Shock-vertizing

Shock-vertising. Living in our media-centric world means that we are bombarded by millions of ads on a weekly basis, so to make an ad with impact, brands need to go outside the box to deliver a really strong, powerful message. Studies have proven that shocking ads are more memorable and attract more attention than regular ads, or even ads with different –but still less than typical—approaches, such as the “fear” approach or the “humour” approach. In this case, the “shock” factor of an ad can be very valuable because it makes the consumer more likely to want to react to the message, either by buying the product, taking the proper preventative measures, or researching about or donating to the cause that’s raising awareness through the ad.

Shockvertising is good for a brand when the ad is so controversial or grabs so much attention that people start to recognize the brand itself more as a result. Benetton is a classic example of this, with its shocking ads that show everything from same-sex political figures kissing to a bunch of brightly coloured condoms. Also, if the brand is raising awareness about a certain issue, such as the World Wildlife Fund ads, it is necessary every once and a while to produce a really disturbing and/or thought provoking ad in order for the message to stand out and be recognized. For example, their “imagine this is yours” campaign which shows young children and infants in the place of endangered animals. This effective use of shock-vertizing not only sets WWF apart from other brands but spreads their message in a powerful way.

Shocking ads do harm to the brand only when the consumers are so offended and/or traumatized by the ads that they choose not to engage with that brand. The message may have been delivered, but the brand’s consumer base is damaged as a result of the harsh treatment of the product or issue.(http://www.buzzle.com/articles/is-shock-advertising-really-effective.html) Also if the brand uses the shock approach over and over, the consumers becomes desensitized to it  and the effectiveness lessens dramatically.

It sends a bad message if the ad is displaying an immoral behaviour to sell a product. Better messages involve raising awareness for things like the dangers of smoking, unsafe sex, etc. So the message being sent depends on the brand, their values, and what effect they’re going for. The message being received depends on the consumer and how they interpret the ad. For example if the consumer is overly sensitive, then they may get an overall negative impact from shocking ads and not pay attention to the message behind them. Generally shocking ads and their messages are more effective when received by younger adults/youth, because they are more used to this type of treatment and are not as easily offended as older demographics. 

Should brands use this approach? Its up to them whether they want to take the risk. Sometimes the payoff is worth it—generating all of the attention (whether positive or negative) makes the brand popular again and pushes it’s selling point or cause to the forefront. However there is a line to be drawn here, there is still such a thing as too much of a shock factor when controversial subjects are glorified or displayed in an indecent way. If the brand is smart, they will use the “shock” weapon only if its necessary, and very carefully. 

Yes shocking ads can contribute to the desensitization of issues that are important. Take smoking for example. There are hundreds of campaigns to get people to quit, or to not start, showing a myriad of negative results of this destructive habit. Although some can be very effective, the fact that there are so many of them means the shocking impact becomes lost, such as the graphic pictures on cigarette boxes. Youth are still smoking, despite being presented with these images to the point they have become acclimatized to the ads’ presence. 

Negative publicity is only good for so much. It certainly elevates the brand in terms of popularity, which would cause a surge in brand-awareness among the general public, but in the end once the buzz fades, the brand’s reputation is still damaged. So in the long run, I’d say it’s not worth it. A brand would have to be pretty desperate and willing to lose the public’s respect in order to “embrace” this way of delivering it’s message.

It’s not wrong to confront people’s sensibilities if the message is worth communicating. For example, if the cause is towards a greater good or a healthier society. At the same time, shocking ads can be very personal when they challenge people’s morals, or the morals of their culture, crossing the line from selling something to hurting some else’s values or beliefs. So in this sense, particularly when material brands are being advertised, confronting people’s sensibilities is effective, but not the right thing to do. Being daring is what makes brands stand out, and can gain them a lot of respect from the public for trying something risky and different. However, when that leap of faith turns into a plunge of doom, the “daring” approach is more of a mistake for the brand. 

I’d say that “the line” is there for a reason. It has to be crossed every once and a while, otherwise ads will all become staid and complacent, void of their “punch” and effectiveness. Messages will become lost and less memorable. But crossing the line too much, like anything, can have negative results, especially when the ad is offensive and taken the wrong way by the public.