Shock sells, even when we don’t like the message

Martin G says:

09:24am | 11/03/10

“I thought the ad was very cute but it later got banned by the ASB because it sent the wrong message to pre-schoolers about driving cars. Really?”

You have to ask yourself what was the point of the ad anyway? If you are going to buy a car on the basis of an ad showing a toddler driving it, you would probably need your head checked!

“We’re exposed to stronger images these days and my guess is that we must need them – perhaps our lives are too frantic and too advanced to be overly concerned and it takes a major shock to open our eyes.”

I don’t agree with this on two counts:

1) We watch TV for enjoyment, not to be confronted with these so-called ‘shock tactics’. I am not a smoker, why should I have to sit through disgusting advertisements? Answer: I don’t. I change the channel… don’t be surprised if the target audience do this same.

2) You say we’re exposed to stronger images these days, your answer is to go one better. Where does it stop? Will advertisers start showing the equivalent of a horror flick in their 30-second ads because we are so de-sensitised? The shock tactics are just de-sensitising people more.

David says:

12:47pm | 11/03/10

To pick up on the shock tactics used in anti smoking advertisements, I have a few points I think are frustratingly missed or ignored by governments and anti everything advertisers ( points which I would think are obvious ones…)

1) Every time you show an ad about anti-smoking, most smokers (switch channel as pointed out already) are reminded of smoking and go have one, feel bad about the ad they are seeing which brings on feelings of despair, panic or resentment and then go have one…!! or if they have gone three days without thinking about smoking at all, are subconsciously reminded and then later go and have one..

2) Surely the “positive” not the “negative” is the key to stopping people smoking (happy and calm over shock, panic, despair and disease) why are we not seeing ads stating if you are a non smoker you can achieve these “wonderful” things and the girl at the bar who would never date you as a smoker ….now will and she’s really hot! Ads we would love to watch (smokers and no smokers together) bringing up feels of I can do better, or there’s something to achieve here and everyones doing it and its great to be a non smoker with something to look forward to… why do we continue to believe that negative and punitive messages breed positive and enlighten actions.. are we really that thick. (most people who stop smoking do it for something .. like family, better health or because they want to save money ..not because some ad scared them into it)

It is a bit like using higher taxes, fines or more speeding cameras to cut down the amount of traffic in inner city areas (This has been proven again and again not to make the remotest amount of difference to traffic levels in the long term yet we continue to use it as an answer to the problem). People still “need” to drive and punitive action is not a positive or persuasive tool to change peoples behaviour.. it breeds what it puts out ! anger, resentment, disgust and so on .. negative ads do this quietly in the privacy of our own homes and does it very effectively.

No one needs to see the lungs of smoker or the grief of a mother with lung cancer telling her kids she going to die on a “daily” basis to be a better person or more compassionate or less likely to smoke… in fact its just the opposite in most cases!  After all that negativity I feel like a stiff drink and smoke .

Liz says:

12:57pm | 11/03/10

Psychological studies show that these forms of ‘health promotion’ strategies are largely ineffective. When confronted with a disturbing or shocking image one can employ what is known as cognitive dissonance, in essence the acknowledgement of the phenomenon, but the belief, or a line of reasoning that it cannot happen to you (this can take many forms).

Sam Chowder says:

01:33pm | 11/03/10

That little piggy went home

Crystal says:

03:43pm | 11/03/10

We are sooo old, The generation that we are trying to convince are no longer shockable , at least, certainly not by fake images.

You can go online and see any number of truly horrifying images and videos at teh click of a mouse and by the time these people have hit their 20’s they have pretty much seen (and in some cases done) it all.

We need to review how we market to the iGen.

notSue says:

02:07pm | 12/03/10

Damien,  I am in touch with an organzation that has sucessfully employed shock advertising in the past. As several respondents have alluded to, they have discovered that an escalation of the shock value and a change of target periodically is required to refocus attention. The new ads work for a very brief time only, statistics prove it. We have extremely short attention spans when it comes to being “taught”.As has been said also, those who would most benefit from changing unhealthy or antisocial behaviours are well armed with psychological defences. It usually takes a close brush with their own mortality to produce any real change..often way too late.

That toddler ad was cute..and frankly, I don’t see many two year olds making the connection that they could drive Daddy’s car! What a huge over-reaction!

Cheers.