Why do we see so many not-for-profit organisations use shock advertising to get their message across? Is it that they want to make us as passionate as they are about their cause? Is it that they feel we are not paying attention to  (insert cause here)? Is it because they feel shock advertising draws attention to the issue and helps donation drives?

People who run philanthropic organisations are passionate. More passionate than most. When we work on pro-bono projects we always hear the tearful story upfront. Sometimes, if the issue really touches us, we cannot help but get pulled in. When we do, we run the risk of taking up a position that is far removed from the public’s position. Worse yet, if this pattern continues, we can take up an adversarial or activist approach with the general public – not caring if we offend, so long as we get them to pay attention.

I am sure there are contributing factors to that made the highly controversial WWF 911 ads possible. Brazil is a long way away and chances are that Brazilians are not as sensitive to the 911 attacks as North Americans and Europeans, who are the primary target for Al Qaeda. Ads of the World report that the spot even won an award in Brazil.

But the WWF is not the organisation to use shock advertising in this fashion. So why do we have so many of them? There is not a huge body of evidence on the effectiveness of shock advertising. Studies report that shocking ads are more likely to be remembered, but I have not seen any correlation to behaviour (please send in sources that say otherwise).  What I suspect is that there needs to be a value fit between the message and the individual before behaviour is effected. Otherwise, the ad will remain memorable, but no action will be taken.

If shock ads were so effective as a genre, why don’t all brands use them all the time? I also suspect there is a pattern present in philanthropic organisations for activism and taking a strong oppositional stance for a cause.

From a Civil Branding perspective, we see no value in shock ads that offend groups of people. I personally suspect that these ads are the result of passion overcoming a sense of respect for the audiences sensitivities. Commercially, Benetton demonstrates that shock ads which take on an activists role and depict realistic (versus abstract) images do more harm than good to the cause they are promoting. I am of the belief that the same applies to the charity sector.

Minor shocks that Benetton (seeprevious post)  used in the early campaigns and the French Connection uses in FCUK campaigns walk this line skillfully. These campaigns do not overstep the norms of the audience they are targeting and leave enough room for ambiguity.

Creating shocking ads can be a very rewarding experience for the agency and the client. But in order to remain effective, a brand needs to manage the balance between shock/surprise and reality/ambiguity much more carefully than WWF Brazil has done.