Lego's brand partnership with Shell is ill-judged, argues Katie CollinsGreenpeace has created a parody video entitled Everything is NOT awesome as part of a campaign to bring to an end Lego's brand partnership with oil company Shell.Put together by London creative agency Don't Panic, the video depicts Lego minifigs, including Father Christmas, huskies and polar bears drowning in oil with a maudlin version of Everything is Awesome from The Lego Movie soundtrack as backing music.As you might imagine, it's pretty dark, but it's also very effective. Everyone loves Lego," the video caption states. "But when Lego's halo effect is being used to sell propaganda to children, especially by an unethical corporation who are busy destroying the natural world our children will inherit, we have to do something. "Children's imaginations are an unspoilt wilderness. Help us stop Shell polluting them by telling Lego to stop selling Shell-branded bricks and kits today."A link underneath takes you to a petition encouraging Lego to "dump Shell".
Lego has already responded to the video with a statement, whichyou can read in full here. In it, Lego president and CEO Jørgen Vig Knudstorp says: "The Greenpeace campaign focuses on how Shell operates in a specific part of the world. We firmly believe that this matter must be handled between Shell and Greenpeace. We are saddened when the Lego brand is used as a tool in any dispute between organisations. "We expect that Shell lives up to their responsibilities wherever they operate and take appropriate action to any potential claims should this not be the case. I would like to clarify that we intend to live up to the long term contract with Shell, which we entered into in 2011."Way to pass the buck, Lego. It's true that Greenpeace already has beef with Shell and that the Save the Arctic campaign is not necessarily Lego's battle to fight, but highlighting the inappropriateness of the partnership seems fair. After all, a company is known by the company it keeps with other companies, and Lego's motto, as Jørgen Vig Knudstorp points out in his statement, is "only the best is good enough".
If that is true of the product, why is it not also true of Lego's partnerships?Greenpeace's argument is a powerful one: Lego has built its reputation on making the world a better place for children, and its partnership with Shell doesn't resonate with that. The partnership doesn't even make sense in light of Lego's commitment to creating "the best" play experiences -- it's been a while since I was a child, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have particularly wanted Shell branding on my bricks or minifigs. "We are determined to leave a positive impact on society and the planet that children will inherit," writes Jørgen Vig Knudstorp. If anything, this implies that Lego is the kind of company that would actively support the preservation of polar bears, rather than signing a contract with a company operating within an industry that may eventually contribute to their demise.Children's brands have a responsibility when it comes to choosing partners, because these partnerships serve as direct endorsements of certain types of behaviour, whether this is behaviour exhibited by an individual, a group of individuals or a company.
I'm an adult and I'm getting mixed messages from Lego, so goodness knows what subliminal ideas this is implanting in the minds of kids.Shell and Lego were in cahoots between the 1960s and 90s and then rekindled their relationship in 2011. For Shell, the partnership serves as a promotion exercise -- it is piggybacking on Lego's wholesome, family-friendly image and infiltrating the imaginations of future generations of adults at the same time. No wonder it is delighted with the results.Without doubt the Shell contract is lucrative for Lego, for the company's current CEO is nothing if not a financially savvy individual. He struck up partnerships with all sorts of brands, from Warner Bros. and Disney to Shell. In doing this he turned the company around, and Lego is now pulling in profits when it was previously making a loss. But at what cost?Greenpeace last week initiated a global campaign to force the world’s biggest toy manufacturer Lego to remove Dutch oil giant Shell's company logo from its toy bricks.
Shell and Lego have had a commercial relationship since the 1970s. But now that "cozy" partnership, as Greenpeace describes it, is leading to protests around the world as parents and activists say Shell’s drilling activities in the Arctic make it an unsuitable brand for children’s toys. Greenpeace recognizes the importance of Lego as one of the world's top ten most reputable toy companies, having inspired children’s play and creativity for more than 50 years. The environmental organization’s approval of Lego only turned sour when the manufacturer started branding Shell’s logo on a special set of toys as part of a co-promotion. The joint promotion, which began in 2012 and will continue through 2014, involves approximately 16 million Lego Ferrari-branded toy cars being distributed at Shell petrol stations around the world. It is estimated the Shell/Lego relationship is worth around $116 million. Since 2005, the Dutch oil and gas giant has spent approximately $4.5 billion probing for oil off the Alaskan coast.
Earlier this year, Shell suspended its Arctic drilling program – which hit a low point when its Kulluk tanker ran aground there on New Years Eve in 2012 – after experiencing a 71% fall in profits. In order to “break down the relationship” between Shell and Lego, Greenpeace has said it will mobilize five million “Arctic defenders” in countries around the world. In June, Arctic activists targeted Legoland, the Lego-orientated theme park in the south of England, where they staged a series of protests including unfurling a banner on the Lego Houses of Parliament and placing Lego protestors on the park’s model Parliament Square. Legoland’s model oil rig was also targeted, as activists poured an oil spill on to the water underneath the toy Lego rig. Speaking to Channel 4 News, Greenpeace's Elana Polisano said, “Shell is cleaning up its image by using Lego.” “Everyone loves Lego, but by letting Shell put their logo on its toys it’s helping Shell avoid scrutiny and seem like a family-friendly company.
It’s about time Lego stood up for Arctic protection and future generations,” she said. Ian Duff, an Arctic campaigner with Greenpeace, spoke about how the Shell and Lego collaboration is undermining children’s fascination with the Arctic. “Children love the Arctic and its unique wildlife like polar bears, narwhals and walruses that are completely dependent on the Arctic sea ice,” [Duff said](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/greenpeace-protest-against-lego-dea... told reporters). Meanwhile, "climate change is an enormous threat facing all children around the world, but Shell is trying to hijack the magic of Lego to hide its role." In response, Lego has stated it has no intention of terminating its agreement with Shell, claiming it is an issue for Greenpeace and Shell to resolve themselves. “The Greenpeace campaign focuses on how Shell operates in a specific part of the world. We firmly believe that this matter must be handled between Shell and Greenpeace,” said Jorgen Vig Knudstorp, CEO of Lego.
The question remains: how effective can a series of protests by the environmental organization be in breaking down Lego and Shell relations? Bateman, whose publication serves as a resource for UK businesses helping to grow the green economy, highlighted a similar case in 2011 when a Greenpeace protest against toy-makers Mattel effectively convinced the toy giant to stop buying packaging linked to rainforest destruction. As more people see the benefits – and the climate necessity – of using renewable energy, big investors will increasingly move their investments away from unsustainable fuels and companies like Shell, Batemen believes. “It is right that Lego should think long and hard about its decision to partner with Shell," she added, a company that is clearly beginning to “lose the fossil fuel argument.” Naturally, the oil giant tells a different story. spoke with a Shell employee who said the Shell/Lego relationship is a harmless instance of dual branding – and to surmise that Lego is keeping bad company with Shell is “daft.”