Volunteering has something that has been part of my life from a very early age. I was inspired by Clare’s blog on a “Cheeky Warning”, after my experience volunteering for the Crohns and Colitis Society. I agree that many organizations have jumped on the social media band-wagon and have begun to post messages of awareness on the like of FaceBook, Twitter and YouTube.
Most recently, over the 2009 holiday season, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation created public service announcements that encouraged viewers to give their spouses pap smears for the holidays. This odd and almost humorous gift choice received mixed reviews from audiences. Most importantly however, these add which originated on Television and then to YouTube, had a huge viral appeal. The PSA’s got people talking, and therefore built awareness.
Another trend that we’ve seen on television and magazines for a while is the use of celebrity endorsements. Recently, celebrities have been used in PSA’s. Specifically last month, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention created a campaign called “i know”. The campaign is created around social media outlets, and below you will find the video staring Jamie Foxx that was created in support of the campaign.
Arguably, these videos can make people uncomfortable and can cause a sense of shock – but shock, just like sex works. Shock grabs people’s attention, shock invokes the ‘I just have to tell someone ‘sensation and shock causes people to yearn for more. Public Health campaigns seem to have this down to a fine art – the art of shock. Does shock work in every arena or should it be left for those arenas that are embarrassing and that people don’t talk about unless forced to through shock?!
6 comments:
Chris Fill in his book Marketing Communications suggests that "the main reason for using a shock advertising strategy is that it is a good way to ensure an audience´s attention and achive a longer-lasting impact than through traditional messages and attetion-getting devices".
Dichter (1966)says that "shocking ads also benefit from word-of-mouth communication as these messages provoke advertisement-related conversation".
I agree with both of them, because this kind of ads finally is a free publicity for the company because everybody speaks about them and the people persuade each other to see the ad.
I think that Benetton is the best example in shock campaings, here you have some examples: (http://abelgalois.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/horse.jpg),(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yxQwKtel77Y/R5B5DmOODZI/AAAAAAAAAyY/o_ipPbzV5nA/s400/benetton3.jpg)and (http://abelgalois.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sarajevo.jpg).
I think the smear campaign is a really clever idea. We are inundated by awareness campaigns these days, particularly on health issues, which have the potential to only make the public apathetic or even too scared to act on issues. I think too many campaigns on similar issues opt for emotional appeals, which although can be shocking in themselves, the public are now very used to. With this campaign being both unusual and offering practical advice it increases the potential for people to start talking about these issues as you say as well as actually taking action. Launching this campaign over the Christmas period is also clever with people thinking more than ever about giving to family members and about what is important in their lives. "Give her the gift that even Santa can't deliver" is a bit too far though!
Katie,
That was a nice post you made. I really think that the shocking appeal comes down to what is the key message of your campaign, and consider the sensitivity issues of what you’re promoting. It depends what it is really, sometimes it might be better making people feel comfortable about something and using a rational strong appeal instead of a shocking appeal. For example, the ad with Jamie Foxx was not ‘shocking’ to me, but had this type of emotional love appeal. Although using a shocking appeal may create WOM, in health campaigns I think it’s important considering the people who are suffering from something, and take their psychological needs and worries into consideration. I agree with emsmi that people are used to emotional appeals, but let’s not forget, like we say ‘short and sweet’, or ‘it’s not quantity, its quality’, then a strong ad with a strong emotional appeal can still work when it’s done correctly.
I love shocking campaigns! The creativity, innovation, fearlessness and often, the simplicity of a campaign is inspiring. I completely agree with you in that, if done correctly, a shock-advertisement will generate discussion between people. By putting the situation out there and by not making a huge deal about the topic, I think so many unseen barriers are broken. Sex used to be a very taboo subject and now look at it, everybody’s talking about it, all because it has been ‘okayed’.
In regards to the PAP smear campaign I think its great. Rather funny in that if my partner got me one for Christmas I would be tempted to ask what on earth he was thinking, but on the other hand it would prevent the topic from causing, how shall I say, ‘the rabbit caught in headlights’ look. The advert is effectively saying ‘why make a big deal over nothing?’
I have so much admiration for health campaigners. Although all PR practitioners have to think creatively, the health sector does have just that extra pressure of trying to save people.
Health campaigners definitely do have the extra pressure of saving people through their messages, and I believe that SHOCK PR is a great way to get attention and spread their message!
Post a Comment