Laurie Balbo, GEM and Marie-Claire Wilhelm, Grenoble IAE Graduate School of Management
It all begins with a series of images that we have, sadly, grown accustomed to during this pandemic: an elderly man arrives at the hospital on a stretcher, struggling to breathe. Nothing is explicitly stated about his condition, but the context suggests he may have COVID-19. As the days go by, this elderly man with a white beard and white hair undergoes a series of medical procedures, during which a nurse takes center stage. It isn’t until the end of the video that we realize he was actually Santa Claus.
Titled *The Gift*, this video is a public service announcement by the National Health Service (the British health agency) designed to pay tribute to the British health care system and raise funds.
However, this commercial did not have the desired effect on the British public. In fact, just a few days after it was posted online, it had to be taken down. Why?
According to an article in the Daily Mail, “several young viewers are reportedly traumatized by the thought that Santa Claus might die,” and so we should “let children enjoy the holiday season without having to deal with adult problems.” It didn’t take long for people to voice their discontent on social media over this issue, as seen in this tweet.
In short, the video’s content is considered too shocking, on the one hand, given the current public health situation, and on the other hand, because part of the audience—namely, children—is particularly sensitive to the theme of Santa Claus, who finds himself in great trouble in this scene.
Shockvertising, or How to Grab Attention
"Shockvertising" is an Anglicism formed by combining two words ("shock" and "advertising") that describes a communication strategy aimed at deliberately shocking the audience through the emotional impact of the advertisement. This raises the question of why advertisers (brands, organizations, institutions, etc.) resort to this strategy.
The goal is twofold: first, to capture the attention of an audience that is constantly bombarded with information; and second, to generate “free” coverage in major media outlets (particularly TV, print media, and radio) and on social media (in the form of tweets or shared content, for example).
The reason we need to capture people’s attention is because of the extreme advertising pressure we’re exposed to as individuals. Today, even though it’s difficult to come up with a reliable estimate, according to researcher Arnaud Pêtre:
If we consider advertising in a very broad sense […] we would then be exposed to no fewer than 15,000 commercial stimuli per day per person.
Faced with this deluge, campaign designers need to find the right strategy to capture people’s attention. That is the goal of shockvertising. This tactic has been used regularly since the mid-1980s, both in the commercial sector—as exemplified by the well-known Benetton ads shot by the famous photographer Oliviero Toscani—and in the nonprofit sector, through organizations advocating for social or societal causes (such as animal welfare groups).
According to a study published in the Journal of Advertising Research, shocking content used to prompt behavioral changes in response to the AIDS epidemic significantly increased people’s attention. These campaigns thus positively influenced certain behaviors related to the message (for example, taking an informational flyer ).
Another study, published in Addictive Behaviors Reports, goes a step further by using brain scans. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the researchers were able to examine which areas of the brain were active when participants viewed graphic and non-graphic content related to cigarette packs.
They found that the amygdala (which is responsible for emotions) and the medial prefrontal cortex (an area involved in cognitive processing) were both active while participants viewed graphic images (for example, an image of an open mouth revealing rotten teeth and a tumor on the lower lip).
Is its effectiveness currently limited?
In some cases, however, shocking messaging can backfire and risk generating negative publicity that leads to resistance, boycotts, and petitions against the organization or brand. This was the case in 2010 with the anti-smoking campaign launched by the DNF association.
The images showed a young man and a young woman kneeling before a man simulating a sexual act—depicted by a cigarette in his mouth—followed by the slogan, “Smoking means being a slave to tobacco.” Political figures and representatives of various organizations were quick to condemn the images as overly provocative and a public indecency.
The Advertising Ethics Jury —a body appointed by the Advertising Professional Regulatory Authority (ARPP)—had, in fact, been asked to order the withdrawal of the campaign.
According to a study published in Journal of Consumer Behavior, communications that use the shock strategy are better accepted when the cause is social or societal and the message is delivered by a nonprofit organization than when it is delivered by a for-profit organization.
According to Luc Wise, president and founder of The Good Company, a socially responsible communications agency:
"Shocking people just for the sake of it, or shocking people to boost sales, is often viewed very negatively by consumers these days, but provoking people for a good cause remains acceptable."
Although the findings of several studies are consistent and indicate that shocking images are effective at capturing attention, promoting memory retention, and eliciting physiological and emotional responses, are these images truly effective when it comes to changing people’s behavior?
The evidence on this last point remains limited, but we can hypothesize that today, we are unfortunately “accustomed” to violence and shocking scenes in the media—a habit that is even more pronounced among young people due to their digital consumption, which sometimes goes beyond legal boundaries. What worked about a decade ago in terms of a “shock” strategy may no longer work today.
Even if attention is captured, what sticks? The shocking fact or the message’s recommendation? For example, in the “The Gift” campaign mentioned in the introduction, you probably remember the image of the frail Santa Claus, but do you recall the video’s objective? It was to encourage people to make donations to help healthcare workers.
Research shows that when the emotion triggered by a message is too strong, it hinders the analysis of the message and thus prevents the persuasive mechanism from taking effect.
By the way, what will you take away from this article? The shocking visuals in the posts, or the substance of the message?
Laurie Balbo, Associate Professor of Marketing _ Director of the MSc in Marketing Management Program, GEM and Marie-Claire Wilhelm, Associate Professor at Grenoble IAE, CERAG, UGA / Co-Director of the Mi2S Chair, Grenoble IAE Graduate School of Management
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.