SHOCKVERTISING SPECIAL
For references please visit bit.ly/adland2020
SHOCKVERTISING SPECIAL Image source: Wrigley’s. 2003. “Dog Breath”
Why ‘shockvertising’ deserves to make a return in 2020 BY TED MACDONNELL
S
hock advertising, or more commonly known as “shockvertising”. This lawless and daring marketing technique has been around since the very beginning of advertising. The idea is to grab the audience’s attention through an alarming image or piece of copy, which makes them stop and think about the product. Commonly taken up by smaller businesses’ it can be an incredibly effective way of getting publicity, whether it be good or bad. Of course, this technique has caused massive controversy over the years, and it seems to have somewhat fallen out of favour with the public, with increasing levels of backlash whenever it is presented, no matter the form. I want to explore the idea that shockvertising can still teach us many lessons in the modern day and that if
done right, it can be a thing of beauty, or horror! Even in this ‘snowflake’ generation, the riskiest ideas can still be applauded, and as modern art continues to develop and stretch its wings, there has never been a better time for shockvertising to make a return. Benetton and Toscani vs The World In the early nineties Benetton launched a campaign featuring a series of ads designed to tackle the growing stigma around HIV Aids. In this time Aids was considered a world-wide pandemic and masses of misinformation was being spread all the time. The first action Benetton took was bold and now somewhat iconic, it featured a photo of gay rights activist David Kirby, lying on his death bed next to his heartbroken family.
have definitely benefited from these ads and have made a name for themselves through shockvertising, however in the process they have offended all sorts of groups and people. In the current climate, Benetton is a struggling brand, with poor revenue figures and a lack of real brand identity (Mortimer, 2016). So, the question I pose again is, would this tactic work in the modern day? And can we learn from Benetton’s mistakes and use shockvertising to its full potential again? Recent hits and misses
The mix of Kirby’s disease-stricken face and his already grieving family is unnerving and it is certainly not something people expect to see on a billboard. Benetton claims it was the first public campaign to address Aids and although it received backlash from activists and other sufferers, it has since been acclaimed by critics and is seen to have spread an important message (Duffy, 2017). Kirby’s family wanted the photo to be used to send a message to those who had been misinformed about the disease and people who were discriminating against those suffering from it (Duffy, 2017).
Benetton’s unapologetic execution of this message was fantastic and they went about this with positive intentions. This was the tip of the iceberg in a series of controversial ads and campaigns, which started in 1982. Benetton was one of the first brands to truly use shockvertising to its full capabilities. In 1982 they hired Oliviero Toscani, a middle aged Italian photographer who was best known for stints working for magazines like Vogue and a controversial ad campaign for ‘Jesus Jeans’ which was a shot of a woman’s bum in jeans shorts, with copy reading “He who loves me follows me” (Duffy, 2017). Toscani had a history of controversy so it was a tactical decision from Benetton to hire him. Hired as an art director, Toscani had a vision to change Benetton’s image and the public’s perception on massive issues such as HIV Aids and racism. One of the first campaigns Benetton launched after acquiring Toscani and deciding on their new strategy, was a campaign called “All the colours of the world” (Collins, 2019). This campaign was a series of prints with people of different races, enjoying each other’s company and spreading a positive message. Not that controversial I hear you say, well don’t forget this was a time which was only 30 years away from segregation ‘Jim Crow’ laws in America, and the apartheid was still in place in South Africa. So, although people weren’t as ignorant, they were not used to seeing these kinds of images. The most famous of all the Benetton campaigns is the David Kirby photo I previously mentioned and that really shot them into stardom and established them as a defining voice of a generation. However Benetton didn’t exactly go from strength to strength after this, in 1993 they released a print ad with a photo of the top of two bum cheeks with a stamp on the top reading “HIV Positive” they were subsequently sued by various Aids groups for “commercial exploitation of suffering” (Duffy, 2017). In the grand scheme of things and looking back with the benefit of hindsight, Benetton
It is important to identify the difference between controversial adverts and shocking adverts. In recent times many companies have attempted pretty vanilla campaigns and accidently created something incredibly controversial, with virtually no benefits to the company. Shockvertising is supposed to be controversial but is also supposed to be effective and ultimately help sell the product. A modern example which I found fascinating was Gillette’s ‘we believe’ ad in 2019. The advert takes a stance on male stereotypes and tries to tackle issues such as casual sexism and toxic masculinity. Most companies are applauded for taking a stand on topics like this, however some claimed it was rich coming from Gillette which has been selling strictly male products for most of its existence (Small, 2020). It’s a good advert with a positive, encouraging message, however they couldn’t decide which issue to tackle, which made it seem a little aimless and perhaps spineless as they could be deemed a little scared to just tackle one. Although the ad had its critics it was generally well received and Gillette successfully changed their image from an old school ‘best a man can get’ stiff brand, to a woke, socially aware brand which is moving with the times. So perhaps this advert ticked many boxes in terms of controversy, and it was in some sense shocking as people hadn’t seen these ideals coming from this brand, however it could be said that they aren’t comparable to the Benetton adverts as they aren’t truly shocking in their essence. By that I mean you don’t look at them and feel taken by surprise, you aren’t seeing an image you may not have seen before. Wrigley’s take it too far However, when Wrigley’s created the ‘Dog Breath’ advert they certainly set out to do this. The ad depicts a younger man waking up after a heavy night, realising he has bad breath and then proceeding to regurgitate a wet dog. Yes, you read that right, the man literally throws up a dog. This advert received a record number of complaints and was eventually pulled from airing. People were disgusted by it and it was not received well (Kirby, 2003). Although this advert didn’t tackle any major issues or any issues for that matter, it is still comparable to the adverts I have previously mentioned as
their aim was to shock the audience, get them to lean forward and take notice of which company this is. Even if people only wanted to know the company behind it so they could complain, Wrigley’s were still winning as everyone was talking about them. Something that could be criticized about this advert is that the imagery is hideous, and that sort of imagery shouldn’t be associated with that product. Take Extra for example, they wouldn’t use an image associated with dirt and bad hygiene as they would fear that association would impact on the customer’s perception of the product. The shame for them is that this ad was before the age of social media, so they couldn’t rack up hundreds of retweets or likes, which most likely would have spread this ad world-wide. However, this is still an ad synonymous with Wrigley’s, almost twenty years on, so for that I applaud them and for that this ad goes down as one of the most famous examples of shockvertising in the modern day. The effect it has on you The psychological effect shocking images have on the human brain is fascinating, and there is no doubt that businesses are well aware of this when they are launching a particularly alarming campaign. Pictures can trigger memories and even help to recall an exact moment. To this day neuroscientists are still investigating why humans have an innate ability to recall images and store them in the long-term memory (Glaser, 2016). However,
I am more interested in the effect a shocking image has on us. Depending on the person, you may want to do something about the image, like complain or look into the brand (Marsh, 2016). Another person might not be affected at all and can mentally separate shocking images from real life experiences, I feel personally I fall into this bracket. From a brand’s perspective they would want you to link their ads to your personal experiences and preferences as you are then building a relationship. For instance, Benetton’s “has all the colours’’ campaign might relay positively onto older African Americans as they haven’t seen an image like this before, and equal rights was something that was fought for. Particularly with shockvertising, you may not gain a huge volume of people who identify or think fondly of your advert, but those who you do will feel strongly about it and the idea is you would have then gained a loyal customer. A possible explanation for the demise in shockvertising could be found here too, in the twentieth century the internet wasn’t around and the culture and need for constant entertainment wasn’t as ingrained in our society as it is now. So, when a shocking image was put out on a billboard, or on the TV, people really noticed. Since the turn of the digital age, people have become desensitized to heinous images as they are everywhere to see - if one was to scroll on the Instagram explore page for long enough you would be sure to see something that would make you gasp (Pittaro,
2019). So maybe companies are looking at this and think it isn’t worth the risk if people are becoming harder and harder to surprise. Conclusion Now we have plenty of examples, from either the 20th century, the modern day or somewhere in-between. How can we take the lessons we have learned from these examples, and carry them into the current climate? Well for a start we have to be less vigilant, as we become more and more socially aware for the better, a consequence of this means people are becoming easily offended. People will find a way of being offended by anything, so in some senses, any work will offend someone. What made Benetton’s campaigns so effective was that they didn’t care who they offended, images like The Pope kissing an Imam demonstrated this. Benetton set out to shock everyone to gain awareness for their brand and raise awareness for social issues, however in the modern-day companies and agencies alike are too scared to take these kinds of risks in case they get torn apart on social media. So, if brands are willing to take a leap of faith and try something with an element of risk, the creatives at agencies will come up with the goods, however we as consumers have to continue to support and praise this kind of advertising, or it will die out.
Image credit: Ted Macdonnell
28
29