As humans, we expect social norm. In other words, we experience the world in a way that keeps us moving at an ebb & flow with our environment, constantly interacting and reacting accordingly. In times of stress and change, we react both biologically as well as emotionally, sometimes at our own discretion while other reactions are innate and uncontrollable. Considering these normal social expectations and human habits, the question of the ethical and moral use of shock advertising naturally poses as a threat to the status quo we have grown to expect and love, yet the advertising world has tapped into this method of communication as a means of setting brands apart from the norm.
Shock advertising, in clear form, is any means of advertising that (firstly) aims to raise a negative reaction from the viewer (secondly) with the use of disturbing, unordinary, uncomfortable, often child-inappropriate content. (Thirdly) The goal of this means of advertising varies, however often revolves around raising brand awareness amongst different target groups or raising social awareness in order to achieve change or betterment for the problem posed.
When considering the benefits and impacts of shock advertising to both the user and the consumer knowing the product specifics is essential. The level of harm or good shock advertisement does for a brand is strongly reliant on the brand identity, as for example, the ad below.
This ad may have been funded by the government or by an awareness group, for which the shock value is extremely effective and beneficial. Using the child's head on a woman's body in order to convey the message of illegal underage sex may make the viewer upset, confused, and of course, shocked, but the message remains clear and the intent resonates with the viewer. In cases such as this, which can often be seen by companies such as World Wildlife Fund and various government funded organizations, the shock advertising greatly benefits the brand. This is because the message being sent is serious. When the intent of the ad is to sternly educate, warn, or deter viewers, the serious tone often associated with shock advertising is effective. The issues promoted are not funny, very real, and hold serious consequences, which is easily understood from the shock value and overall tone of the message, despite ads featuring cute baby animals for WWF and smiling children such as is featured above.
When it comes to determining which brands could benefit from this form of advertising, I think the group is small. As mentioned above, government funded organizations, awareness groups, and activist groups, all of which hold very serious values, greatly benefit from the use of shock advertising. However, a brand such as Coca Cola will most likely deter & lose their audience from feeling the happy, bubbly energy the brand promotes if they are bombarded with pictures of anorexic girls in an attempt to promote their newest diet drink (for example), it's just unappealing to the typical suburban slicker. Or take this ad, for example.
It seems to be a campaign for household items, but their use of gory, gruesome, and dangerous imagery does nothing to make the viewer feel safe with their products in their home. The consumer is repelled by the ad, therefore rendering it a failure for the company. This kind of irrelevant shock advertising may even leave such a poor taste in some viewer's mouth that the brand identity may be permanently tainted.
With this in mind, I don't think it is wrong to make use of shock advertising when it is done with a relevant goal in mind and if it is done by an activist, awareness, or government group. Using shocking imagery does not desensitize us as it is used so minimally. Brands are for the most part, as they should be, afraid of using imagery that may upset the consumer for fear of losing them. This ensures the constant effectiveness of shock advertising as it remains fresh and will continue to stand out above the millions of ads that exist today. Also, shocking imagery being used by serious activist groups only reinforces the reality that issues of shocking and uncomfortable nature exist and must be fixed. It isn't morally or ethically wrong to push society out of its comfort zone if the issue exists because we are too lazy to change our ways. When change needs to happen, society needs someone to give us a swift smack in the face to make us realize our wrongdoing.
As humans, we are set in our ways. We love routine. However, when problems arise and people are too slow, lazy, & selfish to react, calling to consumer's emotional and biological reactions to change is essential and effective.
0 comments:
Post a Comment