Please be advised: The content of this post - due to its nature - is graphic and contains images that you may find offensive. If you're squeamish, this may not be for you.
With a catchy post-folk soundtrack jangling in the
background, a group of teenagers drive out to the beach for a day full of the
kind of care-free frolics that make you want to return to those sepia-washed,
halcyon days.
And then this happens:
This is the latest example of shockvertising – the
intentional development of adverts that are designed from the ground-up to
catch our attention.
In a society where we are constantly bombarded with
advertising messages and promotions, we have become accustomed to tuning-out. How
many of us now pay anything more than a perfunctory level of attention to
commercial breaks on television, or the 10 minutes of product placement before
a movie?
With the instant distractions that smartphones and tablets
now offer us, advertisers are working harder than ever to secure a slice of our
attention and shockvertising is becoming ever more prevalent.
Like a slap in the face, this medium is intended to wake us
up from the perceived catatonia brought on by the hundreds and thousands of
adverts that we absorb each year.
Traditionally the mainstay of government-sponsored public
service announcements - such as those that remind us of the consequences of
drinking and driving at Christmas or graphic images on cigarette packets –
shockvertising pushes the bounds of social acceptability to breaking point (and
occasionally beyond) in an effort to grab our attention.
![]() |
This ad by D&G was banned for promoting gang rape |
By focussing on taboos such as sex, violence, profanity,
brutality or drug abuse, advertisers hope to have their messages recognised
above and beyond the white noise background of advertising to which we’ve
become accustomed.
Alongside the obvious shock value inherent in the grotesque,
shockvertising can be less overt and more subversive, targeting established
religious or political norms and challenging established perceptions.
The instigator of shockvertising, Italian clothing brand
Benetton, covered many of these topics in their seminal 1980s campaign, which
was the first to transgress racial and sexual lines.
![]() |
The NHS's 'Get Unhooked' campaign drew huge numbers of complaints |
But does shockvertising offer any additional value? Experts
have been asking this same question for the last three decades with opinion
still split.
Whilst some campaigns highlight broader social causes, such
as human trafficking, child abuse or animal cruelty in an effort to engage public
awareness, others are merely there to ensure that their product or brand sticks
out in our memories.
This has been particularly prolific in (although not limited
to) the fashion industry, with Benetton, Calvin Klein, Sisley and Dolce &
Gabbana all courting controversy through their choice of adverts
Several have been deemed too much even for the increasingly
calloused social sensibilities and banned outright.
![]() |
A hugely controversial campaign from WWF |
It is difficult to argue against any campaign that is
creative, carefully thought out, well executed and which make people think
about the realities of uncomfortable situations.
But with a rising tolerance to graphic images, has the
advertising pool diluted the power of the shock advert?
Is this the only way for advertisers to get
their messages across and if this is the case, how far will they need to go in
the future to register the same impact?
Perhaps the question should not be whether or not shockvertising
brings value to a brand, but whether or not it should be used to sell jeans.
This blog was originally written for Core Marketing.
This blog was originally written for Core Marketing.
No comments:
Post a Comment