If we keep pushing the boundaries, how far will adverts need to go?

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.