What do I think?

So I have given you enough examples of different kinds of controversial ads and campaigns. I have told you what it exactly is (shockvertising) and why it is being used. In this post I would like to talk about what I think about the use of shock advertising.


I think we can divide shock advertising in two categories:
- Shock advertising to get attention on a social issue.
- Shock advertising just to shock people and draw attention to your product.


In the first case I think it is good to shock people. Just like the SIRE fireworks campaigns you can see that it had a good effect on the numbers of victims caused by fireworks. Because they shocked people, people took things into action and prevented themselves from getting hurt by ‘playing’ with fireworks. With Benetton Group you can not directly see the effects of their campaigns, but even tough some of the ads are more than 20 years old, still people talk about them. Benetton made things as interracial marriages discussable.


In the second case I don’t think it is a good thing to use shock advertising. For example: Dolce & Gabanna. They claim that their ads are a form of art. But all I see is a picture of a woman being raped; at least they are all wearing pretty clothes? Is that what I should see in the ad? This ad has no utility. No social issue is getting attacked. It is beneficial for nobody except for Dolce & Gabanna who got so much attention with their campaign that they probably sold more of their products. Suit Supply does the exact same thing.


I think ads such as Suit Supply and Dolce & Gabanna are not only unnecessary; they probably damage young viewers who see the ads and don’t know that what they are seeing is not normal and wrong. But we will find out in the future that these ads did cause damage to the younger viewers.


So Shockvertising is a good thing, but only when it benefits more people than the company only.


As for now, thank you for reading my articles!


Cheers!