When disaster strikes, brands can quickly find themselves in the social media crosshairs. Just ask BP, which found itself under attack when a horrible oil spill caused a PR nightmare the likes of which only a crisis PR firm could enjoy.

But with consumers and activist groups becoming more sophisticated in their use of social media, brands are increasingly discovering that a social media crisis can strike at any time -- for good reason, or no reason at all.

Another oil company, Shell, is learning that the hard way thanks to a fake Arctic Ready website, modeled after a section of Shell's own website, which has gone viral. The now-viral brand hijacking campaign, which appears to incorporate a fake Shell Twitter account, is the work of Greenpeace and The Yes Men, which don't need a real oil spill to justify creating a 'social media oil spill' of their own, catching their target, Shell, off-guard.

So what should the oil giant do? Observers have a variety of ideas, some more specific than others. One suggested Shell respond with a spoof Greenpeace website; another merely stated that Shell needed to respond so as not to appear "out of touch." Is either a good idea, though?

Analyzing the situation.

Shell, as one of the world's largest oil companies, is a frequent target of activist groups like Greenpeace. So the environmental group's latest attempt at hijacking the brand of a company it doesn't like shouldn't come as a surprise to Shell. The bad news for the company: the campaign is attracting attention. It's fairly clever if not innovative, and it's arguably most effective because it turns Shell's own marketing collateral against it.

But there's nothing to suggest that this campaign has longevity like, for instance, the backlash against BP when it was at the center of a real oil spill. Yes, some people are going to find it amusing to poke fun at Shell by creating their own copy for Shell ads. But the average person is not going to be making arcticready.com his or her homepage. The site will, for most, likely be a temporary amusement.

Assessing the impact.

Every company facing a social media crisis should assess the realistic impact of that crisis. Typically, this should focus on key metrics. Some, like brand reputation, are more subjective. Others, like revenue, are quite objective.

Shell, like or not, is involved in the production and sale of a product that just about everyone uses in some form or another. It may not win any popularity contests, but it doesn't have to and it knows that. Without a situation that makes Shell look really, really bad (again, like a real oil spill), there's nothing here to indicate that Greenpeace's Arctic Ready campaign will have any impact on Shell's brand or sales.

Put simply, if you didn't care about Shell before, you probably won't now, and if you didn't like Shell before, you probably can't like it any less.

Knowing when to fight fire with fire.

So what should Shell do? When a self-inflicted disaster sparks a social media backlash that truly threatens a company's brand reputation and sales, fighting fire with fire (read: mounting a strong response) may be the only option.

But when facing a troll-like campaign that isn't backed by anything that would illicit strong, long-lasting negative emotion from the average consumer, fighting fire with ice (read: not saying anything) may be a far better approach. After all, operators of blogs and online communities have long understood the wisdom of "Don't feed the trolls" and now that brands are far more exposed to user-generated content and online communities -- whether they like it or not -- they too would be wise to recognize when they're being trolled.

Patricio Robles

Published 19 July, 2012 by Patricio Robles

Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.

2647 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (4)


Tim Niziak

This is an interesting situation for Shell. Now days, social media can make or break a company during a scandal. The way you handle yourself in those communities will usually tell how the entire outcome of the situation will be.

about 6 years ago

Mike Essex

Mike Essex, Marketing & Comms Manager at Petrofac

I think now it's come out that Greenpeace was behind it there's no real need for Shell to respond.

Originally when it seemed like a part of their site had been hacked it seemed to make sense at least for them to take action, however now the cause has been revealed it's likely to blow other rather quickly.

In addition if this scheme had been carried out by a person on a vendetta Shell could go to town with legal action. As it's a charity there's no way for Shell to respond that wouldn't make it in to a bigger issue.

It does however raise concerns that charities can paint a brand any way they want, and that brands are powerless to respond.

A similar thing happened when Peta trolled Nitendo with this campaignhttp://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/ - although Nintendo had done nothing wrong they couldn't do anything about it without making it worse.

about 6 years ago



They could of course announce that they will not drill in the Arctic?

about 6 years ago



I'm with Alex. Don't drill there. "We've listened to your concerns and we won't do it.But look, if you don't want us to do it, you need to buy less oil, which is why we're developing these other..." There's still an opportunity for Shell to look good here.

Mike Essex - the idea that Nintendo "didn't do anything wrong" - well, they did actually have their lead character wear fur, something they now don't do. If you look at the origin of the Tanooki Suit, it was "made by a tailor" so it isn't a metaphorical suit.
This is an important message for children. Wearing fur is not ok.
I work in digital marketing like many of you, and I think it is superb that the internet enables "charities to paint a brand any way they want and the brand is powerless to respond" One of the side effects/purposes of the idea of incorporation is to spread responsibility, a "brand" as such is the image of that incorporation, and so anything that can force that incorporated body to actually take responsibility for it's actions and decisions is good thing.
"In addition if this scheme had been carried out by a person on a vendetta Shell could go to town with legal action."
Likewise, if an individual decided to go to the North Pole and kill polar bears there are laws to prevent that, but in the case of a company like Shell, if they happen to over time cause the deaths of polar bears as a by-product it is doubtful any successful action would ever be taken against them.Perhaps some financial censure many years down the line.
Online branding is what puts food on my table, but I have absolutely no sympathy for Shell whatsoever, because If one of my brands was associated with something as short-termist an ignorant as drilling in the Arctic, I'd expect to get launched at as well.

about 6 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.