15 ms·

Shell using Fortnite, TikTok, etc. to convince kids fossil fuels are cool

224 points by c_ris 3y ago

frob 3y ago
By describing the products in detail using their official trademarked and marketing names, this article is doing just as much advertising for Shell as Fortnite is.
defrost 3y ago
The youtube comments already down on the official Shell trailer for this don't bode well for this being a PR success: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UuXnHvsIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UuXnHvsIQ
- isoprophlex 3y ago
  Why the actual fucking fuck did Fortnite get in bed with these petro boomers?! Shell must be one of the brands farthest removed from the target demographic. I can't believe they need the cash that badly, and like you say, this can only backfire. Millions of views on that vid, almost no likes. I can't believe this exists, it's almost funny. Maybe they can do Depend Adult Undergarments branded content next.
  - neurostimulant 3y ago
    Fortnite supports 3rd party maps created by content creators. Shell paid content creators to create a map for them.
  - Cloudef 3y ago
    Prob same reason they are in bed with tencent
  - Timshel 3y ago
    Not clear if they did, don't know Fortnite the article mention just "map creators" so it might be just a mod without any involvement from Epic.
  - throwaway2990 3y ago
    Cos Timmy is losing money.
- tgv 3y ago
  How could it be? The company name alone almost guarantees negative reactions. And rightly so, because they keep reneging on their promises. It also has a terrible "fellow youngsters" vibe, one that even I can feel. Both are an invitation to sarcasm. I doubt that the sentiment is universally shared, though. There are still large groups in denial about climate change, even though heat record after heat record is broken.
  - bboygravity 3y ago
    "even though heat record after heat record is broken." It's not really strange that people don't get that argument though right? Since the heat records are only a few 100 years old at most. If "climate change is real and a problem, because weather heat records" is supposed to be a logical narrative then I can totally understand that people don't follow that logic and just tune out. I trust the science about global warming, but the logic in those papers is very very far from "climate change is real and a problem, because weather heat records".
    - dieortin 3y ago
      When heat records that stood for a century are now broken every year, it’s a clear indication that something is going on. And it’s clearly a problem. Heat being so high to beat the record is unequivocally a problem. Anyways, it’s not like those that “tune out” when you point out heat records are being broken every year would listen if you gave them truly scientific arguments.
      - somsak2 3y ago
        I don't think it's obvious to everyone why heat records being broken are clearly or unequivocally a problem. These projections we've seen from climate scientists have always been off, why should I trust them about the impact of a warmer climate?
        kibibu 3y ago
        Because higher temperatures directly correlate with higher death through heatwave events, and indirectly through more intense weather events and longer fire seasons.
- omneity 3y ago
  It doesn't even look good on pure gaming grounds. What a low-effort endeavor.
- code_duck 3y ago
  21 likes on 2.3 million views so far.
Alifatisk 3y ago
Man we have really entered an era were companies have access to powerful tools to convince people using psychological techniques.
- Bud 3y ago
  [dead]
- tamaharbor 3y ago
  Governments also.
- lowdownbutter 3y ago
  Welcome to the information war.
- NotGMan 3y ago
  It has been so since the time of religion. The only difference now is that people are more aware of it.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  This has been the case for a hundred years already. It is why Santa is dressed in red. Why people buy diamond engagement rings. Why cigarettes were readily available for literally decades after they were already known to be harmful. And why American gun control laws have never matured despite all the evidence that proves the status quo isn’t viable.
  - diogenes4 3y ago
    > And why American gun control laws have never matured despite all the evidence that proves the status quo isn’t viable. Tbh I don't think this has anything to do with marketing. Guns are just a part of our culture regardless of whether we want them to be or not. If we were capable of changing this we'd be capable of doing a hell of a lot of other things, too, instead of sitting on our hands and loudly babbling about individual freedoms as a form of politics.
tomp 3y ago
Fossil fuels caused the greatest progress in history of mankind, and resulted in decimation of disease, famine and poverty. Green movement has spent the last 50 years opposing nuclear power, otherwise we would have decarbonised at least 90% already (like France has).
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Okay? And now where do we go from here? Decisions about the future shouldn’t be based on some weird tribalistic pride about your fav energy source’s vibes or the historical ethics of it. It’s fucking oil, it isn’t going to get hurt feelings.
  - tomp 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - enqk 3y ago
      Energy always increase the amount of transformation, good or bad, so it’s inherently an unknown gamble
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Sure! None of this means fossil fuel propaganda is somehow defensible. It doesn’t mean marketing fossil fuels to children is defensible either.
      - tomp 3y ago
        Fossil fuels are essential for maintaining our civilisation. Ignoring degrowth / green propaganda is essential for further progress of our civilisation.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        I see that you’ve contrarianed yourself into a bit of a wormhole here. A few things that come to mind: Degrowth propaganda != green propaganda Propagandizing fossil fuels != combating degrowth propaganda Advertising to children via video games that show “cool cars have flames out the tailpipes” != legitimate socioeconomic argument Maintaining our civilization as-is != ensuring prosperity for current and future generations
haunter 3y ago
> Kids today only care about online free-to-play shooter Fortnite Quite a statement tbh. I thought it’s all Minecraft and Roblox? And even then “only care about” are very strong words
- rafram 3y ago
  It’s a joke.
- sltkr 3y ago
  I think all three of those games are already passé for children. The people who grew up on Minecraft and Roblox are now in their twenties. No idea what actual children are playing these days; probably gacha games on their phones or something?
  - alwyn 3y ago
    Minecraft is still the shit and getting passed down to younger generations. If you go to the gaming category on YouTube while logged out and (optionally) connected through a VPN, you'll see these games are far from passé.
  - maccard 3y ago
    It's Minecraft into Roblox these days, depending on age. Minecraft now is not the same game as it was 10 years aGO
  - lotsoweiners 3y ago
    I have an 11 and 6 year old. All they play is Roblox and Minecraft.
bad_user 3y ago
I understand this is cringe, but: > one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet Do any of you believe this narative? Honest question: isn't the destruction of the planet due to the 8 billion people that have to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained? Aren't fossil fuels directly responsible for the industrial revolution and people not starving anymore? I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained?
- richbell 3y ago
  > I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained? Imagine how much progress would have been made had Shell et al. not buried research for decades showing the harms of fossil fuels and aggressively lobbied against alternative forms of energy. This is like saying its not Comcast's fault that your neighborhood still only has 50mbps after decades and millions in grants because people still need Internet access.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    I have a 1 Gbps internet connection at home, for which I'm paying $10 per month. I live in Romania. The US and its companies are not the only ones on this earth, so unless you're going to claim some sort of conspiracy that prevented global progress, I'm not buying it.
    - richbell 3y ago
      I think you misunderstood my comment. Comcast is a US company; the fact you have 1Gbps Internet in Romania and yet many parts of the US don't (or don't for a reasonable price) just illustrates my point.
- awestroke 3y ago
  > I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms That's a huge understatement. They have actively sabotaged green initiatives all along. They have stopped green policies, and green policies is and has always been the ONLY way forward, you can't put shit like this on individuals.
ravenstine 3y ago
On a topic not directly related to the article, there's a book written by a former CEO of Shell called "Why We Hate the Oil Companies" that's rather interesting. In summary, his points are that oil is not necessarily good or bad, but that the lack of effective energy policies and the inherent challenges of the field incentivize bad practices by oil companies, while simultaneously these companies fail to communicate their positive role in civilization as the media routinely use them as a punching bag. I'm not excusing what Shell is doing or has done in the past, but the book provides a nuanced take for anyone interested in the topic.
- vasco 3y ago
  Energy and energy availability certainly have saved many lives and made many others much better than they would've been, but that's not really due to energy companies. Give the ownership of oil rights to other people / companies and they'd have done the same stuff, specially after the first waves of development. Attributing all the positives of cheap energy on humanity to oil companies and their employees seems like attributing the joy of music to the record labels.
- azan_ 3y ago
  Well, the reason for the hate could be that OR things like oil companies sponsoring climate change deniers and exxon hiding results of their own study which shown that continued burning of fossil fuels will have catastrophic consequences.
- permo-w 3y ago
  what is an effective energy policy in his eyes?
- maccard 3y ago
  > I'm not excusing what Shell is doing or has done in the past, but the book provides a nuanced take for anyone interested in the topic. I don't think you can write a comment that says the book is a nuanced take and in the same breath say you're not apologising for them. Of course the CEO of shell's nuanced take is "they let us do it", when they spent an absolute fortune ensuring that they would be allowed to continue. I've read the book, and it's not a nuanced take, at all. It sells a picture of "well you said you wanted it, so we just gave you what you want", and sweeps under the rug all of the other parts. For example, the research that these companies did almost 50 years ago that they made absolutely no effort to avoid the consequences of, instead burying them. There was nothing stopping the CEO of shell divesting in the early 2000's other than greed and growth, and the only reason he wrote a book about it is because it sells.
danbruc 3y ago
Instead, Shell—a massive oil company and one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet—wants you all to know just how rad its fossil fuel products are, and even made a whole Fortnite world for you to enjoy! Sure, spreading oil propaganda and trying to influence policies despite very well knowing of the negative consequences is bad, maybe even evil behavior. But making it sound like Shell singlehandedly destroyed the planet is just ignorant. Without us, the consumers, and our desire for the products made from that oil and gas, Shell would not have pumped a single barrel out of the ground or sunk an oiltanker somewhere in the process. The convince of having a car, consuming cheap electricity, getting plastic toys from China delivered across the globe the next day and spending your holiday at the other end of the world is what destroyed the planet.
- tejohnso 3y ago
  > having a car, consuming cheap electricity, getting plastic toys from China delivered across the globe the next day and spending your holiday at the other end of the world is what destroyed the planet. And any attempts to move away from that paradigm are heavily lobbied against by entities like Shell. It's hard to change habits, even harder to get an entire culture to change, and harder still when the change is being actively countered.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    And even then, should you not be more mad at the politician that took the money? As I wrote, I am with everyone who considers that bad or maybe even evil behavior, but without a lot of other people from consumers, to voters and politicians this would all have played out differently. Putting all the blame on Shell and friends might be convinient, but it is also lazy and dishonest.
- boringg 3y ago
  Oil and gas is like the whale oil of the 19th century except that it has rooted deeply into civilization and will strike at anyone who tries to remove its influence. It has provided many great benefits to humanity and still has a function in society. However it needs a diminished role and it needs to stop blocking progress. Its literally causing expensive electricity now and blocking cheap electricity.
rabbits_2002 3y ago
Seems awfully suspicious that the two highest rated comments in this thread are both oil apologists and both say the same exact thing.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  HN users have been fully brainwashed by the oil companies already.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    Maybe it’s Epic software devs slacking off on HN?
- permo-w 3y ago
  there really are a lot of "yes big oil may be bad, but here's why they aren't as bad as you think:"-type comments in this thread. maybe it's just a prevailing wind on HN though perhaps this is just my bubble, but I don't think I've ever met a person in real life who tries to defend oil companies
  - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
    I have no special interest in the discussion except that I would like to leave a reasonable world to my children and I am generally pro-ecology. With this said, I am also happy to have a car and to use it from time to time to drive. It requires fuel and fuel is made by oil companies (directly or indirectly). I am not sure this is "supporting" them, but I sure do not want them to close overnight (we have in France from time to time the apocalyptic version of fuel not being distributed - thanks to our unions who prepare us for Mad Max style futur if oil was to suddenly vanish :))
  - peruvian 3y ago
    I’ve noticed HN users in general enjoy being contrarian and argumentative. It’s a “I must be doing something smart if I’m going against the grain” attitude.
jmyeet 3y ago
Does anyone really think this will work? This isn’t cigarette advertising, which raises the profile of a directly harmful activity. Like what’s the best case for Shell here? If you’re going to get upset about anything in games, get upset about loot boxes. Promoting gambling to children should be illegal. That’s psychologically damaging.
- maccard 3y ago
  If you're still upset about loot boxes in games you're probably 3 years late to the party.
  - somsak2 3y ago
    if you're still upset about climate change you're probably 30 years late to the party.
    - maccard 3y ago
      Games have pretty much entirely moved on from loot boxes. There's a few holdouts (FIFA/EAFC), but most games have moved on from that. We're still in the phase of climate change denial though.
acomjean 3y ago
Note the gas station brand of vanilla Fortnite is “Spillx”. Cars and trucks have faster electric counterparts. I guess having companies build out maps and use their assets was going to be a side effect of having user created content. Company sponsored games aren’t new (80d had 7up-spot and cool-aid man). One of this years biggest movies is a doll brand. However I don’t think they’re fooling anyone.
boringg 3y ago
First question - is Fortnite even relevant anymore? The kids i know don't play it anymore been like 2 years. This shows how far behind O&G campaigns are. Unless they are trying out a marketing approach in a quiet space to hopefully build it out elswewhere.
- heywire 3y ago
  It ebbs and flows. My 13 year old son has picked it back up recently.
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    That is what I see as well. Instead of kids picking up new video games, it is more like trey cycle through old ones - Minecraft, Fortnite, Apex, etc.
- gambiting 3y ago
  I've just logged in to check - there is 300k people online playing across different modes. That's bananas for any game. Of course it's extremely relevant, because yes, kids you know might have stopped playing it already but there are always new kids who are trying it for the first time - and then people like me who still play it every week with friends even though we are 30+.
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    One thing I noticed, is kids font seem to care about buying skins, etc., anymore.
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    > That's bananas for any game. Not bananas compared to previous popularity it had. For reference, CS:GO (or is it CS 2 now?) has 1,2 mil online at the moment.
bt4u 3y ago
[dead]
IgorPartola 3y ago
I remember going to Disney World sometime in like 2003 or so. My dad decided he wa Ted to go to the Epcot center for some reason and their big feature presentation was on dinosaurs but really it was thinly veiled propaganda for the oil industry. It included a whole lot of repetition of the sentiment of “don’t worry. While we keep using more and more oil, we are always finding more.” It was pretty gross and in your face. The kicker at the end of the presentation: Sponsored by Exxon Mobile.
- pentae 3y ago
  They must have got this idea from the Simpsons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HX5wsQVEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HX5wsQVEA
- UncleSlacky 3y ago
  Anyone else rememeber "Monsantovision" at Disney World in the 70s/80s? Much the same thing.
myshpa 3y ago
How Shell Destroyed An Entire Country https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uuW4AP8M4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uuW4AP8M4M
dottjt 3y ago
Quite literally last week I was randomly watching The Today Show (mainstream Australian breakfast television) and I couldn't believe what I just saw within the space of 5 minutes. It was the build up to the AFL grand final and there was a presenter on a football field with kids kicking footballs in the background. Anyway, he introduces the segment and it turns out it's a paid promotion for Shell. The show then cuts to a 2 minute promotional video for Shell fuel. Once the promo ends, he tells the kids that whoever kicks a goal gets a $1000 petrol voucher, as he waves a stack of these petrol vouchers in front of the camera. I don't get easily offended, but I've honestly never seen anything more disgusting in my entire life.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > I don't get easily offended, but I've honestly never seen anything more disgusting in my entire life. The US government runs a prominent advertising campaign on the theme "if you let your baby sleep with you, you are a bad mother".
  - roland35 3y ago
    Not sure what sudden infant death syndrome has to do with gasoline??
    - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
      Not with gasoline, but with disgusting ads.
      - geraldyo 3y ago
        I hate it when ads try to stop me from accidentally killing my baby
        hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
        Sorry, I misunderstood the parent was talking about sleeping in the same room which is shunned by many. Sleeping in the same bed is a completely different story and I hope nobody is doing that.
DoingIsLearning 3y ago
Tinfoil moment, there is genuine discussion and protest from Gen Z grassroots to hit them where it hurts, i.e. stop subsidies and tax breaks for Oil & Gas. Both BP and Shell are likely aware of this and are now trying to target public transport advertisement and online communities, where they think they will probably win over Gen Z.
- osigurdson 3y ago
  I don’t think Gen Z cares about this. They want Bugatti’s and private jets.
  - lpapez 3y ago
    Why can't we have both?
    - osigurdson 3y ago
      Agree. Everyone should have a zero emission Buggati and private jet if they want, that is the future we should be shooting for. However, what I mean is degrowth, Greta type gen z people seem to be somewhat rare.
      - djhn 3y ago
        I feel like this must surely be an observation made from a skewed sample or from within some sort of bubble? Tbh I don't have any research or polling data on hand, but I seem to remember gen Z being FAR more conscious of the environment (climate change and plastics pollution), their own health (drinking/smoking) and global social issues.
        osigurdson 3y ago
        I’m basing this on popularity of various YouTube personalities. They are largely very kind and very rich.
  - deleted 3y ago
whatever1 3y ago
Fossil fuels are irreplaceable for what they offer at the price they ask. Don’t ask the West. Ask India that had the choice to leapfrog fossil fuels and be energy independent, at higher cost. People don’t care about our opinions. They want the cheapest options. The only way to transition out of fossils for energy, is to make the alternatives cheaper and easily accessible. US transitioned from coal to gas within 10 years when the economics became favorable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Or, here’s another idea: a tax on carbon. We are subsidizing fossil fuels by deferring their actual real cost to the future. We can and should stop doing that.
  - whatever1 3y ago
    Who can impose this global tax you dream of? India currently is smuggling oil out of Russia because they offered a better price.
    - tekmate 3y ago
      we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas
    - jppittma 3y ago
      So, in any tragedy of the commons are we just going to accept that the only solutions are going to be to change the concrete circumstances that make it a one? If not climate change, then there'll be other instances like this where what's good for the individual (country) is bad for the world.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      It doesn’t need to be global? It can be within your borders applying to domestic production and imports. You can require an implementation and oversight of a carbon tax as part of a trade deal. We’ve literally enforced a thousand different rules on the world as a collective species. Stop pretending this one is different.
steve76 3y ago
[dead]
JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
People have the right to know from where their quality of life comes from. So if you think quality of life = cool , then it's true that fossil fuels = cool. Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis. Keep that foot on the pedal, they have much more to lose than we have, for once that's an advantage, if they are really so scared of climate change they'd move to Tibet or the Rockies.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  I'm not listening to them I'm listening to science, the discipline that has given us pretty much all our quality of life improvements. It's suspicious how many in this thread are pointing out that fossil fuels are an essential component of society reaching the point it has. We know, that's not a revelation. It is not the point.
- maccard 3y ago
  > Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis. I think you're spending a bit too much time in the conspiracy rabbit hole. Kim Kardashian's carbon footprint is about equivalent of 50 americans. She also has almost 350 million followers on Instagram. If she manages to get 1% of her following to reduce their footprint by 1% for a year, she undoes more than she emits in a year. That doesn't mean they're not hypocrites, but have some context. What's actually needed is a change in consumption across the board, and a change in attitude towards impact. The only way that happens is through regulation and education.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
    > > If she manages to get 1% of her following to reduce their footprint by 1% for a year, she undoes more than she emits in a year It should be the person who has a footprint of 200x the avg. person to make cuts to their CO2 emissions because they are the low hanging fruit as far as quality of life is concerned, not the avg. person. It's a fairly easy concept, like taxation, you take from those who have, not from those who don't have anything...oops my bad it's the country of the MAGA tax breaks and tax writeoffs on new and used private jets, while Flint doesn't have clean water since forever.
snthd 3y ago
HELL IN THE NIGER DELTA - DOCUMENTARY https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/single-post/hell-in-the-niger-delta-documentary https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/single-post/hell-i... (embeds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z64LV-BSwDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z64LV-BSwDs) >One of the most polluted areas on the planet, the Niger Delta has a life expectancy of just 41 years due to decades of Shell oil spills & constant gas flaring.
- imchillyb 3y ago
  > One of the most polluted areas on the planet, the Niger Delta has a life expectancy of just 41 years due to decades of Shell oil spills & constant gas flaring. That's a single data point, that contributes less than environmental factors, skyrocketing populace, low instances of vaccination and healthcare. > The top three leading causes of death in Niger in 2017 were malaria, diarrheal diseases and lower respiratory infections. Comparatively, in the United States, the leading causes of death are heart disease, cancer and accidents. > https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-life-expectancy-in-niger/ https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-life-expectancy-in-... There are /numerous/ reports that state what this project states with much more clarity and decades of numerical data gathering. Spills and gas flaring don't even make it to the top 10 life expectancy issues of the Niger Delta.
hammon 3y ago
[dead]
notsound 3y ago
I think this is the most disgusting fossil fuel ad I've ever seen: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AI2zKNNoUic https://youtube.com/watch?v=AI2zKNNoUic
sickcodebruh 3y ago
In 2015, I worked for a youth-focused and progressive news/“content” organization that posted their videos exclusively on social media. Let’s call them “Know That Event.” It made/makes its money by doing the occasional advertorial video on behalf of a company and mixing it in with its typical content. They announced to the staff one day that they landed a deal with Shell to produce videos about their science investment initiatives. I was disturbed by this and had chats with various decision makers. I was told that it would have a positive impact and celebrate the good investments, which would encourage Shell to do more good things! I wish I wrote down details, it was ridiculous. But they went ahead and did it. Shell never exerted any control over other content and all the news/editorial people were smart and committed, but this left a bad taste in my mouth about the company for the rest of my time there.
andix 3y ago
I see a positive side: It's a sign that change is happening right now. Big oil never had to advertise the "benefits" of fuel, people just bought it. This slowly starts to change. And oil companies are crapping their pants, because in some countries a significant amount of cars on the roads will be EVs within a few years. In Europe some corporations already switched to a 100% EV company car policy. All new leases need to be electric only, and within 3 years they will have >90% EVs in their passenger car fleet.
- viraptor 3y ago
  > Big oil never had to advertise the "benefits" of fuel Have I got news for you... Check out the latest ClimateTown video https://youtu.be/_pNRuafoyZ4 https://youtu.be/_pNRuafoyZ4 for just a few examples, but there's lots more and it's been happening for decades.
WeatherFreaks 3y ago
[flagged]
ccvannorman 3y ago
I think the best part of this whole article is the quote from streamer GHOST WHOH (@WHOH on Twitter/X) starting "All road trips start with @shellstationsus .." Shell Stations US or Shell Station Sus Yep, pretty sus alright. I'm sure a lot of the target audience is laughing about this.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
monstertank 3y ago
For people who don't hate fossil fuels and are sick of how invasive, disruptive and insanely hyperbolic the push for renewables has been...it's nice to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. All is fair in love and war.
jaygray0919 3y ago
Definitely need to switch shells. Am thinking: replace C-shell with the BourneAgain-shell.

224 points by c_ris 3y ago

frob 3y ago

By describing the products in detail using their official trademarked and marketing names, this article is doing just as much advertising for Shell as Fortnite is.

defrost 3y ago

The youtube comments already down on the official Shell trailer for this don't bode well for this being a PR success: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UuXnHvsIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UuXnHvsIQ

isoprophlex 3y ago
Why the actual fucking fuck did Fortnite get in bed with these petro boomers?! Shell must be one of the brands farthest removed from the target demographic. I can't believe they need the cash that badly, and like you say, this can only backfire. Millions of views on that vid, almost no likes. I can't believe this exists, it's almost funny. Maybe they can do Depend Adult Undergarments branded content next.
- neurostimulant 3y ago
  Fortnite supports 3rd party maps created by content creators. Shell paid content creators to create a map for them.
- Cloudef 3y ago
  Prob same reason they are in bed with tencent
- Timshel 3y ago
  Not clear if they did, don't know Fortnite the article mention just "map creators" so it might be just a mod without any involvement from Epic.
- throwaway2990 3y ago
  Cos Timmy is losing money.
tgv 3y ago
How could it be? The company name alone almost guarantees negative reactions. And rightly so, because they keep reneging on their promises. It also has a terrible "fellow youngsters" vibe, one that even I can feel. Both are an invitation to sarcasm. I doubt that the sentiment is universally shared, though. There are still large groups in denial about climate change, even though heat record after heat record is broken.
- bboygravity 3y ago
  "even though heat record after heat record is broken." It's not really strange that people don't get that argument though right? Since the heat records are only a few 100 years old at most. If "climate change is real and a problem, because weather heat records" is supposed to be a logical narrative then I can totally understand that people don't follow that logic and just tune out. I trust the science about global warming, but the logic in those papers is very very far from "climate change is real and a problem, because weather heat records".
  - dieortin 3y ago
    When heat records that stood for a century are now broken every year, it’s a clear indication that something is going on. And it’s clearly a problem. Heat being so high to beat the record is unequivocally a problem. Anyways, it’s not like those that “tune out” when you point out heat records are being broken every year would listen if you gave them truly scientific arguments.
    - somsak2 3y ago
      I don't think it's obvious to everyone why heat records being broken are clearly or unequivocally a problem. These projections we've seen from climate scientists have always been off, why should I trust them about the impact of a warmer climate?
      - kibibu 3y ago
        Because higher temperatures directly correlate with higher death through heatwave events, and indirectly through more intense weather events and longer fire seasons.
omneity 3y ago
It doesn't even look good on pure gaming grounds. What a low-effort endeavor.
code_duck 3y ago
21 likes on 2.3 million views so far.

Alifatisk 3y ago

Man we have really entered an era were companies have access to powerful tools to convince people using psychological techniques.

Bud 3y ago
[dead]
tamaharbor 3y ago
Governments also.
lowdownbutter 3y ago
Welcome to the information war.
NotGMan 3y ago
It has been so since the time of religion. The only difference now is that people are more aware of it.
hnlmorg 3y ago
This has been the case for a hundred years already. It is why Santa is dressed in red. Why people buy diamond engagement rings. Why cigarettes were readily available for literally decades after they were already known to be harmful. And why American gun control laws have never matured despite all the evidence that proves the status quo isn’t viable.
- diogenes4 3y ago
  > And why American gun control laws have never matured despite all the evidence that proves the status quo isn’t viable. Tbh I don't think this has anything to do with marketing. Guns are just a part of our culture regardless of whether we want them to be or not. If we were capable of changing this we'd be capable of doing a hell of a lot of other things, too, instead of sitting on our hands and loudly babbling about individual freedoms as a form of politics.

tomp 3y ago

Fossil fuels caused the greatest progress in history of mankind, and resulted in decimation of disease, famine and poverty. Green movement has spent the last 50 years opposing nuclear power, otherwise we would have decarbonised at least 90% already (like France has).

ethanbond 3y ago
Okay? And now where do we go from here? Decisions about the future shouldn’t be based on some weird tribalistic pride about your fav energy source’s vibes or the historical ethics of it. It’s fucking oil, it isn’t going to get hurt feelings.
- tomp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - enqk 3y ago
    Energy always increase the amount of transformation, good or bad, so it’s inherently an unknown gamble
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Sure! None of this means fossil fuel propaganda is somehow defensible. It doesn’t mean marketing fossil fuels to children is defensible either.
    - tomp 3y ago
      Fossil fuels are essential for maintaining our civilisation. Ignoring degrowth / green propaganda is essential for further progress of our civilisation.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        I see that you’ve contrarianed yourself into a bit of a wormhole here. A few things that come to mind: Degrowth propaganda != green propaganda Propagandizing fossil fuels != combating degrowth propaganda Advertising to children via video games that show “cool cars have flames out the tailpipes” != legitimate socioeconomic argument Maintaining our civilization as-is != ensuring prosperity for current and future generations

haunter 3y ago

> Kids today only care about online free-to-play shooter Fortnite Quite a statement tbh. I thought it’s all Minecraft and Roblox? And even then “only care about” are very strong words

rafram 3y ago
It’s a joke.
sltkr 3y ago
I think all three of those games are already passé for children. The people who grew up on Minecraft and Roblox are now in their twenties. No idea what actual children are playing these days; probably gacha games on their phones or something?
- alwyn 3y ago
  Minecraft is still the shit and getting passed down to younger generations. If you go to the gaming category on YouTube while logged out and (optionally) connected through a VPN, you'll see these games are far from passé.
- maccard 3y ago
  It's Minecraft into Roblox these days, depending on age. Minecraft now is not the same game as it was 10 years aGO
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  I have an 11 and 6 year old. All they play is Roblox and Minecraft.

bad_user 3y ago

I understand this is cringe, but: > one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet Do any of you believe this narative? Honest question: isn't the destruction of the planet due to the 8 billion people that have to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained? Aren't fossil fuels directly responsible for the industrial revolution and people not starving anymore? I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained?

richbell 3y ago
> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained? Imagine how much progress would have been made had Shell et al. not buried research for decades showing the harms of fossil fuels and aggressively lobbied against alternative forms of energy. This is like saying its not Comcast's fault that your neighborhood still only has 50mbps after decades and millions in grants because people still need Internet access.
- bad_user 3y ago
  I have a 1 Gbps internet connection at home, for which I'm paying $10 per month. I live in Romania. The US and its companies are not the only ones on this earth, so unless you're going to claim some sort of conspiracy that prevented global progress, I'm not buying it.
  - richbell 3y ago
    I think you misunderstood my comment. Comcast is a US company; the fact you have 1Gbps Internet in Romania and yet many parts of the US don't (or don't for a reasonable price) just illustrates my point.
awestroke 3y ago
> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms That's a huge understatement. They have actively sabotaged green initiatives all along. They have stopped green policies, and green policies is and has always been the ONLY way forward, you can't put shit like this on individuals.

ravenstine 3y ago

On a topic not directly related to the article, there's a book written by a former CEO of Shell called "Why We Hate the Oil Companies" that's rather interesting. In summary, his points are that oil is not necessarily good or bad, but that the lack of effective energy policies and the inherent challenges of the field incentivize bad practices by oil companies, while simultaneously these companies fail to communicate their positive role in civilization as the media routinely use them as a punching bag. I'm not excusing what Shell is doing or has done in the past, but the book provides a nuanced take for anyone interested in the topic.

vasco 3y ago
Energy and energy availability certainly have saved many lives and made many others much better than they would've been, but that's not really due to energy companies. Give the ownership of oil rights to other people / companies and they'd have done the same stuff, specially after the first waves of development. Attributing all the positives of cheap energy on humanity to oil companies and their employees seems like attributing the joy of music to the record labels.
azan_ 3y ago
Well, the reason for the hate could be that OR things like oil companies sponsoring climate change deniers and exxon hiding results of their own study which shown that continued burning of fossil fuels will have catastrophic consequences.
permo-w 3y ago
what is an effective energy policy in his eyes?
maccard 3y ago
> I'm not excusing what Shell is doing or has done in the past, but the book provides a nuanced take for anyone interested in the topic. I don't think you can write a comment that says the book is a nuanced take and in the same breath say you're not apologising for them. Of course the CEO of shell's nuanced take is "they let us do it", when they spent an absolute fortune ensuring that they would be allowed to continue. I've read the book, and it's not a nuanced take, at all. It sells a picture of "well you said you wanted it, so we just gave you what you want", and sweeps under the rug all of the other parts. For example, the research that these companies did almost 50 years ago that they made absolutely no effort to avoid the consequences of, instead burying them. There was nothing stopping the CEO of shell divesting in the early 2000's other than greed and growth, and the only reason he wrote a book about it is because it sells.

danbruc 3y ago

Instead, Shell—a massive oil company and one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet—wants you all to know just how rad its fossil fuel products are, and even made a whole Fortnite world for you to enjoy! Sure, spreading oil propaganda and trying to influence policies despite very well knowing of the negative consequences is bad, maybe even evil behavior. But making it sound like Shell singlehandedly destroyed the planet is just ignorant. Without us, the consumers, and our desire for the products made from that oil and gas, Shell would not have pumped a single barrel out of the ground or sunk an oiltanker somewhere in the process. The convince of having a car, consuming cheap electricity, getting plastic toys from China delivered across the globe the next day and spending your holiday at the other end of the world is what destroyed the planet.

tejohnso 3y ago
> having a car, consuming cheap electricity, getting plastic toys from China delivered across the globe the next day and spending your holiday at the other end of the world is what destroyed the planet. And any attempts to move away from that paradigm are heavily lobbied against by entities like Shell. It's hard to change habits, even harder to get an entire culture to change, and harder still when the change is being actively countered.
- danbruc 3y ago
  And even then, should you not be more mad at the politician that took the money? As I wrote, I am with everyone who considers that bad or maybe even evil behavior, but without a lot of other people from consumers, to voters and politicians this would all have played out differently. Putting all the blame on Shell and friends might be convinient, but it is also lazy and dishonest.
boringg 3y ago
Oil and gas is like the whale oil of the 19th century except that it has rooted deeply into civilization and will strike at anyone who tries to remove its influence. It has provided many great benefits to humanity and still has a function in society. However it needs a diminished role and it needs to stop blocking progress. Its literally causing expensive electricity now and blocking cheap electricity.

rabbits_2002 3y ago

Seems awfully suspicious that the two highest rated comments in this thread are both oil apologists and both say the same exact thing.

Gigachad 3y ago
HN users have been fully brainwashed by the oil companies already.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  Maybe it’s Epic software devs slacking off on HN?
permo-w 3y ago
there really are a lot of "yes big oil may be bad, but here's why they aren't as bad as you think:"-type comments in this thread. maybe it's just a prevailing wind on HN though perhaps this is just my bubble, but I don't think I've ever met a person in real life who tries to defend oil companies
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  I have no special interest in the discussion except that I would like to leave a reasonable world to my children and I am generally pro-ecology. With this said, I am also happy to have a car and to use it from time to time to drive. It requires fuel and fuel is made by oil companies (directly or indirectly). I am not sure this is "supporting" them, but I sure do not want them to close overnight (we have in France from time to time the apocalyptic version of fuel not being distributed - thanks to our unions who prepare us for Mad Max style futur if oil was to suddenly vanish :))
- peruvian 3y ago
  I’ve noticed HN users in general enjoy being contrarian and argumentative. It’s a “I must be doing something smart if I’m going against the grain” attitude.

jmyeet 3y ago

Does anyone really think this will work? This isn’t cigarette advertising, which raises the profile of a directly harmful activity. Like what’s the best case for Shell here? If you’re going to get upset about anything in games, get upset about loot boxes. Promoting gambling to children should be illegal. That’s psychologically damaging.

maccard 3y ago
If you're still upset about loot boxes in games you're probably 3 years late to the party.
- somsak2 3y ago
  if you're still upset about climate change you're probably 30 years late to the party.
  - maccard 3y ago
    Games have pretty much entirely moved on from loot boxes. There's a few holdouts (FIFA/EAFC), but most games have moved on from that. We're still in the phase of climate change denial though.

acomjean 3y ago

Note the gas station brand of vanilla Fortnite is “Spillx”. Cars and trucks have faster electric counterparts. I guess having companies build out maps and use their assets was going to be a side effect of having user created content. Company sponsored games aren’t new (80d had 7up-spot and cool-aid man). One of this years biggest movies is a doll brand. However I don’t think they’re fooling anyone.

boringg 3y ago

First question - is Fortnite even relevant anymore? The kids i know don't play it anymore been like 2 years. This shows how far behind O&G campaigns are. Unless they are trying out a marketing approach in a quiet space to hopefully build it out elswewhere.

heywire 3y ago
It ebbs and flows. My 13 year old son has picked it back up recently.
- osigurdson 3y ago
  That is what I see as well. Instead of kids picking up new video games, it is more like trey cycle through old ones - Minecraft, Fortnite, Apex, etc.
gambiting 3y ago
I've just logged in to check - there is 300k people online playing across different modes. That's bananas for any game. Of course it's extremely relevant, because yes, kids you know might have stopped playing it already but there are always new kids who are trying it for the first time - and then people like me who still play it every week with friends even though we are 30+.
- osigurdson 3y ago
  One thing I noticed, is kids font seem to care about buying skins, etc., anymore.
- wiseowise 3y ago
  > That's bananas for any game. Not bananas compared to previous popularity it had. For reference, CS:GO (or is it CS 2 now?) has 1,2 mil online at the moment.

bt4u 3y ago

[dead]

IgorPartola 3y ago

I remember going to Disney World sometime in like 2003 or so. My dad decided he wa Ted to go to the Epcot center for some reason and their big feature presentation was on dinosaurs but really it was thinly veiled propaganda for the oil industry. It included a whole lot of repetition of the sentiment of “don’t worry. While we keep using more and more oil, we are always finding more.” It was pretty gross and in your face. The kicker at the end of the presentation: Sponsored by Exxon Mobile.

pentae 3y ago
They must have got this idea from the Simpsons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HX5wsQVEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HX5wsQVEA
UncleSlacky 3y ago
Anyone else rememeber "Monsantovision" at Disney World in the 70s/80s? Much the same thing.

myshpa 3y ago

How Shell Destroyed An Entire Country https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uuW4AP8M4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uuW4AP8M4M

dottjt 3y ago

Quite literally last week I was randomly watching The Today Show (mainstream Australian breakfast television) and I couldn't believe what I just saw within the space of 5 minutes. It was the build up to the AFL grand final and there was a presenter on a football field with kids kicking footballs in the background. Anyway, he introduces the segment and it turns out it's a paid promotion for Shell. The show then cuts to a 2 minute promotional video for Shell fuel. Once the promo ends, he tells the kids that whoever kicks a goal gets a $1000 petrol voucher, as he waves a stack of these petrol vouchers in front of the camera. I don't get easily offended, but I've honestly never seen anything more disgusting in my entire life.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> I don't get easily offended, but I've honestly never seen anything more disgusting in my entire life. The US government runs a prominent advertising campaign on the theme "if you let your baby sleep with you, you are a bad mother".
- roland35 3y ago
  Not sure what sudden infant death syndrome has to do with gasoline??
  - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
    Not with gasoline, but with disgusting ads.
    - geraldyo 3y ago
      I hate it when ads try to stop me from accidentally killing my baby
      - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
        Sorry, I misunderstood the parent was talking about sleeping in the same room which is shunned by many. Sleeping in the same bed is a completely different story and I hope nobody is doing that.

DoingIsLearning 3y ago

Tinfoil moment, there is genuine discussion and protest from Gen Z grassroots to hit them where it hurts, i.e. stop subsidies and tax breaks for Oil & Gas. Both BP and Shell are likely aware of this and are now trying to target public transport advertisement and online communities, where they think they will probably win over Gen Z.

osigurdson 3y ago
I don’t think Gen Z cares about this. They want Bugatti’s and private jets.
- lpapez 3y ago
  Why can't we have both?
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    Agree. Everyone should have a zero emission Buggati and private jet if they want, that is the future we should be shooting for. However, what I mean is degrowth, Greta type gen z people seem to be somewhat rare.
    - djhn 3y ago
      I feel like this must surely be an observation made from a skewed sample or from within some sort of bubble? Tbh I don't have any research or polling data on hand, but I seem to remember gen Z being FAR more conscious of the environment (climate change and plastics pollution), their own health (drinking/smoking) and global social issues.
      - osigurdson 3y ago
        I’m basing this on popularity of various YouTube personalities. They are largely very kind and very rich.
- deleted 3y ago

whatever1 3y ago

Fossil fuels are irreplaceable for what they offer at the price they ask. Don’t ask the West. Ask India that had the choice to leapfrog fossil fuels and be energy independent, at higher cost. People don’t care about our opinions. They want the cheapest options. The only way to transition out of fossils for energy, is to make the alternatives cheaper and easily accessible. US transitioned from coal to gas within 10 years when the economics became favorable.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aaomidi 3y ago
Or, here’s another idea: a tax on carbon. We are subsidizing fossil fuels by deferring their actual real cost to the future. We can and should stop doing that.
- whatever1 3y ago
  Who can impose this global tax you dream of? India currently is smuggling oil out of Russia because they offered a better price.
  - tekmate 3y ago
    we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas
  - jppittma 3y ago
    So, in any tragedy of the commons are we just going to accept that the only solutions are going to be to change the concrete circumstances that make it a one? If not climate change, then there'll be other instances like this where what's good for the individual (country) is bad for the world.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    It doesn’t need to be global? It can be within your borders applying to domestic production and imports. You can require an implementation and oversight of a carbon tax as part of a trade deal. We’ve literally enforced a thousand different rules on the world as a collective species. Stop pretending this one is different.

steve76 3y ago

[dead]

JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago

People have the right to know from where their quality of life comes from. So if you think quality of life = cool , then it's true that fossil fuels = cool. Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis. Keep that foot on the pedal, they have much more to lose than we have, for once that's an advantage, if they are really so scared of climate change they'd move to Tibet or the Rockies.

jabradoodle 3y ago
I'm not listening to them I'm listening to science, the discipline that has given us pretty much all our quality of life improvements. It's suspicious how many in this thread are pointing out that fossil fuels are an essential component of society reaching the point it has. We know, that's not a revelation. It is not the point.
maccard 3y ago
> Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis. I think you're spending a bit too much time in the conspiracy rabbit hole. Kim Kardashian's carbon footprint is about equivalent of 50 americans. She also has almost 350 million followers on Instagram. If she manages to get 1% of her following to reduce their footprint by 1% for a year, she undoes more than she emits in a year. That doesn't mean they're not hypocrites, but have some context. What's actually needed is a change in consumption across the board, and a change in attitude towards impact. The only way that happens is through regulation and education.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
  > > If she manages to get 1% of her following to reduce their footprint by 1% for a year, she undoes more than she emits in a year It should be the person who has a footprint of 200x the avg. person to make cuts to their CO2 emissions because they are the low hanging fruit as far as quality of life is concerned, not the avg. person. It's a fairly easy concept, like taxation, you take from those who have, not from those who don't have anything...oops my bad it's the country of the MAGA tax breaks and tax writeoffs on new and used private jets, while Flint doesn't have clean water since forever.

snthd 3y ago

HELL IN THE NIGER DELTA - DOCUMENTARY https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/single-post/hell-in-the-niger-delta-documentary https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/single-post/hell-i... (embeds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z64LV-BSwDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z64LV-BSwDs) >One of the most polluted areas on the planet, the Niger Delta has a life expectancy of just 41 years due to decades of Shell oil spills & constant gas flaring.

imchillyb 3y ago
> One of the most polluted areas on the planet, the Niger Delta has a life expectancy of just 41 years due to decades of Shell oil spills & constant gas flaring. That's a single data point, that contributes less than environmental factors, skyrocketing populace, low instances of vaccination and healthcare. > The top three leading causes of death in Niger in 2017 were malaria, diarrheal diseases and lower respiratory infections. Comparatively, in the United States, the leading causes of death are heart disease, cancer and accidents. > https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-life-expectancy-in-niger/ https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-life-expectancy-in-... There are /numerous/ reports that state what this project states with much more clarity and decades of numerical data gathering. Spills and gas flaring don't even make it to the top 10 life expectancy issues of the Niger Delta.

hammon 3y ago

[dead]

notsound 3y ago

I think this is the most disgusting fossil fuel ad I've ever seen: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AI2zKNNoUic https://youtube.com/watch?v=AI2zKNNoUic

sickcodebruh 3y ago

In 2015, I worked for a youth-focused and progressive news/“content” organization that posted their videos exclusively on social media. Let’s call them “Know That Event.” It made/makes its money by doing the occasional advertorial video on behalf of a company and mixing it in with its typical content. They announced to the staff one day that they landed a deal with Shell to produce videos about their science investment initiatives. I was disturbed by this and had chats with various decision makers. I was told that it would have a positive impact and celebrate the good investments, which would encourage Shell to do more good things! I wish I wrote down details, it was ridiculous. But they went ahead and did it. Shell never exerted any control over other content and all the news/editorial people were smart and committed, but this left a bad taste in my mouth about the company for the rest of my time there.

andix 3y ago

I see a positive side: It's a sign that change is happening right now. Big oil never had to advertise the "benefits" of fuel, people just bought it. This slowly starts to change. And oil companies are crapping their pants, because in some countries a significant amount of cars on the roads will be EVs within a few years. In Europe some corporations already switched to a 100% EV company car policy. All new leases need to be electric only, and within 3 years they will have >90% EVs in their passenger car fleet.

viraptor 3y ago
> Big oil never had to advertise the "benefits" of fuel Have I got news for you... Check out the latest ClimateTown video https://youtu.be/_pNRuafoyZ4 https://youtu.be/_pNRuafoyZ4 for just a few examples, but there's lots more and it's been happening for decades.

WeatherFreaks 3y ago

[flagged]

ccvannorman 3y ago

I think the best part of this whole article is the quote from streamer GHOST WHOH (@WHOH on Twitter/X) starting "All road trips start with @shellstationsus .." Shell Stations US or Shell Station Sus Yep, pretty sus alright. I'm sure a lot of the target audience is laughing about this.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

monstertank 3y ago

For people who don't hate fossil fuels and are sick of how invasive, disruptive and insanely hyperbolic the push for renewables has been...it's nice to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. All is fair in love and war.

jaygray0919 3y ago

Definitely need to switch shells. Am thinking: replace C-shell with the BourneAgain-shell.