Hey could any one help me with their opinions on shock advertising any response would be helpful thanks

I am currently starting my dissertation i have been researching into shock campaigns and why advertisers use such graphically disturbing imagery in our every day lives to make the consumer more aware.
I would like to know advertisers opinions on shock advertising,
are we in society becoming more difficult to shock?
Do we take notice anymore because we have seen it all before?
what does shock do to a brand?
what was happening generally in society when Benetton launched it's United Colors campaign , were we socially acceptable boundaries at the time .
any points you have one shock advertising would help me greatly i would be so grateful

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Hall on July 29, 2008 at 6:37pm: You might want a better headline to this forum topic so people actually know what you're looking for:-); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by hannah on July 30, 2008 at 12:23pm: thanks; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by VZerbee on July 30, 2008 at 8:33pm: I just listened to a podcast last night where this topic was discussed. The presenters talked about how controversial marketing, with strong opinions or shock value, attracts a certain kind of customer. The kind of customer this attracts is one that will keep coming back to read more and it is generally accepted in marketing that people need to 'see' products or services 'X' amount of times before they buy. Re-visiting the edgy sites will eventually convert to sales. This is in contrast to more boring sites where visitors don't return.

So I guess it comes down to the fact that this kind of shock marketing 'sells'.

Hope that helps in some way. Good luck with the dissertation. I have a friend in the process right now as well.

Vicki
www.homebusinesspittsburgh.com; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by hannah on July 31, 2008 at 1:40pm: thankyou so much for your help hannah x; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Craig Auchinachie on July 30, 2008 at 9:30pm: Italian Vogue has broken one of the fashion world's taboos by featuring only black models in its July issue. This is a good example of how they are aiming to shock people to get a media response and free advertising. The absence of black models on the covers of fashion magazines has long been a complaint inside the industry. The justification frequently given is that such covers "do not sell". Vogue has been clever and used the shock that they are the first to do it as a way to raise awareness but get something out of it themselves in terms of sales. You might want to check some of the press on it. In the same boat as the Benetton campaign.

Good luck with it.

Craig; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by michael on July 31, 2008 at 7:08am: go to http://www.bestrejectedadvertising.com
Best Rejected Advertising was the first book to publish ads that had been rejected by clients on aesthetic, commercial or strategic grounds. This website broadens the original concept by including rejected, banned, spoof and most complained about ads and commercials and provides some info about the ads that the site holds! Another cool site about controversial advertising is http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/ Paula has done a great work analysing everything so I think if you email her directly maybe she could you help you with your dissertation ;0); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve McNamara on July 31, 2008 at 4:13pm: Hi Hannah:

Interesting topic. We have a section on shock advertising as an ad technique on AdCracker.com. And I think the technique reached a peak back in the 90s when one Internet retailer shot gerbils (yes, the furry little creatures) out of a cannon, and released a pack of wolves into a children’s day care center.

Anyone remember the advertiser?

I think that today many advertisers, especially in North America and Europe, face increasing clutter in the advertising environment. And one relatively easy way to break through is to say, “FCUK” you. To say or show something offensive or shocking.

A couple of observations:

Shock value diminishes over time. People get used to the technique. And it ceases to become shocking.

The use of shock techniques may or may not have a lasting impact on the brand. I know of no studies or tests on the subject. Perhaps other AdGabbers do. But I do know that brands can take huge hits, then recover.

Whether an ad has shock value is culturally specific and defined by how the audience reacts. It is not inherent in the ad.

Cordially, Steve; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Biswajit Das on August 10, 2008 at 1:37pm: Hi Steve

Because shock value diminishes over time, it should not be measured by people who are familiar with the technique - i.e. shock value will always hold good for the next generation (until they get used to it and it ceases to become shocking) and then the next ...

And in today's age, I feel there's nothing that has a lasting impact on the brand. Or pretty much anything else!

Just my observations :); ▶ Reply to This