Shell Oil - Social Media Experts
- Started
- Last post
- 54 Responses
- uuuuuu0
It was a hoax, a good one obviously, they didn't defraud anyone and they didn't try and hide the fact it was faked by them, they admitted it on their own site and they even made a video showing the actors in the oil executive video. I'm willing to bet the first people who made ads for it all knew it was a hoax and just got the joke rolling. I doubt very many people if any submitted an ad thinking it was real and if they did jokes on them. The fact that Shell's lawyers aren't saying anything likely means they know damn well there isn't proper grounds for defamation.
- pr20
Should we start questioning the fooled people's stupidity level? It took 8 seconds to realize that it must be hoax. (and i'm half asleep from all righter last night). How dumb can people get? And should the smarter of us be responsible for their stupidity??
- good one. It didn't take long to figure out for anybody. I'm sure you believe plenty thats put in front of you though. Most ppl do. See you at the polls.shellie
- do. see you at the polls. :D I'm sure your omni-informed about all things. You could never, ever be wrong.shellie
- i could but some things are just too obvious.pr2
- Pat on back, big man. Wish we could all be a little more like you.shellie
- i wish more like you could indeed.pr2
- indeed indeed. See, now we both sound smart as fuck. Someone call Taragee she should get in on this.shellie
- mantrakid0
Im with Nathan Adams on this.. the fact that so many people were fooled into thinking this was legit says a lot about how it was presented... they wanted people to think it was real.. not a parody. Thats some defamation shit.
That being said, i have no fucking sympathy for an oil company wanting to be treated like a human being. Fuck em.
- 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
- pizzafire0
and then there's this:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel…
"Five top multinational oil companies have been targeted by members of Anonymous, who published about 1,000 email addresses for accounts belonging to the firms, as well as hashed and unencrypted passwords.
...
The hackers used some of the stolen credentials to add signatures to Greenpeace’s “Save the Arctic” petition."
- sine0
Shell wants to frack in my backyard...
http://www.fin24.com/Companies/I…
- mekk0
i was always wondering why oil companies need to do marketing for private customers.
If red lamp in your car is on > refill.
its that simple.Just impossible to turn a brand in this field to not being hated by everyone..
- pizzafire0
sign here: http://www.savethearctic.org/
- albums0
in one day, one company that we consider "big oil" earns as much $$, if not more than, all the people who posted the adverts. that fact is why the current state of things stays the way they are.
- 74LEO0
Its amazing the number of adverts posted were against shell... and still our governments persist on giving our tax dollars to them.
the funny thing is how many people protested the site, big oil/shell. maybe big oil and all governments will listen to what"the people" want.
- fat chance.... big oil, corporate america and the us government all the same.utopian
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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