What did you do when you looked at the ineed image in my earlier post?
Or if you are a smoker, what do you do each time you see a cancer kills ad? Or an ad for cooking oil that shows that healthy young man suddenly collapse with a heart attack?
What will happen to you family after you die? Buy life insurance now…
Pictures of children orphaned in the earth-quake or people left homeless in the tsunami… Donate now…
Michael says, give us more gulab jamuns… A reviewer on Amazon says about My Own Country, Dr. Verghese’s book on AIDS, By about page 250 I began to grow numb from the overload off all the personal stories.
Ads, images, words that strive to shock. To induce fear and goad you into action…
Advertising has always resorted to fear and shock tactics, believing that they hold great value; optimistically believing in a have-knee-will-jerk-will-do sequence of actions… Except, it does not work that way…
I was arguing with a blogger friend who is seeking advertising-gurudom about this… How can that ineed image not move a human being?
People who say they are put off by harsh or shocking images are just looking for excuses… they are anyway insensitive….
I was actually arguing just for the fun of it…
The truth is, after a point, everyone suffers from shock overload… The mind switches off, looks for diversions, and excuses… I do not need to exercise… I do not smoke that much anyway… What will my individual contribution achieve?
How much is too much? At which point do you switch off your mind and say, Enough now… or even in a moment of self-deception, that is not for me, nor about me…
When does fear / shock really work? Can you think of a time when you were spurred into action that way? It would be interesting to think of it…
Look at the AIDA theory of how advertising works – or should work…
What does shock do? Awareness – sometimes yes, sometimes the ad-greater-than-message trap. Interest – certainly. Such words and images are attention-grabbing, as they are intended to be. Desire (or conviction) – I think if you are pre-inclined towards the message or cause. If you are not, then? Action – ideal situation, but how often does that happen?
The ‘inverted U’ hypothesis (just in case you thought I was weak in theory and knew only about AIDA) – mild fear or shock can lead to a change in attitude or behavior, but as degree of fear increases, attitude change or even interest dips. Inverted U.
***
Then what works? Humour, I have found, works – surprisingly. Not necessarily ha ha funny humour, but self-effacing, don’t-take-me-too-seriously kind of stuff can drive home the point much much better than on your face images.
Anti-smoking. Some of the best ads I have seen. No scary skeletons, no threat of the boogeyman looming large. But very effective.
Secondhand smoke kills
This ad for the Cancer Patients Association of India won O&M the gold at Cannes in 2002. Move over Marlboro Country and Leo Burnett.
And one I saw on MTV a long long time ago. A girl is driving down a wide open road, as she sees a young man thumbing a ride. She whizzes past without a second look. As she drives ahead, she sees another young man hitching, this time with a cigarette in his mouth. She drives past, and then reverses as she sees the man in the rear view mirror, and gives him a lift.
Smoking causes impotence
I can’t find that ad anywhere – but here is one that is equally simple. And blunt.
Hi Charu
Thanks for linking to my blog.
I’ve been thinking about what to say here and I keep thinking “Oh – another advertisement piece”
I don’t like commenting about advertisement because I just don’t get it.
I feel like if two ads have the same basic information but one is brilliant and the other is stupid, it shouldn’t really matter. After all, we are intelligent and the underlining message is what is important. But clearly it isn’t. So I guess I just don’t understand it.
I guess it bothers me that Madison Ave. or whatever is subtlely controlling my life. But I have to admit that occasionally I have bought products just because the ads were so good.
My favorite movie on advertising is “Mr. Blandings makes his dream house.” with Cary Grant and Myrna Loy in the late 1940’s. It is hilarious. Cary Grant is stuck having to advertise this disgusting product called Wham (Spam) that he hates. He is completely uninspired. It’s a classic.
Ah Michael, what a true economist type response (and that’s not a bad thing!). If what you said were true, marketing academia (at least the behavioral side) would cease to exist, not to mention your colleagues such as Thaler who do the framing stuff. My short study of research in information processing (in advertising, for instance) shows that people are influenced by advertising in all sorts of ways! Its not only about the message (which people may also process depending on their motivation) but also about peripheral cues.
Charu, nice post. I’ll articulate my thoughts on fear and negative emotions in general in advertising when I get a chance from the rush of coursework and research. As you probably know, there’s not a lot of consensus in academia (behavioral work) that negative emotions work in a particular way – they are fairly tricky to study and lots of current, very interesting behavioral work on negative emotions and emotions in general is being carried out today. If you’re interested, email me and we can chat about this – would love to hear your views!
n!
n!
Interesting piece. Taking cigarette ads as an example, from personal experience since every person around me smokes, I say this. When they travel to the UK or wherever else, they come back with cartons of Marlboro’s and rant about about the “images” on the cigarette packet covers. Gross! Is it really? well maybe, but it is making s statement. Shock value.
I agree that people also tune off and discard these images or thoughts, as to concur would be admitting that cigarette smoking IS infact harmful. AND THAT THEY NEED TO QUIT!!! Touchy! Not that they dont know. But you think about it, you want some space from say, mom, you head to your bedroom, this is your refuge and you know you are safe to do what you want. So, in the same way cigarette smokers are used to the constant advice about quitting, and therefore in solitude, when the mind is in denial, a cigarette packet says no more. (Presuming and I think true-A cigarette smoker is oblivious to the “cigarette smoking is injurious to health” tagline that covers every packet.)
Now, on the way back from UK, this new image or idea is unaccpetable. It taints the ‘supposed’ safe haven ie. the cigarette packet. There are limits however, for each one it is different. Its what sticks in your mind. An interesting radio spot on Adrants is simple yet powerful. Check it out. It was done for the American Cancer Society-
http://www.adrants.com/2006/01/radio-spot-reminds-cancer-wins-1500-times.php
SSquo
Michael, “Oh – another advertisement piece” – ouch. actually this piece was noy just about advertising but all communication, even interpersonal… where does it tip? and the listener stops listening…
advertising does control our lives much more than we would like to believe… as for “I feel like if two ads have the same basic information but one is brilliant and the other is stupid, it shouldn’t really matter”, it happens most likely that in case of the stupid ad, the message may not get across… r conversely, in the brilliant ad, the message is understood but not accepted… as in case of these fear inducing images I have mentioned here… blah blah
Neela, sure, will email you… would love to chat on this too… I personally think negative appeals work if handled with a light touch, the heavier it gets, the easier it becomes for the audience to switch off… which is why I think humour (even black humour) works bettter than on your face imagery… but then how does the advertiser (or any one in the communication chain) deicde how much is enough or just right to get a reaction, and a positive reaction at that…?
Ssquo, most often what happens is the it-can’t-happpen-to-me trick that people resort to, in order to shut out disturbing images… for instace, why does AIDS communication have little impact? you are right, the state of denial creeps in easily when confronted with messages we dont want to see or hear or believe…
I remember seeing most of these anti-smoking ads. My fave wa sone I was on a billboard frequently featuring a man with a cigarrette in his mouth, but the cigarette was bent downwards, mimicking a limp penis. That was headlined with the words “Smoking Causes Importance.” Sadly, in our anti-sex city, we missed out on the others and even that one was too racey for our area to stay up for long.
I remember another one in that series which was even more effective. It showed two fingers pointing downwards with a burning and almost finished cigarette held in between. It doesn’t require anything more to be said.
Debra, your comment about the ad being too racy to stay up for long made me smile – don’t know if that was intentional 🙂
I think you are right, that shock and horror has a limited effect.
Great post! You are on target, for sure. With overkill, we become insensitive. Mystery can be a seductive force – not spelling it all out allows us to think. “Smart” ads are the ones we remember and the ones we talk about.
Advertising seeks to compel you to take specific actions by creating a feeling of identification or aspiration..essentially playing on emotional harp…Emotions are stored in the limbic region of the brain which is adjacent to cortex ,where memories hence recollection are stored :)..So effectively products piggyback on the emotional quotient rather than their inherent attributes for sale.
The second hand smoke kills ad was ideated by Piyush Pandey..who till date remains a chain smoker.So this more or less proves you don’t even have to believe in the product to sell it .No wonder I never lasted more than 2 days in an ad agency..
ooohh ya.. verry effective..indeed..the first one that is..
some ads are truly inspirind and path breaking…especially the anti-smokin ones…
the best one is..cancer cures smokin…god where do they get these ideas..??