satire / misinformation campaign would be the most effective response (legal action would just attract more attention), I have a hard time imagining such misinformation campaign having anything but further negative effect on Shell's public branding.
The journalist let social media brand consultants write about half of the article, of course they would suggest escalating. Shell raising public awareness of shills would be an awesome move.
This is stunt brilliant, but the truth of the matter is its not going to solve any problems. Don't get me wrong, I love that Shell oil is getting clowned, but other than possibly choosing a different brand of gas its not going to infect any meaningful human behavioral change.
As long as people live in a world where you have to turn on an engine to do ANYTHING - and participate in an economy that depends on and encourages over consumption, oil companies will continue to thrive. Humans will continue to burn shit to live the dream and humanity will carry on its march towards extinction.
Someone needs to find a way to convince people that using an automobile (or multiple automobiles) as a replacement for their legs is the real problem.
As long as people live in a world where you have to turn on an engine to do ANYTHING - and participate in an economy that depends on and encourages over consumption, oil companies will continue to thrive. Humans will continue to burn shit to live the dream and humanity will carry on its march towards extinction.
Someone needs to find a way to convince people that using an automobile (or multiple automobiles) as a replacement for their legs is the real problem.
I wonder how relevant the public image of an oil company really is.
It's not like we buy gas because we love Shell. It's because we don't really have a choice.
It's not like we buy gas because we love Shell. It's because we don't really have a choice.
The the viral campaigners who made this revealed themselves over a month ago and this is linked to directly from the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InL4ONJh9fA
I think threatening legal action over posting a link to the fake ads is overkill.
The threatening tweets are part of the brand assassination, not actually from Shell.
This crosses a line for me. It's one thing to roast a company over a fire, it's another thing to impersonate them.
The whole thing is impersonating them!
There's obvious parody (which the original campaign kind of skirts at the edge of), and there's outright impersonation.
A reasonable person should be able to tell the roast from the real deal - the original website was at the very edge of it, the Twitter account is right off the cliff.
A reasonable person should be able to tell the roast from the real deal - the original website was at the very edge of it, the Twitter account is right off the cliff.
You're right, free speech is such a hassle. People who have the temerity to make fun of foreign oil corporations should definitely be imprisoned.
Free speech doesn't cover fraud, defamation, and libel - all of which are already illegal.
So basically what you're saying is, impersonating people is wrong, but it's ok when we don't like the person/group being impersonated.
Do you have principles, or is your morality purely based on convenience?
So basically what you're saying is, impersonating people is wrong, but it's ok when we don't like the person/group being impersonated.
Do you have principles, or is your morality purely based on convenience?
The second, of course.
Just like how its legal to shoot terrorists, but not Americans. All morality is based on drawing tribal lines, and BP isn't in my tribe.
Just like how its legal to shoot terrorists, but not Americans. All morality is based on drawing tribal lines, and BP isn't in my tribe.
It's legal to shoot American terrorists if they're in the act.
Oh, that wasn't very clear from the article.
"It also has tweeted repeatedly that the account is in fact a legitimate Shell account. But of course, it, too is a fake. Not that web users realise."
It's easy to overlook. The text of the tweet and the immediately following article text run together:
http://imgur.com/OHq5z
http://imgur.com/OHq5z
One of the downsides of disabling javascript is that you may not see websites as they intend you to see them.
I'm only using Ghostery, I wouldn't expect that to affect the main content of a site.
Ghostery's blocked list:
Ghostery's blocked list:
DoubleClick
Facebook Connect
Google +1
Google Adsense
Google Analytics
LinkedIn Widgets
NetRatings SiteCensus
ScoreCard Research Beacon
Twitter Button
Tynt Insight
My guess is that Ghostery considers the javascript that is served by Twitter to be a tracking device (quite possibly correctly)... but I could be wrong.
The article did a horrible job of in-lining those tweets.
Oh, I'm retweeting these quite knowingly.
News to me. If it weren't on HN, I would not have heard of it.
Even the phrase "social media oil spill" puts Shell in a bad light. Devious.
In my 25 year experience, the western oil and gas industry is on the balance very responsible when it comes to health, safety and environmental protection. I would much rather have Shell explore the Arctic than say Lukoil.
However, Greenpeace and other environmental activists are good part of the reason why western oil and gas companies are so concerned about the environment. In places where Greenpeace has low influence/support/visibility, things like this are pretty common:
http://www.tropix.co.uk/region_files/azerbajn_03.htm
I have dealt with enough pointy haired bosses in my work to realise that without effective activism, health, safety and environment would often be improperly compromised wrt cost, schedule and throughput.