I didn't mean to imply there actually has been such flooding by Shell, just that it's not about the truth of advertising. I'm a citizen of the internet with AdBlockPlus, but I remind myself that a huge number of people still watch television and read magazines and newspapers. Greenpeace had about $22m in total expenses in 2009 and 2010 each, Shell made $31bn in 2011 profits alone. Is there anything stopping Shell from dropping a few billion on advertising if they wanted to (and convinced the share holders it was a good idea)? They have the money to flood the most popular media outlets, but a top google result highlighting an "aggressive ad campaign" (http://adage.com/article/news/shell-oil-breaks-industry-sile...) suggests they only spend about $15m per year in advertising. When it comes down to it, they probably don't even need to bother. Consumers will get their gas from the lowest-priced gas station they know of. I actually think this action by Greenpeace works in Shell's favor purely due to association when people see the Shell logo as they're driving down a street for gas. I imagine for the common folk Greenpeace hopes to manipulate it produces more of an "oh you" reaction than "I hate you and will never buy from a Shell station!" one, if the image macros are even believed to be official. "Everyone knows" the oil companies are evil (or at least corrupted and in bed with the government).

For the record, this was also a top google result about a 2011 advertised claim being thrown out as misleading. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2011/10/19/shell-ads-banned-ov... Not that it says much, I'm sure I can find instances of every multibillion dollar company lying (as well as Greenpeace and PETA).