Shell Oil - Social Media Experts
- Started
- Last post
- 54 Responses
- ESKEMA0
Damn it. I wanted it to be true. Disapointment of the day.
- utopian0
GENIUS®
- detritus0
I REALLY DISLIKE WHERE THIS KIND OF MARKETING COULD GO™
- shellie0
I'm disappointed that it's not real, only because I know how easily bad ideas get pushed along in a corporate environment --- not because of my stance on oil. Although I think it's 80% evil, I still use and partake in oil products daily until a new alternative is in place, and cheap for everyone to convert to.
I have the same feelings about toilet paper and dishwashing liquid companies launching "viral" and "social media" campaigns. What's the point? It's just a bunch of suits in a room jacking off to some internet buzzwords.
- Frosty_spl0
Greenpeace would kill 100 humans if it meant saving 10 animals.
- albums0
Greenpeace would let 99 animals dies to convince you they saved 1.
- inteliboy0
"Why go Solar when you can drill Polar?"
lol!!
- Nathan_Adams0
What I find unbelievable is that Greenpeace outright impersonates another company, and everyone seems to be ok with that. Whatever your stance on oil exploration is, surely this is all kinds of wrong.
- not the first time it's been done.albums
- So because they're not the first, it's ok then? Does that make phishing ok?Nathan_Adams
- I'm with you, Nate — it sets a really bad baseline for future conduct. Doesn't put Greenpeace in a good light, imhodetritus
- uuuuuu0
What is so wrong about it? Greenpeace never denied their involvement, they said they did it on their site. They aren't defrauding anybody, its a peaceful form of criticism and protest over a real issue. There is no damages except a bruise on a shitty company's image and likely not enough for a lawsuit or anything. There is nothing legally or ethically wrong about it as far as I can tell.
- it's misrepresentation, pure and simple. Imagine the outcry should the tables be turned!detritus
- its done in parody and criticism not with mal intent. If somebody impersonated greenpeace to criticize nobody could say anything.uuuuuu
- ...could say anything.uuuuuu
- if it was done to actually fool people and fuck over the company it would be a big defamation issue.uuuuuu
- Of course it was done to full people and fuck over Shell! That's the entire point of it! *facepalm*Nathan_Adams
- incorrect. they are criticizing its practices, that is not anything similar to trying to fuck them over.uuuuuu
- i just wonder about teh use of their logo and any donations gathered from this tricky!74LEO
- Nathan_Adams0
I'm sorry, where are the mentions of Greenpeace on the Arctic Ready website? It's clearly designed to fool people into believing it's an Official Shell site - you only have to look at the number of people who fell for it (practically everyone) to see that.
If I set up a mock site, pretending to be someone else, or a competitor company, in order to make them look bad - I'd quite rightly get ripped to shreds.
- no they said on the greenpeace site. they aren't trying to fool anybody, its a protest stunt.uuuuuu
- So people who believe the Shell site is real, should be expected to go to the Greenpeace site to the reveal the stunt?Nathan_Adams
- the point is there is no attempt on greenpeace's part to perpetuate the con. its done in parody.uuuuuu
- albums0
BP didn't care when all the mock bpcares accounts popped up, why would Shell?
No advertising stunt will ever stop the consumption of oil.
- Because the mock BP stuff was obvious it was a parody - this isn't.Nathan_Adams
- it might be less obvious but legally they are clear.uuuuuu
- ukit20
It's an interesting pushing of the envelope...does this fall under parody/ fair use? It's similar to that but more blatant.
Shell probably decided not to sue because it would just draw more attention to the cause.
- I'm sure GP's lawyers thought it through thoroughly first.uuuuuu
- They're relying on Shell doing nothing because of Streisand effect.Nathan_Adams
- Nathan_Adams0
So uuuuuu. If I was to set up a website pretending to be you, with zero indication on the site that it was a parody or set up by someone other than yourself, designed to make you look bad that would be all ok if I mentioned it on my own site (which there would be no link to, nor any reason for people to go to it)? You think I would be within my legal rights to do that?
- if it was done as parody and criticism with no intent to actually defame me i couldn't do much. maybe a cease and desist.uuuuuu
- If you were making stuff up to destroy my career or humiliate me and my family and there were real provable damages I would sue of coarse.uuuuuu
- ... would sue of course. If I did something wrong however and you pointed that out to the world in a parody website than you have the advantage.uuuuuu
- ...you have the advantage.uuuuuu
- albums0
There are twitter accounts masquerading as Tony Hayward and domains bought in BP's name. The only difference is Greenpeace fooled you, so you think it's a bigger deal.
- Not really. I think it's a big deal because I think it's wrong. Greenpeace shouldn't get a free pass just because it's an oil company they're attacking.Nathan_Adams
- http://www.youtube.c…albums
- ukit20
I think the standard is different for big companies or public figures.
Imagine if Republicans set up a political attack site that was like "Welcome to Obama's socialist America" or something...a parody.
I think that would fall under fair use.
- ukit20
Wikileaks did something similar to the NYT last week
- < hmm im not with this. I think transparency 2 the public of the message source will gain better support for the long haul.shellie
- ukit20
Or here's another example
Can McDonalds sue them? I doubt it would go anywhere
- But that's an obvious parody. It's obvious it's not actually McDonalds.Nathan_Adams
- "Obvious" is subjective though isn't it?ukit2
- Seriously? You can't see the difference between McCruelty and the Shell site?Nathan_Adams
- No I agree the Shell one takes it further. But it's not really clear where the line is.ukit2
- The line is whether a reasonable person would believe it to be real, or recognise it was a parody.Nathan_Adams
- The response of people in the media and online clearly show most believe it is real.Nathan_Adams
- uuuuuu0
I don't think the issue is just whether it says on the site or not its if Greenpeace actually attempted to cover up their involvement after the fact and convince people its still real.
- albums0
Administrative Contact:
SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CO LTD
SHELL CENTRE
LONDON
UK
+44 20 7934 5916 fax: +44 20 7934 6627Technical Contact:
HARRISON, IAN
Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd
P O BOX 662
LONDON SE1 7NE
UK
+44 20 7934 5916Record expires on 14-Jul-2019.
Record created on 15-Jul-1989.
Database last updated on 18-Jul-2012 21:16:56 EDT.Domain servers in listed order:
DNS1.SHELL.COM 134.146.80.20
DNS2.SHELL.COM 144.199.196.20
DNS3.SHELL.COM 134.163.128.20Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Creation Date: 15-JUL-1989
Updated Date: 14-JUL-2009
Expiration Date: 14-JUL-2019Nameserver: DNS1.SHELL.COM
Nameserver: DNS2.SHELL.COM
Nameserver: DNS3.SHELL.COMRegistry Status: clientTransferProhibited
--------------------------------...
Registrant:
c/o ARCTICREADY.COM
P.O. Box 821650
Vancouver, WA 98682
USRegistrar: Domain.com
Domain Name: ARCTICREADY.COM
Created on: 29-APR-12
Expires on: 29-APR-13
Last Updated on: 09-MAY-12Administrative Contact:
c/o ARCTICREADY.COM
P.O. Box 821650
Vancouver, WA 98682
US
+1.360-449-5933Technical Contact:
c/o ARCTICREADY.COM
P.O. Box 821650
Vancouver, WA 98682
US
+1.360-449-5933Domain servers in listed order:
A.NS.MAYFIRST.ORG
B.NS.MAYFIRST.ORGThis listing is a Whois Privacy Customer. Mail correspondence to this
address must be sent via USPS Express Mail(TM) or USPS Certified
Mail(R); all other mail will not be processed. Be sure to include
the domain name in the address.End of Whois Information
Registrar: DOMAIN.COM, LLC
Whois Server: whois.domain.com
Creation Date: 29-APR-2012
Updated Date: 09-MAY-2012
Expiration Date: 29-APR-2013Nameserver: A.NS.MAYFIRST.ORG
Nameserver: B.NS.MAYFIRST.ORG- well, golly, they don't match, well no shit. don't be upset because you were fooledalbums
- What does that have to do with it?ukit2
- Yes, the public should be expected to check whois records *rolleyes*Nathan_Adams