Shell and Lego´s corporation consist of a marketing contract. When a consumer was buying fuel on one of Shell´s many service stations he or she would receive a Lego product. Often the product from Lego would be a racing car or something similar. This marketing contract was supposed to increase the volume of sales for Lego and Shell in the shape of petrol and Lego´s products.
Do you think children have been harmed because of Legos cooperation with Shell?
Basically not. I do not think that children can see the connection between multinational companys as Shell who is providing the population with fuel for their vehicles, and contribute to the Co2 emission and then a toymaker. The child just wants the toy and doesn’t really care which firm, mommy or daddy are getting their fuel from. Which also is the intention from the cooperation between Shell and Lego. All thing considers I do not think children can see the connection, and in the light of that I consider that no children have been harmed because of Lego and Shell´s cooperation.
How has Greenpeace tried to make Lego stop cooperation with Shell? Which appeal has Greenpeace mainly used in the video clip with the bricks that are being covered in oil (ethos/logos/Pathos)? What is your opinion about the approach Greenpeace has used?
Det er gratis at oprette en konto