At first, Francesca Willow ignored the partnership inquiry she received from a Texas-based oil and gas company in mid-May.
But when Pheasant Energy sent a follow-up asking about rates for a guest post on her sustainable living blog, “I sent back quite an angry response,” the U.K.-based content creator said. “Or, well, I’m quite British. So let’s say a British-angry response.”
Willow, also known by her social media handle @EthicalUnicorn, told Pheasant that she doesn’t work with oil and gas companies unless they “are actively closing all fossil fuel projects and pursuing a just transition to renewables ASAP.”
Willow is one of many creators pushing back against the influence of fossil fuel companies on social media due to the industry’s impact on climate. Clean Creatives, the activist campaign advocating for ad agencies to cut ties with oil and gas clients, this month launched a pledge urging creators to decline work with fossil fuel companies—a trend that’s been on the rise as extractive energy brands aim to regain relevance among younger, climate-conscious consumers. A new investigation from DeSmog analyzed more than 100 examples of Big Oil hiring influencers since 2017.
Vying for Gen Z’s green soul
Young people are statistically less likely to drive gas-powered cars—one of the most tangible connections consumers have to these brands—and more concerned about the climate.
In recent years, oil companies have continued to expand the climate-warming core of their businesses, while running ad campaigns touting research related to alternative energies and carbon removal technology. These together represent only single-digit percentages of their cash expenditures.
“This isn’t just about selling product. It’s also about these companies maintaining a social license to exist by using influencers and people that you see on your phone every day,” said Tolmeia Gregory, associate creative director at Clean Creatives. “They’re using influencers to create a certain sense of normality around the fact that they exist as they do, and to normalize the greenwashing that they put into these campaigns.”
![While activists were aiming for a more substantive and collaborative trip to the annual Cannes Lions Festival this year, some left disappointed. Industry leaders, they said, were hesitant to speak […]](https://static-prod.adweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/cannes-climate-green-hushing-2023-640x360.jpg)
To transition, or not to transition
A spokesperson for Shell shared with Adweek the same statement that it provided DeSmog: “Making our customers aware—through advertising or social media—of the low-carbon solutions we offer now or are developing is an important and valid part of our marketing activities.”
Shell has said that 12% of its capital expenditures fund low-carbon energy, but an analysis from activist group Global Witness found most of that went to fossil gas, commonly referred to as natural gas. Shell scaled back its energy transition plan in June, and the oil giant’s renewables chief left two weeks later.
To point out what it sees as an absurd pairing of bright-eyed travel influencers and climate-warming oil and gas, environment-focused nonprofit creative agency Glimpse last week released a parody of Shell-sponsored creator content. Due to its content—the creator mimics vomiting oil as she makes false environmental claims about the brand—the spot was banned on LinkedIn.
BP declined to speak with Adweek for this story or provide comment on its influencer marketing strategy. Pheasant Energy did not respond to Adweek’s request for comment.
The tobacco industry playbook
Compared to the rest of the influencer landscape, fossil fuel-funded creator content can “feel really weird when you watch them—it’s almost like this weird uncanny valley,” Willow said. “It’s like they’re [saying], ‘We want your community to give us permission to still exist.'”
Skilled creators tend to know their audience and platforms better than the brands themselves, and under the right circumstances can prove to be an invaluable conduit between product and consumer.
“It’s a really strong analogy to the cigarette industry,” noted Christie Nordhielm, marketing professor at Georgetown University. As the science connecting cigarettes to lung cancer and other fatal health consequences slowly entered the public consciousness, tobacco brands shifted marketing from TV ads (which were banned in 1970) to Hollywood product placement.
The established sweet spot for influencers is when there’s an authentic overlap between the brand and the creator’s expertise or interest area, often working best with product trials or travel. That’s a harder target for an oil company than it might be for a makeup brand—or even a cigarette company.
So while influencer marketing may have the same goal as the chain-smoking food critic in My Best Friend’s Wedding, it’s not clear that it’ll have the same impact.
“There’s no counterargument [to product placement],” Nordhielm explained. “You see Julia Roberts smoking a cigarette and you don’t go, ‘Julia Roberts would never smoke a cigarette,’ because she’s smoking a cigarette and you love her!”
