In January 2014, an Australian advertising campaign to reduce obesity compared giving children junk food to giving them heroin. The tag line “You wouldn’t inject your children with junk. So why are you feeding it to them?” was used alongside images of heroin being prepared for a child.
While this campaign was designed to appall viewers, a PRWeek survey showed that 47 per cent of the public thought that shocking images or adverts did not make them more likely to donate or support a cause.
In fact, the junk food advert actually made me hungry for a burger – not the outcome I think the campaign was looking for.
The first main problem with shock advertising is the fact that the adverts are so extreme. Take, for example, the ‘Get Unhooked’ anti-smoking campaign in 2007. The adverts showed people getting hooked on the mouth by a fishing line and dragged along until they reached a cigarette. While extreme, this situation is totally unrealistic.
This sensationalising of smoking did the opposite of what it intended to do, by using such images. A study at Bath University into the effectiveness of the adverts showed that people who had no conscious desire to quit smoking reported a 7 per cent greater commitment to quitting when presented with the softer, educational, Heart Foundation advert.
People watching it who smoked may have been able to fool themselves into thinking “I’m not that bad”, providing them with an easy get-out clause that the campaign (which generated 774 complaints) didn’t apply to them.
The second main issue is the fact that the frequency of shock adverts has also increased over the years, reducing the impact of new campaigns. In 1986, the “Don’t Die of Ignorance” HIV awareness campaign was extremely effective in the UK.
Speaking to the BBC, Dr Sarah Graham, said “[the adverts] were tremendously effective. They were visually so striking. People had to watch because it was so extreme.”
However, I believe the success of this campaign was two fold – firstly, the fact that this was one of the first shock adverts of its kind, and secondly because AIDS was a new disease. Shock adverts aimed at reducing smoking or obesity for example may be less effective as these are health issues we see every day.
Today, we see shock adverts all the time and so advertising agencies are forced to make them more extreme – which again, dramatises the advert, separating the viewer from the issue at hand.
Instead of making health campaigns more extreme, I think advertising agencies should focus more on sensitive adverts. A different form of ‘shock’ can come from adverts that are more realistic and affect the viewer emotionally.
For example, in 2011 an anti-smoking advert in the UK featured a baby in a room filling with second-hand smoke before showing the reality of an apparent smoke-free room. The tagline “If you could see what’s really there, you wouldn’t smoke” was simple, and effective. Shocking viewers by using a baby highlighted the emotional consequences of smoking, and as most parents want what’s best for their children, this was a relatable situation.
Shock adverts are no longer shocking. Advertising agencies need to look for new approaches to tackle important health issues in the UK, and tactics that sensationalise the problem are giving too many people at risk an easy get-out clause. Unless a viewer can relate to the advert, which in the case of the Australian campaign only heroin addicts who enjoy junk food would, it will have little impact.
Sex Cells 