What is a Premium service?

The Transport Minister Norman Lamb justified the rising cost of commuter rail travel by saying that customers are paying for a "Premium Service". I don't think that Mr Lamb understands the concept of what "Premium" means - so let me help him.

Products and Services can be segmented by the "extras" over and above the functional commodity that they offer. Let's take a couple of examples. When I go to the theatre I can decide to pay as little as possible for my ticket and watch the performance from the Gallery. Or I can decide to pay more and watch it from the Stalls. The performance I see is completely unaffected by my personal choice. It is my call whether I pay a "premium" for a better view and a more comfortable seat. Similarly with Air travel. If I'm flying on a particular airline's scheduled flight from London to New York I probably have three ticket options. "Economy" ( or "Coach), Business Class (or "Club") or First Class. The latter two classes offer benefits over and above the basic deal in Economy. But in all three classes the plane arrives at the same time at JFK!. It's my call whether I pay more for the "Premium" advantages of the higher two classes.

In both of these examples (and one could add thousands of product or service related offers which make the same point) the basic offer is functional, affordable and (in the horrible cliche) they "do what they say on the tin". With commuter rail travel the same does not apply. True there are some longer journey commuter lines where First Class is available as a premium offer. But the vast majority of commuter rail travel is single class with no alternative to the standard available - even for those who can afford it. There is nothing "Premium" about the service at all. Indeed arguably many commuter rail lines offer the bare minimum. Crowded trains where standing is the norm. Unreliable performance with delays and breakdowns common. The prices may be "Premium" - but the service certainly isn't !

Open letter to Shell CEO Peter Voser in respect of the Bahrain Grand Prix

Dear Mr Voser

 

Bahrain Grand Prix
I write this open letter as a private individual, a former long-term employee, a shareholder and a Pensioner of Royal Dutch Shell. I call on Shell to take the following action in respect of the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix:

 

1. To instruct Ferrari to remove all Shell branding from their competing cars (and other items) for the duration of this year's Grand Prix event.
2. To rescind invitations to customers and other third parties in respect of Corporate Hospitality in the "Formula One Club" and elsewhere at the event.
3. To withdraw all staff from the event other than those required to fulfil Shell's contractual obligations to Ferrari.
4. To remove or otherwise cover up any Shell branding and advertising at the Bahrain Grand Prix circuit.

 

 

Rationale

 

1. Royal Dutch Shell has made a commitment to Human Rights in the past and has communicated in public its support for the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS of the United Nations.
2. A recent comprehensive report by Amnesty International documented the continued and flagrant abuses of Human Rights in the Kingdom of Bahrain and by its Government.
3. The leaders of Formula one, and the teams, have decided to go ahead with the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix despite the fact that the Kingdom of Bahrain oppresses its citizens and denies them the Human Rights to which under the UN Charter they are entitled.
4. Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) has contractual obligations to Ferrari which it must honour. However there is no reason why Shell should not take the action I have outlined above in order to protect its reputation and to show its concern about the going ahead of an event which has been strongly condemned by all who take the UN Declaration seriously

I hope that you will feel able to take the action I have asked for.


Paddy Briggs

 

  

Corporate Social Responsibility - what it really means

 

The calamity of BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster continues to put corporate reputation as a subject very much in the spotlight and, hardly surprisingly, many commentators contrast BP's past attempts to claim the moral highground on environmental matters with the stark reality of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea that corporations should be "socially responsible" whilst fashionable is not new - and it remains an extremely controversial concept. Let me try and delve into what Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) really means - and explain that all too often CSR has been just a tool of a company's reputation management/Public Relations activities rather than something that sets strict behavioural norms. In all too many cases CSR reports are selective, partial and glossy window-dressing - leading to charges of "Greenwash" - rather than true reflections of a corporation's actual non-financial (Health, Safety, Environment etc.) performance.

It is no exaggeration to say that that over the past two hundred years or so virtually everything that we value - even take for granted - about our way of life has happened because of the operation of regulated free markets. I put the adjective "regulated" in this statement not to over-emphasise the need for laws, rules and controls but to suggest that whilst the principal driver of progress and change has been the action of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial corporations a measure of regulation has always been necessary. If the first half of the nineteenth century was the age of untrammelled industrial growth the 150 years since then has been no less spectacular - but there has been, as there needed to be, increasing legal restraint on corporate behaviour.

There has always been the same dynamic underway between free-enterprise companies and regulators - mainly governments. The companies from Standard Oil through Philip Morris to Microsoft always argue that any regulation of their freedoms will inhibit their business to the disadvantage of their customers and, most important of all, their shareholders. They harp back, in sprit if not always in rhetoric, to Adam Smith who said:

"Every individual endeavours to employ his capital so that its produce may be of the greatest value. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own security, only his own gain... [but] by pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than he really intends to promote it". Adam Smith in "the Wealth of Nations". 1776

The argument of Smith was that the pursuit of self-interest is inevitable and desirable and that an unintended consequence is that society is thereby "effectually" promoted. This theory is a bit like "trickle-down economics" - let us entrepreneurs get on with running businesses and benefits will cascade to all - even the worthy poor. Well not long after Smith his theory was tested as the nineteenth century Industrial revolution took hold in Europe and the United States. Before the century was out a raft of legislation was enacted to restrain industry as it became abundantly clear that whilst industrialisation brought many benefits it brought horrendous unintended consequences as well - from child labour to exploitation of workers to unsafe working conditions and monopoly power - and more. The break-up of the monopolistic Standard Oil in 1911 was amongst the most dramatic of instances where Government saw the need to restrain business in the public interest - but there are hundreds of other examples. It is no exaggeration to say that each successive wave of legislation was resisted by business - and that companies often claimed that self-regulation would be sufficient and that laws were unnecessary. In more modern times we have seen the tobacco industry fighting tooth and nail not to have to restrain the promotion of their brands and products - and we have seen self-interested bodies like the International Advertising Association (IAA) supporting them. To this day the IAA says, in respect of tobacco advertising, that they "…believe in the right to truthfully and responsibly advertise legal products to appropriate audiences and oppose efforts to restrict such advertising." The "Mad Men" live on!

The reason for this lengthy preamble on the history of regulation is to put the modern-day CSR debate into a historical context. There has always been a battle between legislators and businesses and one of the business defences has always been "Trust us - what we do is in the public interest and we accept the responsibility to police ourselves". However that most free-market of all economists, Milton Friedman, poured scorn on the idea that companies could or should be self-regulating over and above their legal obligations. Here is what Friedman said in 1962:

"The doctrine of "social responsibility" [is a] fundamentally subversive doctrine in a free society … in such a society there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom" 1962

Whatever else he might have been Friedman was no hypocrite and he abhorred obfuscation and window-dressing. Whilst he would no doubt have had no problem with the idea of lobbying to influence legislators he would have resisted any "voluntary codes" and overblown statements of "Business Principles". What, for example, would he have thought of this statement in the 1999 Annual Report of a major American corporation "Our philosophy is not to stand in the way of our employees, so we don't insist on hierarchical approval. We do, however, keep a keen eye on how prudent they are and rigorously evaluate and control the risk involved in each of our activities"? Whilst Friedman might have applauded the broad sentiment he would not of course have condoned any illegal behaviour and lack of internal controls. When the true story of Enron (for this is from their Report) emerged then Friedman's general position was vindicated. Enron did not stay "within the rules of the game" and broke the law in almost everything that they did. Whatever self-policing there was (and most of it was in reality non-existent) failed abysmally.

Enron lied about most things so it is not surprising that they lied about their internal controls. But much less venal companies fall into a similar trap in some of their rhetoric - not least in their so-called commitment to the principles of Sustainable Development. Here, for example, is what Mark Moody-Stuart said on the subject when he was head of Shell: “[Sustainability] is a three-legged stool balanced between economic, environment and social considerations”. This type of rhetoric has been common amongst those who believe that companies' commitments to CSR really are meaningful - it is par for the course. Milton Friedman would have been horrified at the underlying premise of the "three-legged stool" - that there is a precise equivalence between a company's economic driver and its social and environmental behaviours. Note that there has to be equivalence if the metaphor is to work. If one leg is longer than the others are then the stool is unbalanced and falls over! In reality, as we see time and time again, the economic driver is far, far more important than any incidental social and environmental obligations that a company may propound. The line of questioning that BP CEO Tony Hayward faced recently in the U.S. Congress was substantially about whether cost and profit issues (Economic) had outweighed Environmental considerations in BP's decision making regarding Deepwater Horizon.

So history teaches us that we should be deeply sceptical about any corporation's claim to self-regulation or allusion to "Principles" over and above their legal obligations. Not least because the directors of corporations have a statutory and fiduciary duty always to act in the interest of shareholders - and shareholders interests are monetary above all. A shareholder wants stock prices to perform well and dividends to be good - and that's about it! And the Directors want the same thing - their bonuses, stock options and performance-related remuneration rely on it! So the more self-righteous and superior Companies seem to be in their CSR statements the more sceptical we should be! Some companies make their position on social responsibility matters crystal clear and with a pleasing lack of hype. The often-vilified Ryanair is one. In their "Code of Ethics" they say:

"Ryanair is committed to conducting business in an ethical fashion that complies with all laws and regulations in the countries in which Ryanair operates. As employees and representatives of Ryanair, we must consider how our actions affect the integrity and credibility of the Company as a whole"

Contrast this frankness (Friedman would have been proud of Ryanair!) with the page after page of "Business Principles" bombast and self-congratulatory hype in the Annual Report of British American Tobacco which includes the following two "core beliefs" (there are a dozen or so more of these platitudes):

· We believe our businesses should uphold high standards of behaviour and integrity.

· We believe that high standards of corporate social responsibility should be promoted within the tobacco industry.

This from a corporation that actively seeks to promote its brands and noxious products wherever it can - especially in the developing world! If ever there was an oxymoronic statement it is the idea of "corporate social responsibility …within the tobacco industry". Mad Men again!

Multinational corporations sometimes claim that their commitments to Corporate Social Responsibility are such that they always apply their own global standards of behaviour - which means that that will override local standards where those local standards are lower. BP, for example, says "We’re proud to set universal standards of behaviour across our entire operation…developing our own set of rigorous guidelines - [which are] often more rigorous than local laws and regulations". Intellectually, of course the logic of this is inescapable. If your CSR commitment is absolute then even if you don't legally need to apply your standards you will do so anyway - because that is what you believe in. Sadly, however, this is all too often a chimera. As The Guardian's environment correspondent John Vidal put it recently in respect of BP's Gulf of Mexico problems "If this accident had occurred in a developing country, say off the west coast of Africa or Indonesia, BP could probably have avoided all publicity and escaped starting a clean-up for many months." Vidal is right. Similarly if Shell had been treating an oil field in the U.S. or Europe in the way that it has its assets in the Niger Delta, where 2,000 major spillage sites have never been cleaned up, then the political and media fallout would be similar to what BP is now struggling with in the United States.

So what does Corporate Social Responsibility really mean? It is not about putting a favourable gloss on a company's activities and drawing a veil over its less salubrious actions. It is not about being a generous donor to charities, however commendable that may be - you cannot buy yourself a good reputation by making donations to good causes. It is not about a re-branding or stakeholder engagement programme - however useful such things may be from time to time. What it is about is first and foremost obeying the law - and then, if you believe it is necessary and in the interests of shareholders, going the extra mile in respect of your health, safety, environment and community relations behaviour (etc.). It means respecting all your stakeholders - especially including those, like suppliers of goods and services and often employees and sub-contractors, over whom you may have the whip hand. These commitments have to be codified, managed, funded and rigorously and consistently applied. In my view there are few if any big companies and perhaps no multinational corporations that have such a commitment and act with such integrity - although some of course are better than others. Which is why it is only by regulation at a national and international level that society at large can be protected - history teaches us nothing less!

News International's brand new opportunity

News International (NI), the UK newspaper arm of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, has been in serious trouble with one of its brands. However unlike, say, BP it is a sub-brand, “The News of the World”,  which has turned toxic not the corporate “mother brand” and whilst there is fallout on NI, and even to a small extent on News Corp itself, the Murdoch empire has really only suffered collateral damage.

Corporations of the size of News Corp are used to managing a proliferation of brands in different markets. News Corp has literally hundreds of separate brands across its diverse media businesses and its senior executives understand well that brands have strengths and weaknesses and that, as in the case of the “News of the World”, they can be damaged. They have decided that the damage to the News of the World is beyond repair and so they are closing the title. Such drastic action is quite rare but even the most skilled brand practitioners have to bite the bullet sometimes.   Coca Cola, for example, had a brand disaster with Disani a bottled water brand in the UK a few years ago. They withdrew it rather than try and repair it. The “News of the World” is a much older and formerly a very strong brand entity but the phone hacking and police bribery stories were such that the brand was judged by NI executives to be beyond repair – they were no doubt right.

News International's main revenue generators have been “The Sun” and the “News of the World” and these titles’  income streams have cross-subsidised the loss-making “The Times” and “The Sunday Times”.  Indeed without the ad revenues of the tabloids NIs whole business model collapses. The shareholders of News Corp have every right to expect that NI will seek to minimise the effect on the bottom line of the “News of the World” closure – and there is only one way to do this. The Sunday tabloid, with a circulation of 2.6million, has to be replaced urgently and a sound advertising driven business has rapidly to be built up.

A definition of a strong brand is one that generates income over and above is basic utility or commodity value. When it became apparent that the “News of the World” could no longer do this there was no choice for NI but to withdraw the brand. But the business infrastructure of the newspaper remains intact. The editors,  journalists, reporters and support staff are in place. The advertising sales teams have not been disbanded. These employees can be switched instantly to a new title and that is what will happen. Out of the ashes of the “News of the World” a new NI Sunday tabloid will emerge.

Which brings us back to the brand. A sign of a strong brand is when it is used in the vernacular one step removed from its actual business. So just as we once talked of the “Pepsi Generation” so the idea of the “Sun reader” is fixed in the awareness of marketers and commentators. Whilst this descriptor may be used by some in a derogatory way in fact the Sun readers are very valuable indeed. There are 7.5 million of them, spread fairly evenly across the age ranges and with 88% of them in the CDE social class groups. They have a very high collective purchasing power and they are firmly in the sights of the FMCG marketers – like the supermarket chains.  And it is this huge group which NI will want to attract to their new Sunday tabloid – and how better to do this than to give it the Sun’s brand name?

The launch of a “Sunday Sun” or, more likely, a “Sun on Sunday” could happen immediately – indeed it is not too far fetched for the switch from the News of the World brand to the Sun brand could happen on consecutive Sundays. This might politically be a step too far for NI, although I wouldn’t put it past them. But whether the Sunday Sun title appears immediately or whether there is a short hiatus doesn't really matter – it will happen. And for a marketer it is a dream project to launch the Sun’s Sunday sister. The promotional and advertising budgets can be guaranteed. Cross promotions from the weekday title will be straightforward to arrange – expect coupons which when saved during the week will give a free copy of the Sunday to loyal readers at launch.

The Sunday version of the Sun will have a huge head start over any other new title – this is because the brand values of the Daily will simply be transferred to the Sunday. You don't need to explain to a “Sun reader” what a “Sun on Sunday” means – it all in the name.

It’s the brand stupid

When the news broke, on Twitter inevitably, that the “News of the World” was to close there was a mighty gnashing of teeth and no little wailing form the journalist community. Job losses. Innocent victims. That sort of thing. But actually it’s no big deal. Here’s why.

When a brand is damaged beyond repair, but there is a market position to defend, then rebranding is the obvious choice. At the moment BP is rebranding many of its gas stations in the US “Amoco” and the reasons for that are obvious. For News International its the same. They have a very strong brand in “The Sun” which has a circulation of 3million –nearly one million ahead of its next competitor. Their fatally wounded “News of the World” brand is similarly strong in circulation terms 2.7m and a lead of over 800,000. There is no way that NI is going to give up that inco0me stream – and they don't need to.

The introduction of a “Sunday Sun” (or “Sun on Sunday” ) has huge benefits. The toxic News of the World brand is shed. The Sun brand can extend seamlessly into a seven day operation. There will be some economic savings. And online they can concentrate on one Sun branded website for all their communications.

One can expect that those Sun readers who don't currently buy the NOW will be heavily incentivised to switch their Sunday paper to The Sunday Sun. Or in some cases to buy a Sunday paper where currently they don't. Cross promotions will be the order of the day – NI has the financial resources to really build the Sunday Sun as a successful sub-brand of the generic Sun brand.

The people who should worry about  Mr Murdoch’s clever coup are the publishers of NI’s competitors! A seven day Sun will be formidable.  

Shell's latest corporate advertisement

LET'S DELIVER ENERGY
FOR A CHANGING WORLD.
LET'S GO

Today's consumers are smarter than ever about energy. Naturally they want it to heat, cool and light their homes, get them to work, and power their mobile phones. But they are also keen to help build an energy system that sustains the lives of future generations. They want their energy to come from cleaner sources. They want to get the most out of every drop. And they want to see positive results now.

At Shell, we're listening. Consumers' raised expectations inspire us to come up with ever more innovative products and services.

Take the quest for cleaner air in our cities. We have created a fuel oil, which can cut soot emissions from factories by up to 75%. That should help people breathe a little easier.

Customers at our service stations want to play their part, too. They want fuels that are more efficient. We've responded with new blends that help drivers save fuel with every fill-up. And we're working with transport companies, combining the latest fuels and lubricants with satellite technology to reduce fuel consumption.

Low-carbon biofuels are another way to meet rising expectations. They can help reduce emissions from road transport right now. We're already the world's largest distributor of biofuels and are pursuing plans for large-scale production.


We're also working with technical partners to develop future biofuels from non-food sources, like crop residue and even algae.

Of course, our customers' horizons stretch beyond transport to more responsible living, whether through cleaner electricity or more energy-efficient homes and offices.

That's why we are boosting production of cleaner-burning natural gas, which emits less than half the carbon dioxide of coal when used to generate electricity. And why we are investing in vital technology to capture emissions from power plants and other industrial sites and store it safely underground.

Despite all this change, one thing remains the same. After more than a century, our customers still expect reliable and affordable energy every day. With global energy demand set to double by mid-century, that will be a challenge. But together with our partners we will continue unlocking energy from hard-to-reach places like frozen Siberia and delivering it to customers around the world.

At Shell, we're grateful to have millions of customers asking for better energy. They demand as much of us as we ask of ourselves.

Commentary
In its latest corporate advertisement (above), expensively placed in some influential publications like "The Economist", Shell claims to be "listening". We have heard this claim before of course and we should treat it with some scepticism - Shell pulled its online feedback forum "Tell Shell" some years ago - presumably because of the virulence of the criticism on it. But no matter - let's take this latest request for feedback at face value and offer some.

The dark arts of advertising are notoriously " economical with the actualite" - but I would guess that nobody really minds a bit of hype and "accentuating the positive" - where would copywriting be without the need to put a brand's products or services in the most favourable light? But there are limits - the need to be "Legal, decent, honest and truthful" is required of any advertiser and the rules say that your ads shouldn't mislead, lie or even tell half-truths.

So in the context of the need to be at least credible in your ads, and at best transparently truthful, how should we judge Shell's latest offering? Remember we are talking big bucks here - not principally to the ad agency for preparing the ad and writing the copy but definitely to the media for running it. A few hundred thousand dollars at least - and possibly much more. Has Shell's budget been wisely spent?

The first paragraph claims that "Today's consumers are smarter than ever about energy". It goes on to say that these consumers are "also keen to help build an energy system that sustains the lives of future generations". How many consumers (that's you and me folks) speak in anything like these terms? I don't know what an "energy system" is - and I worked in the industry for nearly forty years. I doubt that my neighbours would have a clue what it is either. Presumably somebody can define the term "energy system" - but there's little point in using such opaque language in an ad - even in "The Economist"!

So that first paragraph is at best patronising and trite and at worst gobbledegook. But the second paragraph is far worse. The claim is that "Consumers' raised expectations inspire us to come up with ever more innovative products and services". The conceit of this statement is breathtaking. It purports to suggest (a) That Shell is innovative and (b) That innovation is consumer led. Now lets be charitable and agree that Shell can indeed be innovative. Virtually all of this innovation comes from the upstream - and impressive some of it is as well. But there is no way that this highly technological activity can be seen as consumer driven. Then in the following paragraph we get mention of a low soot fuel oil for factories. In Britain, which is where this ad appears, a tiny minority of factories burn fuel oil - most of them switched to cheaper and more environmentally friendly natural gas years ago. Not too many people will be breathing any easier as a result of this innovation!

So what about the "service stations" (paragraph 4) - a curious and old-fashioned term by the way. They mean petrol stations I think. Here we are told that customers want "fuels that are more efficient". Well yes - but not if they have to pay through the nose for them. The "new blends" that are referred to (presumably like V-Power) cost a premium, which negates any efficiency savings. Most motorists want cheap petrol - and there's not much of a promise about this in the ad. If V-Power and its like really saved money through efficiency don't you think that Shell would give us the data to prove the case?

The statements about "Low carbon biofuels" (paragraph 5 and 6) are another utterly misleading bit of hype. It is no doubt true that Shell is a big player in these products - but there is nothing much new about them. The Brazilians have run some of their cars on biofuels for a generation or more but in the UK they are virtually non-existent - and will remain so unless governments create a tax regime which make them viable. Some chance!

The seventh paragraph about "customers' horizons" is just poor copywriting and is virtually meaningless. It's an unsubstantiated claim - hardly surprising as it is hollow and patronising. It leads on to the next paragraph where the implicit claim is that Shell's driver for the expansion of its Gas sector is in some way environmental and that it is driven by these "customer horizons". The real reason for Shell's drive to boost its production of natural gas is because this sector is growing and is profitable - good business in other words. Yes it is cleaner than coal - but Shell has no influence at all on utilities' decisions to build Power stations that run on Gas rather than coal. True Shell can supply the gas, at a price, if the utility makes that decision but the determiners of the decision are primarily governments and local authorities - they are the ones one should thank for the resultant cleaner air - not Shell!

The penultimate paragraph is platitudinous and one again trite. If you asked them my guess is that many consumers would be very disturbed about some of the side effects of Shell's ambition to "…continue unlocking energy from hard-to-reach places". The Tar Sands of Canada is just one example of where this ambition is, to say the least, controversial!

Shell is not a bad company - although it does some indefensible things at times. But it does itself no service by running advertisements which claim distinctiveness when little exists, claim to have a unique understanding of consumers without any evidence being provided and lapse into self-congratulatory and highly selective hype.

GREENWASH – The drama and the reality

“He’s a PR man. For an oil company. That’s bottom of the list!

Below TV evangelist. Just above child molester.”

Michael in “Greenwash” by David Lewis

I have just been scanning through the last seven editions of “The Economist” newspaper – and as always it’s a very good read. And in these troubled times it is arguably an essential source to inform about what really might be going on in the world. The pointers to today’s realities come from The Economist’s excellent but anonymous correspondents, the letters and especially for the advertisements – or at the moment the lack of them. The good news is that the “Greenwash” ads, which featured strongly in the newspaper until recently, have vanished! A year or so ago, and for some years before that, upmarket print media was full of mostly disingenuous corporate advertising from oil and energy companies with a common theme. In short Shell, BP, Total, Chevron and even ExxonMobil wanted to convince their “special publics” (as Shell called us) that they were public-spirited companies. In particular the message was that they had a unique contribution to make to the resolution of the world’s energy problems – global warming and all that. A common message was that the “proof” that Shell and the rest really cared was their alleged commitment to not just their traditional oil and gas businesses but also to a whole raft of non-traditional energy initiatives such as renewable forests, solar, wind, hydrogen and the like. It wasn’t just former oil company insiders like me who were sceptical of these claims – all the NGOs and most of the other proponents of Renewables saw through the chimera and christened it “Greenwash”.

The tiny “Orange Tree” theatre in the London Borough of Richmond–Upon-Thames has a justified reputation for putting on original drama – both revivals of forgotten classics and new writing. In the second category we have recently seen David Lewis’s new play “Greenwash” a satirical and very funny demolition job on the PR industry in general and the oil industry in particular – hence the title. The hero of “Greenwash” – or rather the anti-hero – is Alan a middle-aged PR consultant working for a company which sounds very like Shell! “We’re working with the realists and isolating the radicals. That’s accepted strategy! You have to divide them up! If you’re simply confrontational, you just unite them, make them more powerful!” he says talking about his company’s approach to the NGOs. It rings true. Shell, for example, would from time to time cuddle up to NGOs like “Friends of the Earth” whilst distancing themselves from Greenpeace. A divide and rule tactic which worked exactly as Alan suggests that it does.

The mantra chanted by Alan and his like is that managing opinion and reputation is all about managing perceptions. Sure you might need to modify some of the grosser excesses in your business or in your behaviour but in the main you carry on doing what you have always done and carry on doing in the way you have always done it – you just present it in a more palatable way. It’s a bit like a politician saying that they better “get the message across more clearly” – much easier than actually changing what they do. And this is where the Greenwash advertising comes in. Shell’s business, and that of all the other Oil majors, was 99% about exploiting hydrocarbon resources. That’s what they do, what they are good at and what in truth they expect always to do in the future. Shell in particular was hopeless at diversification – only the Petrochemicals sector (itself of course based on hydrocarbons) has survived as a significant business which isn’t directly oil and gas. All the rest, from Nuclear to Metals to Forestry to Agrichemicals to Power Generation have gone. Shell couldn’t (or wouldn’t) make them work. But, so went the argument, Renewables was different and Shell was prepared to put its money where its mouth was.

Take Wind Energy. Back in 2006 Graeme Sweeney, head of Shell Renewables, said that the giant offshore wind project known as the “London Array” would provide a “major breakthrough in the UK low-carbon energy mix”. Shell was part of the consortium that wanted to build the array and was awaiting a planning decision later that year. 'A positive decision would be a clear signal that a substantial contribution could be made by renewable energy if we could all drive this through to a successful conclusion” said Sweeney at the time. A year ago Shell pulled completely away from this project and more recently we have seen an announcement that Shell is pulling out of investments in all renewable technologies (wind, solar and hydro power) completely because they are “not economic”.

There was never a proper balance between rhetoric and reality. The advertising that extolled Shell’s commitment to Renewables in The Economist and in similar publications around the world was clearly designed to deflect criticism that Shell was an old-fashioned smoke-stack loving corporation whose principal business was exploiting the planet’s depleting oil and gas reserves. One TV commercial promoting Shell’s Renewables commitment even said that “One Day it may be our biggest business”. It was bullshitting Greenwash when it appeared and many of us who knew this said so at the time. But Shell was impervious to criticism and this disingenuous corporate advertising continued until quit recently. Shell’s recent virtual withdrawal from the Renewables sector shows what a shameful sham all this was.

Alex Carey quoted in "The Public Relations Industry's Secret War on Activists" said that the “20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Multinational corporations are subject if not to democratic processes at least to judgment by the media and to revelations by honest activists who seek the truth through all of this propaganda. Despite their almost unlimited budgets and the ability they have to employ PR professionals like Alan in the play “Greenwash” to tell their lies for them eventually hubris will catch them out. Shell was arrogant enough to think that they could present their miniscule and largely irrelevant Renewables business as significant. It wasn’t - but that didn’t stop the Greenwash claiming that it was. And now that the deception has been revealed can we expect an apology and a commitment to tell the truth in the future – don’t bet on it!