Shock Consumers, But Morally

Researchers at Bangor University, Glyndwr University, and Loughborough University, all in the U.K., say they were shocked, absolutely shocked. The cause was the use of shock itself, specifically the broad consumer acceptance of shocking images and descriptions in advertising.
     “Shockvertising” has been around for a long time. A TV ad from a decade ago for a product called X-cite employed the technique to convince the viewer that using the product would eliminate even the worst of bad breath—what the ad referred to as “dog breath.” At the start of the ad was a disheveled man awakening on a couch, and at the end of the ad, he quickly swallowed an X-cite before being kissed by a woman who has entered the room. In between the beginning and end of the ad, the man opens his mouth and, via special effects magic, regurgitates a dog.
     Researchers at University of Saskatchewan and Santa Clara University explored the appeal of macabre fashion ads. The researchers included a Jimmy Choo ad showing a woman pulling a purse out of a swimming pool in which it appears that a man’s corpse is floating. And a Dolce & Gabbana ad portrayed one woman skewering another in the neck.
     Another example is a pair of TV ads for the Volkswagen Jetta, inspired by the car having garnered top safety scores in crash tests. In each ad, the view is from inside a Jetta when a truck crashes into the car so severely that the air bags inflate. The crashes were real, with stunt actors inside the cars. Volkswagen says the ad campaign caused shoppers to get more interested in buying a Jetta.
     Shocking images and descriptions trigger storytelling in the consumer’s mind. Structured interviews with study participants reveal that once having been stopped in their tracks, the viewers ask themselves questions like “What is happening here?,” “What led up to this scene?,” and “What’s likely to happen next?” They spend more time contemplating the situation and so potentially thinking about the product.
     But the Bangor/Glyndwr/Loughborough research indicates the X-cite ad might work better than the Jimmy Choo ad. Viewers prefer a morally correct resolution to the story they’re telling themselves. A moral tone can come from the type of advertiser. Study participants were more accepting of shockvertising from nonprofits than from for-profit retailers. So if you’re a for-profit retailer, shock first and then resolve happily.

Click below for more: 
Stake Out Promotional Vampire Risks 
Uncover Why Your Advertising Works 
Shock Shoppers, But End Happily