I get it. Advertisements are meant to create an emotional connection. We want to evoke emotions to a level where there is a lot of buzz, and hope it might even go viral.
I used to like Benetton's ad campaigns. Their slogan - United Colors of Benetton had this underlying message of love across bounderies, love is colour blind.
Nice, cute, pretty.
Then they gradually got controversial and finally came out with a series of Unhate ads last week.
Really, Benetton ??
Ugghh. I must confess. I find them disturbing. I know these are photoshopped pictures but still. Can't get these images out of my head. So I guess, in that, Benetton has succeeded. My utterly conservative heart is shocked to the core.
But shock advertisements like these are nothing new. In fact, they even have a term for it. Shockvertisement.
Wikipedia has this to say :
"Shock advertising or Shockvertising is a type of advertising generally regarded as one that “deliberately, rather than inadvertently, startles and offends its audience by violating norms for social values and personal ideals.” [1] .. Shock advertising is designed principally to break through the advertising “clutter” to capture attention and create buzz, and also to attract an audience to a certain brand or bring awareness to a certain public service issue, health issue, or cause "
Yes of course. There are just too many ads. There is a need to stand out from the clutter.
I will go with deliberately startle, yes, if that might provoke a buzz. But to deliberately offend?
One university in Belgium tried shockvertising.
The Hilary Obama ad by the Hogeschool-Universiteit (HUB) in Brussels Belgium - why choose between a college and a university when you can combine?
Hahaha. I won't say it shocked me much. Tickled yes. Hilarious.
So. Does shock advertising actually work? I think the jury is still out on this one. But I think, as far as provoking a response, yes, of course. But is it the right response? Maybe not.
