In today's modern society, we are exposed to tons of thousands of advertisements each day, but how many of these ads do we really remember? It is becoming harder and harder for brands to grab our societies attention, as we are now exposed to various different ads per day (via web, cellphone, television, radio, etc) and it's impossible for us to remember what each and every message is trying to tell us. So with this, it seems it has become very popular for brands to take the risk of using shock advertising in order to grab our attention and stick with us.
What is shock advertising exactly?
Shock advertising is described as the intention of offending, startling, or intriguing the viewer by challenging what would typically be accepted socially, morally and religiously in our society. Typically this method is used to promote safe sex, discourage drug use, violence, or animal cruelty. It is an advertising method used in order to potentially change our behaviour or view on things. Shock advertising can be very impactful, but it is often criticized as it uses such an unethical way of grabbing attention. Most shock advertising includes the use of bloody, gory images, sexually suggestive references, profanity, and other moral offensiveness in general.
But, there is definitely no denying that these advertisements get attention and force people to remember them. This is the advertisements main goal. Although, just because these advertisements are memorable, doesn't mean that they're effective in the right way. There are some negative side effects that can come along with shocking the public, and this can totally ruin the brands opportunity of selling their merchandise.
So...what exactly can be so bad about shocking our society?
Well, one reason is, even though these ads may arise interest the moment they are seen, they often will become less effective the second or third time they are noticed, as the viewer will expect the shock, and it therefor becomes less effective. The ad will never have the same amount of impact on the viewer as it did in that first moment. Another complication with shock advertising is, although these advertisements are extremely creative, not all of the population will be able to appreciate or accept them, especially if it offends their personal moral beliefs. For example...
These are advertisements for an Italian clothing firm called United Colors of Benetton. They've published an advertising campaign that includes photographs of Pope Benedict XVI kissing senior Egypitan Imam, as well as Barack Obama kissing Hugo Chavez. Benetton claimed that this Unhate campaign was aimed at fostering tolerance and global love. But, Benetton was unaware of how much controversy these advertisements would stir up, and they had to withdraw the photograph of the Pope Benedict and Egyptian imam after the Vatican denounced it as an unacceptable provocation. This ad campaign is a great example of how a shock advertisement may be acceptable and completely supported to some, where as to others it may thoroughly offend them and their religious/moral beliefs. I think this ad would be highly appreciated by the LGBT community, but to a religious person who has certain beliefs about same sex affection or relationships, this may come off as totally unacceptable.
Now, although shockvertising has its downfalls, that doesn't mean there aren't any effective aspects to it as well. Studies say that shocking advertisements increase the attention of the audience and also benefit our memory. People are more likely to remember an advertisement which contains shocking content over a mediocre advertisement. These advertisements can cause the audience to become engaged, or potentially uncomfortable, but if it gives a positive impression, then it's well worth the risk. I think that if the brands main focus is to get publicity, then the shock factor is definitely a good approach, and will never fail to be remembered.
Conclusion?
Personally, I believe shockvertisments have a place and a time. You wouldn't place a gory or sexually suggestive ad in a teen magazine, or somewhere where a child may be exposed to it. You also wouldn't want to place them near a church or near an area where typically people who may be offended to the certain ad will be. I believe that shock advertisement definitely has it's benefits, as there's no doubt that they leave much more impact on the public than a regular ad, but I think the subject matter needs to be appropriate. I think that certain subjects that really need to stress their view on society are able to use shock advertising because they need to have that impact in order to really get their point across. For example:
This is a really great campaign against child abuse. Child abuse is a serious subject and it really needs impact in order to get the severity of the issue across. I think without using shock advertising for this subject, the average viewer would just walk past and not even pay attention, but because this ad shows a physical child being broken into pieces, it grabs your attention and really makes you think about it–carrying the thought with you throughout the day possibly.
But, for an ad like this...
I think the shock advertising in this ad is really not needed. Burger king could still get their point across, and get people to buy their food without having to use suggestive imagery. I don't really understand what sex has to do with burgers at all, so I find this advertisement pretty irrelevant in general.
So like I said, shockvertising definantely can be very effective, but it needs to used on the correct subject matter, and needs to be displayed in the right place.
No comments:
Post a Comment