Lego Ends Shell Partnership Under Greenpeace Pressure

jones_supa writes Since 1960s, we have been seeing the oil company Shell logo being featured in some Lego sets, and Legos being distributed at petrol stations in 26 countries. This marketing partnership is coming to an end, after coming under sustained pressure from Greenpeace. The environmental campaign, protesting about the oil giant's plans to drill in the Arctic, came with a YouTube video that depicted pristine Arctic, built from 120 kg of Lego, being covered in oil. CEO of Lego, Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, wants to leave the dispute between Greenpeace and Shell, and the toy company is getting out of the way.

Comments

Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.

Re:Pixie Dust

[jandersen]

People shouldn't let their prejudices against Greenpeace, 'tree-huggers', 'hippies', climate change or whatever blind them to the fact that:

1. Big, polluting corporations need to be challenged. The oil-industry is not really your friend, and I doubt the changes we have seen in pollution levels since the 50es would have happened without somebody putting serious pressure on them.

2. Whether you like Greenpeace or not, their example shows us that it is possible for ordinary people to make a difference, if they are able to work together. Is that not something worth knowing?

Re:Pixie Dust

[flyneye]

I suspect some other motive. I mean, really, who could give a shit what Greenpeace thinks? They're a fucking joke!
I think something went sour between Legos and Shell, so Legos is just blaming Peengrease for benefit of the press.
Greenpeace never did anything of any real consequence except add comedy to news programs.

Re:Pixie Dust

[carnivore302]

Yes, but not the way greenpeace does it. They have been going at it like a bunch of terrorists and the end result is that for many people (definitely including myself) any organisation targeted by greenpeace is getting more, not less, sympathy.

Re:Pixie Dust

[jellomizer]

Greenpeace isn't about helping the environment but making them feel good.
They go after high profile target, not high impact. So they get on the news and people say see how good they are.
 

Re:Pixie Dust

[jandersen]

Aww, how sweet - my original post got modded down as 'Troll'! - simply for suggesting that people should be reasonable and level headed, and not let the fact that an unpopular organization like Greenpeace is mentioned, confuse their judgement.

So, to your questions:

1: Yes, I drive - why not? I am not the one claiming that everything done by oil companies is by definition "EVIL!!!!" - I just say, they are not our friends, even if they try to sell that image to us. They have resisted any movement towards producing more efficient car engines, sustainbale energy etc - in fact, anything that might affect their bottom -line. It is the logical thing for them to; they only exist to generate profit for their shareholders. Popular pressure has been among the things that have persuaded them to modify their actions. If you had read and understood what I wrote originally, you would have realised that I don't say we must all stop driving cars. But it makes very good sense to me at least, that we should try to get away from our dependency on fossil fuels as soon as possible. I am willing to give up some of my luxuries to get there.

2: Extraordinary people are just ordinary people who made a decision to no longer just following the beaten path and simply do as they are told. It isn't easy, of course - if it were, then it wouldn't be extraordinary. But everybody can do it, it just requires courage. Not the idiotic 'courage' to drink yourself legless and play chicken across a busy motorway, but the real courage to open up your mind and risk having to confront your own dishonesty, and probably having to leave behind all the old fallacies that you used to believe in. As an American you ought to be in a better position to understand this than us tired, old Europeans; it's only been a century and a bit since your nation was established by ordinary people, who had no other choice than becoming extraordinary.

No, ordinary DO make a difference, if they dare to stand up against those in power, for what they really believe in.

They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[McFortner]

How can they be "getting out of the way"? There are only two choices, a) stick with Shell and snub Greenpeace, or b) dump Shell and please Greenpeace. There is no middle ground where they can please both.

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't pick Greenpeace. They picked removing a hate campaign against them.

I find both the campaign and the result rather disturbing. They state they are against arctic oil and targets Shell. However while Shell is kind of unharmed from this (in the big picture), Lego might have taken a serious blow to sales and they have nothing to say about oil drillings at all. Legally Lego can sue Greenpeace for lost profits, but surely that would cause even more bad publicity.

Don't get me wrong. I do care about the environment a lot. However this campaign does absolutely nothing for the environment whatsoever. All it does is hurting one of the few toy makers, who insist on using non-toxic plastic. Lego did make this contract with Shell in the first place to ensure stable delivery of high quality non-toxic plastic. Lego wouldn't have had this problem if they just bought the cheapest (and toxic) plastic off the marked like most toy makers.

Also I wonder why Greenpeace cares so much about oil rigs, which might be build in the future and not about those which have been north of Alaska for years.

THIS JUST IN

[confused one]

This just in: LEGO are made from refined petroleum products. OMFG NO. The horror.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be one of those black and white geektards. Even water is poisonous if you drink too much of it. If the petroleum industry were reduced to pumping 1000x the total of all legos ever each year it would still be a gynormous improvement in pollution levels.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[zippthorne]

If they want people to stop doing something, they should demonstrate that you can still get other things done without doing the thing they want people to stop doing.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[rtb61]

Gees, I just thought it was a problem when you burned it or used it disposable products that collect in the environment. So no apparently oil used in long lasting kept through generations Lego is the problem. I heard it was especially bad as carpet mines, I never knew you and your moderators had thought, carbon chain products could be dangerous even when you 'DID NOT FUCKING BURN IT'.

Another corporation falls...

[MatthiasF]

...to religious bullying.

Re: Another corporation falls...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you operate on dogma instead of well reasoned logical positions, what distinction exists between one cult and another?

Fuck Greenpeace

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

they are as bad as PETA. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn petty politics out of them.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Harlequin80]

This. 100 times this.

If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

I am no greenpeace fan, but a corporation putting a logo on a child's toy in order to influence their future purchasing decisions though brain washing, is kind of asking for whatever the fuck they get, don't you think?

Next steps

[arielCo]

• * No little plastic cows, because global warming.
• * No jet airplanes, because they pollute so much.
• * Nothing related to Japan, because whaling.
• * No circus sets because poor animals.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

greenpeace isn't all good either they're often misguided and destructive.

having shell logos on lego gas stations hardly seems that evil, if you are building a lego town you need a lego gas station, might as well be someones gas station

Greedy charlatans

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpeace has strayed so far from their roots. They are nothing but a bunch of greedy charlatans now.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[TapeCutter]

For me, Greenpeace lost all credibility in the 1980's when one by one the founding scientist left in disgust, the last one left in the early 90's when Greenpeace were using a mountain of pseudo-science to attack the use of chlorine in drinking water (arguably the most effective public health measure of the 20th century). Basically the leadership was taken over by political types and they lost their scientific roots. However I am grateful for the fact they put an end to nuking pacific islands in my neighbourhood, and wish them the best of luck in their efforts to kill the coal industry before it kills us.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Don't forget Brent Spar: when they occupied the platform and took some measurements, it turned out Shell was actually right, so they fudged the numbers rather than admit their mistake. Greenpeace is not about the environment any more, even though many of its individual members and employees may still be. This often happens to such organisations: at some point it's no longer about the founders' goals, but about membership, money, and influence. Greenpeace is no exception: today they are a marketing firm with themselves as sole customer.

I am sure they will offer up some excuse about Shell greenwashing its image, or brainwashing our kids about the blessings of fossil fuels, but the stark truth is that this does nothing for the environment. This announcement comes in time for GP to further their real goals: they have been out of the news for a bit and they needed a win and some publicity. Well played.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[goulo]

Sure, just like there are not 2 Fords in the parking lot, but 2 Ford automobiles, and not 3 Pepsis on the table, but 3 Pepsi drinks, and not 4 Dells in the marketing department, but 4 Dell computers.

Speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use, even if corporations wish it were otherwise.

Re:Time to target those who contribute to Greenpea

[drinkypoo]

Perhaps it is time to show the top donors... well how about all their donor

People give money to Greenpeace because they know "all about them".

and then companies can start to decide if they want to employee people like that.

Not too big on freedom of speech, eh?