How to get banned and save the planet

How did you come up with the concept for the original spot and the post-ban second iteration?

Glimpse had an open call inviting people to work on a brief as part of its Inside Job initiative, which is an ongoing drive to get young creatives to change advertising for the better, from the inside out - encouraging them to reject high carbon clients.

The task was refreshingly simple and compelling: make people aware that oil and gas companies are using influencers to make their businesses look green.

We know that climate change messaging can easily become worthy, so we wanted to get our point across in an entertaining way.

We decided that a film would be the best way to tell the story. That’s where 'Sally' was born, the greenwashed influencer working with Big Oil. Creating a character meant we could dramatise the problem and create a shareable piece of content that felt right for social. 

We know that climate change messaging can easily become worthy, so we wanted to get our point across in an entertaining way – that’s where the ‘Oily Mouth’ concept came from. 

We worked with directors Carys and Thor to bring the film to life, they were amazing throughout the whole process – they had really thought through every detail when it came to making Sally look like a believable influencer. 

We re-edited the film the same day it was banned, covering up the ‘vomit’ with Shell’s greenwashed claims.

The LinkedIn ban came out of nowhere. We’d tried to push out the film as a paid promotion but the platform banned it, stating the (fake) vomit was “offensive to good taste”. 

We leapt on it as an opportunity to push the message even further. We re-edited the film the same day it was banned, covering up the ‘vomit’ with Shell’s greenwashed claims. For us, these campaigns are never done when you launch them, it’s all about how you can keep building on it and responding to anything that happens.

What reaction have both spots garnered on social channels and in the media in general?

We’re really happy with how the spots have done on social media, both videos were widely shared and there were lots of positive responses in the comments. In terms of wider PR, once the response video came out things blew up a bit. 

Ad agencies are the ones who work with these influencers, and on oil and gas clients in general, so we’re happy that they heard the messaging loud and clear.

The films were featured widely in adland in the UK, US and even in France and Germany, too. Ad agencies are the ones who work with these influencers, and on oil and gas clients in general, so we’re happy that they heard the messaging loud and clear – hopefully it makes them think twice about taking on those briefs.

On a day-to-day level, people tend to respond to humour and entertainment instead of rationality and facts.

Ideally, Sally would have reached the wider world too, as consumers are the ones faced with these smiling influencers on their feeds. We had interest from some big publications and newspapers, but ultimately those chats never led anywhere.

Do you think subtle, witty messaging is more impactful in fighting climate crisis apathy than more radical activism?

We wouldn’t say it’s necessarily more impactful, as so much major change in history particularly at a political level has come about from protesting and radical action. But on a day-to-day level, people tend to respond to humour and entertainment instead of rationality and facts, that’s how you can really get through to people’s emotions and persuade them.

Greenwashed advertising is far more ‘offensive to good taste’ - it’s deceptive and harmful.

We believe it’s important to give people lots of small ways to have an impact in the climate crisis, otherwise we can all end up feeling quite helpless – it’s such a huge and terrifying problem. We hope that people will be more sceptical of influencers after seeing Sally and will dig a little deeper when they see companies brandishing their sustainability claims.

What do you make of LinkedIn's claim that your ad was “offensive to good taste due to the depiction of vomit” when there is no actual vomit depicted?

For us it raises bigger questions about what is acceptable on their platform. Greenwashed posts from Shell are free to be spread to the masses, but a clearly fictional low budget video of a young woman spurting out charcoal and coconut oil gets censored?

Greenwashed advertising is far more ‘offensive to good taste’ - it’s deceptive and harmful, especially as our generation will be the ones really feeling the devastating effects of climate change.