Redesigned BP logos

May 26, 2010 9:05 AM

Greenpeace invite redesigns of the BP logo. A few interesting ones.

Some of the ones I've picked out borrow conceptually from older entries where perhaps the actual execution was not as strong.

posted by nthdegx (60 comments total)

Don't miss the BP Global PR twitter feed!
posted by kmz at 9:08 AM on May 26, 2010 [7 favorites]

BP's viral marketing is way out of hand.
posted by fuq at 9:17 AM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

Sorry, but those aren't even remotely interesting. "The BP logo has oil on it GEDDIT???"

A more interesting commentary would question why we even have to rely on BP being non-"bastards" to keep the Earth clean. Shouldn't be some regulation or repercussions or something? Oh wait, this is a a) a giant corporation involved with b) oil. Of course not!

I have no idea how to make that into a snarky logo.
posted by DU at 9:19 AM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Sorry, but those aren't even remotely interesting. "The BP logo has oil on it GEDDIT???"

A problem compounded by the fact that drips / splatters in design are already cliche.
posted by nathancaswell at 9:21 AM on May 26, 2010

Oh but DU, didn't you see the one that combines the BP logo with the Obama campaign logo. That one is totally right on, Greenpeace UK. We'd be FAR better off with a Republican president right now to deal with this situation.

&lt/eyeroll>

As the saying goes, if there's no atheists in a fox hole, there's no small government Republicans in times of crisis. Fuck you, Bobby Jindal.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:25 AM on May 26, 2010 [7 favorites]

Mmm, schadenfreude. Tastes even better smothered in told-you-so gravy.

I like this one - really captures the depth and nuance of Greenpeace's rhetoric on energy issues. See? See?!? We told you they were BAD PEOPLE! And we were RIGHT!!!

Y'know, I knocked on doors for Greenpeace in the summer of '93. I took the job certain in the way only an undergrad can be that they were on the side of pure, unadulterated righteousness. Seventeen years later, my entire professional career is dedicated to documenting solutions to the climate crisis. And it says a lot about the smug, shrill echo chamber Greenpeace has built for itself that this whole campaign's tone is probably the only thing I've heard about the BP spill to date that makes me feel just a little bit of empathy for the oil company's predicament.

Not much empathy, mind you. I just imagine some poor sap deep in the jr. ranks of their PR dept surfing idly over his evening beer at the end of another long day of unmitigated shitstorm and stumbling on a link to this and thinking: Fuck, on top of everything else, we've actually provided validation for this simplistic sanctimonious crap. We've put wind in the sails of a whole new generation of third-rate Adbusters manques.

As if there wasn't enough pointless grandstanding in the world already. You know?
posted by gompa at 9:27 AM on May 26, 2010 [12 favorites]

gompa, I don't get how you can call grandstanding pointless.

I think a cool logo would turn the oil drips into strings that controlled a puppet that was driving a hummer. Or something pointlessly grandstanding like that.
posted by kalessin at 9:31 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

The Goatse logo is missing the ring. N00bs.
posted by acb at 9:35 AM on May 26, 2010

goatse logo wins.
posted by LouieLoco at 9:36 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

SAVE MISTER SPLASHY PANTS
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:43 AM on May 26, 2010

Sorry, but those aren't even remotely interesting. "The BP logo has oil on it GEDDIT???"

See, say what you want about Fark, but you can't submit this to a photoshop contest and not get ten entries of a BP exec fucking a whooping crane.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:47 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Perhaps the only amusing thing about the whole spill is how the right-wing pundits and pols immediately, and persistently, tried to claim this was "Obama's Katrina!!!111!" The story certainly has legs - it seems like not a day goes by without another article on "Nope, Public Still Not Blaming Obama".
posted by yhbc at 9:54 AM on May 26, 2010

I'm actually kind of glad they're doing this, partly because the BP logo is sheer adulterated genius. I consider myself reasonably media savvy, but there was actually a tiny lurch of cognitive dissonance for me when I learned that happy green sunflower BP was behind this disaster. Because happy green sunflower!

So, yeah. I wish it was being done better. But I'm glad they're doing it at all.
posted by KathrynT at 9:54 AM on May 26, 2010 [5 favorites]

I'm surprised something like a overhead angle image of a guy in a suit getting fellated by a prostitute with GOVT tattooed on her forehead and BP logos for eyes.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:55 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Funniest I've heard: "Beyond Prosecution"
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:56 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

isn't there...
posted by Burhanistan at 9:56 AM on May 26, 2010

Looks like Despair Inc. is kind of already making use of one of these.
posted by azarbayejani at 9:59 AM on May 26, 2010

Am I unaware of a subsidiary, or did someone not read the assignment?
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 9:59 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Because happy green sunflower!

This is kind of why I like the simple subversion of the blue one.
posted by fleacircus at 10:05 AM on May 26, 2010 [7 favorites]

Fleacircus: yeah, exactly. That one is great. And simple enough that you could make a stencil and go around modifying all of BP's advertising. Not that I'd ever do such a thing.
posted by KathrynT at 10:11 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm sorry, gompa, you lost me at 'empathy for the oil company's predicament.' Really, really lost me.
posted by zylocomotion at 10:18 AM on May 26, 2010

Greenpeace could put its energy and donation $$s into something more useful than internet entertainment.
posted by HuronBob at 10:22 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Am I unaware of a subsidiary, or did someone not read the assignment?

That one will be good once Shell starts up new drilling in the Arctic.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 10:23 AM on May 26, 2010

Metafilter: We've put wind in the sails of a whole new generation of third-rate Adbusters manques.
posted by joe lisboa at 10:32 AM on May 26, 2010

BP - Bringing People together
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 10:39 AM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

On a related note, they're about to make the top kill attempt, and it's going to be live streamed.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:29 AM on May 26, 2010

The Goatse logo is missing the ring. N00bs.

Yes, but the second goatse one makes up for it with a ring on each hand.
posted by elizardbits at 11:30 AM on May 26, 2010

Why is it that I have to hate all the factions in this game?

Greenpeace itself is a significant contributor to this catastrophe by spending decades in fearmongering about nuclear power.

Want to see who has the blood of all the dying polar bears on their hands? Greenpeace. Because of their campaign to make nuclear power impossible in the US, they pushed the public right into the hands of Big Oil and crazy middle-eastern tribal kings.
posted by chimaera at 11:36 AM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

> Greenpeace. Because of their campaign to make nuclear power impossible in the US, they pushed the public right into the hands of Big Oil and crazy middle-eastern tribal kings.

Hmm. Did Greenpeace kill the nuclear car or something? Cars and trucks are the reason we need so much oil.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:41 AM on May 26, 2010

Looks like Despair Inc. is kind of already making use of one of these.


That's our receiving & assembly mgr. modeling the shirts. They're moving pretty well, thanks. CNN pcked it up on their Money subsite. I noted with irony yesterday that the ink itself on these is, in fact, a petroleum product.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:43 AM on May 26, 2010

Cars and trucks are the reason we need so much oil.

No, they're *part* of the reason. Power plants likely consume more oil in this country (and others).
posted by grubi at 11:45 AM on May 26, 2010

I look forward to the documentary 'The car that ran on atoms - How Greenpeace ruined the America of the Future'.
posted by biffa at 11:46 AM on May 26, 2010

Did Greenpeace kill the nuclear car or something?

They contributed for sure to a market that is so deeply attached to fossil fuels that the electric car is easily 2 decades later than it otherwise would have been. And with a few decades of nuclear power technology development under our belts, RTGs in vehicles would have been plausible by now. Imagine buying a car where you have to buy fuel only three times a year.
posted by chimaera at 11:49 AM on May 26, 2010

Want to see who has the blood of all the dying polar bears on their hands? Greenpeace. Because of their campaign to make nuclear power impossible in the US, they pushed the public right into the hands of Big Oil and crazy middle-eastern tribal kings.

Flagged for stupidity. It might work as a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck "fact," but pinning America's failure to end its oil addiction on Greenpeace is so ludicrous it's beyond belief. Yeah, if it weren't for those environmentalists, whose lobby is so much more powerful than that of Big Oil, everything would be OK: no climate change, no oil spills, no Iraq War, etc. Sure thing, dude.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 11:50 AM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

> No, they're *part* of the reason. Power plants likely consume more oil in this country (and others).

Petroleum fired electricity generation was about 1/12th of coal and natural gas in the US in 2008. I'm not sure how many barrels of oil that equals, but that's probably less that the oil used to make gasoline with.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:51 AM on May 26, 2010

Although to be fair, I suppose one would also need to factor in petroleum usage in transporting coal and natural gas from the mines to the power plants.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:54 AM on May 26, 2010

Yeah, if it weren't for those environmentalists, whose lobby is so much more powerful than that of Big Oil, everything would be OK: no climate change, no oil spills, no Iraq War, etc. Sure thing, dude.

Hey, let's play the ad-hominem game! Because America's sudden screeching halt on the development of nuclear power had nothing to do with the confluence of entrenched fossil-fuel interests AND the fearmongering of Greenpeace putting a great deal of effort into frightening the general public against nuclear power.

If you think we're better off today for having abandoned nuclear power, I seriously have a few small island nations you might want to talk to, and tell THEM that calling Greenpeace's nuclear stance fearmongering a "Glenn Beck fact." I'm sure they'll all be really happy to hear it while they're looking for a boat.
posted by chimaera at 11:57 AM on May 26, 2010

chimaera: we didn't "abandon" nuclear power. It's about 20% of total generation here.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:02 PM on May 26, 2010

The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:03 PM on May 26, 2010

Besides, all of this bickering about nuclear power is distracting us from meeting up in gangs and destroying BP office complexes. Less squabbling, more BP executive face bashing!
posted by Burhanistan at 12:04 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

the confluence of entrenched fossil-fuel interests AND the fearmongering of Greenpeace

Oh, so now it's a "confluence"? Funny how you left that part out before. So I assume you think Greenpeace is only partly to blame for the spill in the Gulf? How generous. The ongoing spill (which is what the FPP is about, despite your derail) is easily among the worst, and quite possibly the worst, environmental disaster in human history, and turning it into a little misleading bit of demagoguery against Greenpeace, and into a referendum on nuclear power, is pathetic.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 12:05 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

And clearly, HP LaserJet P10006, having a major issue with Greenpeace's stand on an issue obviously puts me in Glenn Beck's camp. Heck, my whole point that their opposition to nuclear power was a major factor in precipitating anthropogenic global warming is right off the Tea Party bullet list!
posted by chimaera at 12:06 PM on May 26, 2010

having a major issue with Greenpeace's stand on an issue obviously puts me in Glenn Beck's camp.

No, turning an oil spill of this magnitude into a little sideswipe at environmentalism puts you in Glenn Beck's camp. Seems pretty clear to me.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2010

You and my pathetic self will have to agree to disagree, as I do take your point that I caused a derail, and apologize for that. I'll not continue it further.
posted by chimaera at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2010

How about all BP execs have to get the BP logo hot branded on their foreheads so they'll have to walk the earth with that stigma for the rest of their days , a la Inglorious Bastards?
posted by Liquidwolf at 12:19 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

I seem to have spoken too soon. Should have checked my facts. Apologies.
posted by grubi at 12:28 PM on May 26, 2010

Also, I doubt Blazecock Pileon is going to want to go around by just his initials until this all blows over.
posted by grubi at 12:29 PM on May 26, 2010

Perhaps the only amusing thing about the whole spill is how the right-wing pundits and pols immediately, and persistently, tried to claim this was "Obama's Katrina!!!111!" The story certainly has legs - it seems like not a day goes by without another article on "Nope, Public Still Not Blaming Obama". -- yhbc

Right, because what really matters is Obama's approval rating through all of this. Nevermind that he let the same idiots who caused the problem try to fix it (and cut costs along the way) just like with wallstreet, Or that he still hasn't repudiated offshore drilling in principle (as far as I know). It's not hurting his numbers!

I'm actually kind of glad they're doing this, partly because the BP logo is sheer adulterated genius. -- KathrynT

Hmm, I think you mean unadulterated (meaning not diluted, pure). But actually I thought they had a reputation of being the more "earth friendly" "energy company" that was investing in wind farms and solar panels, as well as oil. Turns out they've been criminally convicted for pollution problems four times and that was before this leak! They are actually pretty terrible.

Greenpeace itself is a significant contributor to this catastrophe by spending decades in fearmongering about nuclear power. -- chimaera

That's idiotic. That's like saying because someone "fear mongered" marijuana they're at fault for someone else going out and smoking crack. While I think Nuclear energy is a good idea, blaming nuclear opponents for oil spills is just completely ridiculous. Greenpeace never advocated offshore drilling.

Also, there are a lot of questions about the cost effectiveness of nuclear power. And one of the biggested things that have screwed us is the use of uranium as a source material. Thorium would work a lot better (and is more abundant) but we use uranium because we had a lot left over from the nuclear weapons program. If we'd started with thorium reactors, we'd probably be in a much better position with nuclear now.

No, they're *part* of the reason. Power plants likely consume more oil in this country (and others). -- chimaera

Most power plants use coal, since it's a lot cheaper then oil but can't (easily) be used in cars. There are probably some oil based generators out there (particularly small scale diesel generators) but mostly it's coal as far as greenhouse emitting fixed power generation.

And clearly, HP LaserJet P10006, having a major issue with Greenpeace's stand on an issue obviously puts me in Glenn Beck's camp. --chimaera

Trying to blame the spill on Greenpeace places you firmly in the Limbaugh/Beck area. Absolutly.
posted by delmoi at 1:21 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Also, I doubt Blazecock Pileon is going to want to go around by just his initials until this all blows over.

I would feel kind of feel bad for T. Boone Pickens. He's been going around calling himself the CEO of "BP capital management", which I had assumed (given that he's an oil man) was some branch of British petroleum. Turns out the BP just stands for "Boone Pickens"

I say I would feel bad, but actually he's pretty much a huge douche anyway.
posted by delmoi at 1:23 PM on May 26, 2010

So I left the live feed from the BOP for a few hours and now it looks like an aluminum can that blew up. That's good right?
posted by Big_B at 1:56 PM on May 26, 2010

I realize the who-killed nukes debate's thankfully mostly dead and buried by now, but since I stumbled on Amory Lovins' thorough analysis of the causes of nuclear's failure in the day's research, thought I'd post it.

The tl;dr version:

nuclear's key challenge was soaring capital cost, and for some units, poor performance.

Lovins argues it never overcame these challenges, and it only looks worse by the day vs. the ROI on efficiency and renewables.
posted by gompa at 3:34 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Yeah, the problem with Nukes is that it's such a huge gamble. Sometimes the operation and construction costs end up being a lot higher then anything people expect at the outset. On the other hand, windmills are a known cost, and pretty cheap. With solar panels you can go as low-cost as you want. So there's far less financial risk. And of course, almost zero risk of some kind of catastrophic failure like with a nuke plant (or an offshore oil rig, apparently)
posted by delmoi at 6:14 PM on May 26, 2010

I think Lovins is being a bit disingenuous there. The reasons he cites for nuclear being so expensive are "bottlenecked supply chains, atrophied skills, and a weak U.S. dollar" the first two of which are essentially that we haven't invested in the expertise needed to build nuclear power.

He also ignores the problem of solar and wind power being cyclically unavailable which is different from specific fossil fuel or nuclear reactors being sometimes unavailable at random times and a major engineering hurdle which has to either be countered with a massive, worldwide power grid that can transfer power near losslessly, extremely efficient large scale storage systems, or on-demand power stations that can fill in the night hours when the wind is dead... which would be hydro, nuclear, or fossil fuel.

Furthermore, France exports its nuclear produced power at a profit and competitive, though from what I understand it is just now breaking even on the initial cost of the investment in the '80s.

Nuclear power costs a ton up front, sure, but to move to a fully fossil fuel free energy economy wind and solar alone, we're going to need something like nuclear to fill in power generation when they're not at their peak, otherwise the average power cost gets a lot more expensive for those options.
posted by Zalzidrax at 7:18 PM on May 26, 2010

b3ta's on the case!
posted by Evilspork at 7:51 PM on May 26, 2010

He also ignores the problem of solar and wind power being cyclically unavailable which is different from specific fossil fuel or nuclear reactors being sometimes unavailable

Well, if we do defeat global warming, we can still use some fossil fuels, and gradually move those over to nukes. Right now, though, there is still a ton of untapped capacity for build out on renewable. If we end up in a situation where energy is extreemly cheap while it's sunny/windy and expensive otherwise, it won't be the worst thing in the world and it would provide a much more credible economic prospect for nuke investment.
posted by delmoi at 10:23 PM on May 26, 2010

Just because oil is bad, doesn't mean nuclear is good. It is one possible option and one with some serious downsides. With all the energy zipping around this universe, we should be able to use methods that don't include a risk of huge ecological damage if we mess up.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 11:54 PM on May 26, 2010

Greenpeace itself is a significant contributor to this catastrophe by spending decades in fearmongering about nuclear power.

Chernobyl and TMI weren't the fault of Greenpeace.

That American power companies are completely and totally incapable of safely operating nuclear power facilities — to the point where a state government has to step in, when most government officials normally look the other way while nuclear waste is released into the environment and safety procedures are not followed — is not Greenpeace's fault.

This catastrophe has absolutely nothing to do with Greenpeace. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:28 AM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hmm, if I were a policy maker, I would make a law that said that anything we decided we needed to do that entailed a high risk of an environmental catastrophe ought to be run by either the government or some other non-profit without any motivation to cut costs by cutting corners. (Of course I suppose that was true in the case of Chernobyl as well, hmm). That ought to include nuke plants and offshore oil wells. -- at least nuke plants that can have a meltdown or radiation leak due to operator error.

The thing is, a private company doing these things is basically gambling that the catastrophe won't happen, if it doesn't, they make money. But if it does happen the costs can never be born by the companies themselves. Also, before any risky operation, the people who sign off on it need to be personally responsible for any catastrophe, with financial responsibility divided up in some way.
posted by delmoi at 12:43 AM on May 27, 2010

Oh I was going to add: New offshore permits approved today. Good times.

Shell has vowed to implement aggressive efforts both to prevent a spill and contain one. Shortly after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar proposed reconfiguring the agency, John Goll, the head of the Alaska region, called an “all hands” meeting, according to a staff member there.

Afterward, people lingered to eat a cake decorated with the words, “Drill, Baby, Drill.”

posted by delmoi at 12:45 AM on May 27, 2010

To respond to a few of the points, and as with the originial post this is neither a defence nor a veneration of Greenpeace who annoy me in any number of ways, particularly their antiscientific approach to the issue of nuclear power. If you can't be arsed to read this I don't blame you, but do skip down to point 4 if you have a moment:

1. "Sorry, but those aren't even remotely interesting. "The BP logo has oil on it GEDDIT???" (and numerous other comments on the focus on oil)...

Well, a significant proportion of the entries (and an even higher proportion of the good ones) don't rely on oil to make their point. However, since the rebranding of BP as standing for 'beyond petroleum' and the redesign of the sunflower logo, one might be forgiven for thinking that BP farted out wind power and shed photovoltaic cells wherever it did its business. The reminder that BP is still reliant on oil is timely and arguably necessary. I'm not saying a BP logo with oil dripping from it is a work of genius, but it is at least one order of magnitude smarter than the utter retardation you're making out precisely because of BP's attempts to reposition itself.

2. "And it says a lot about the smug, shrill echo chamber Greenpeace has built for itself that this whole campaign's tone is probably the only thing I've heard about the BP spill to date that makes me feel just a little bit of empathy for the oil company's predicament."

Well, I've never campaigned for Greenpeace and I certainly take issue with a number of its past campaigns, but let me reiterate something that seems to have confused a number of people in this thread: the submissions are from a loose community of people that follow BP's blog, flickr, twitter and what have you. This is a public response to BP, and not orchestrated in tone, as far as I am aware, by Greenpeace itself. Naturally participants are likely to have sympathies with Greenpeace to say the least, and there are doubless Greenpeace members and employees that have taken part, but I don't think it's quite fair to say this joins the pantheon of annoying Greenpeace campaigns -- it's also representative of the extent of public anger at BP. Also, the fact that this is crowd-sourced content surely means that the financial cost to Greenpeace is minimal.

3. "So, yeah. I wish it was being done better. But I'm glad they're doing it at all."

Perhaps I'm alone in thinking the fact that some of the submissions are, to be frank, shit, actually adds a bit of power to the campaign. We all know the internet is dominated by web and graphic design geniuses -- I for one am glad to hear a bit more from others once in a while. As I hinted at, one of things I liked was that some of the ideas were reused and done better as time went on -- it lends a hint of community to the whole thing: take these (though it's very possible the same idea occurred independently); or more strikingly, these three examples (yes yes, I know -- drips are clichéd).

4. "Greenpeace itself is a significant contributor to this catastrophe by spending decades in fearmongering about nuclear power. "

and

"They [Greenpeace] contributed for sure to a market that is so deeply attached to fossil fuels that the electric car is easily 2 decades later than it otherwise would have been."

This is where the Greenpeace-hating becomes downright irrational. Greenpeace's stance on nuclear power is irresponsible and antiscientific. It has also not haulted the advance of nuclear power one iota. There are many reasons for our continuing reliance on oil (in the States, the UK, and elsewhere) -- but if you were to list out the top one thousand then Greenpeace's opposition to nuclear power would not be among them, and to suggest otherwise shows total ignorance of the economics of the oil and energy industries. If Greenpeace are so masterful at swaying public opinion on the issue, how has nuclear power become prevalent in France? Or do Greenpeace not speak French?
posted by nthdegx at 2:20 AM on May 27, 2010