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.

The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty began in 2004 and has created an unforeseen level of interest and sales by playing on our homogeneous and often superficial notions of beauty. Since launch, Dove has been active in advertising, with a website that promotes self esteem in young women, research into body image, the Dove ‘Self Esteem Fund‘ and the hugely effective viral movies like ‘Evolution‘.

The Dove Evolution video is rumoured to have received more eyeballs than a Super Bowl ad so it was only logical to follow up this massively successful viral with another. The sequel, named ‘Onslaught’, is a montage of clips depicting the ridiculous and harmful nature of beauty industry narratives that are broadcast to young women.

Greenpeace responded with a spoof video of their own depicting rain forest depletion resulting from the supply of Palm Oil for Dove products. Independent film maker Rye Clifton also responded with his video mash up of AXE spots that makes public the connection between the Dove and AXE brands under Unilever ownership.

Original Dove ‘Onslaught’ video

Greenpeace parody

AXE mash up from director Rye Clifton

Dissent and controversy are the main themes of an activist approach to political and social change. The original ‘Onslaught’ video certainly adopts an activist approach clearly aimed at separating Dove from ‘the rest’ of the (overtly image conscious) beauty industry.  The parody responses are clearly intended to depict Dove as hypocritical on two fronts.

Taking an activist approach seems to be a difficult position for brands to maintain. Benetton, the Italian clothing retailer, found themselves in the same difficult territory back in the late 1990s. Their approach to advertising began as poking fun at at hypocrisy using images of race, religion and sexuality. But the approach evolved into a more serious and directed form of criticism on several more issues like capital punishment, refugees and the AIDS epidemic.

The Campaign for Real Beauty has made a tremendous impact on the social issues raised and on the business at Unilever, so it is unlikely that these responses will make much of a difference toward the overall positioning. But it does raise some interesting questions like:

1. Are activist approaches a slippery slope?

2. Is an activist position a credible role for any brand?

3. Do we need to take an activist approach in order to raise important social issues?

There are examples of brands that have adopted an activist position successfully. However, the examples that come to mind like the Body Shop and the Co-op Bank have an ethical promise at the very heart of their company. Ultimately, Dove has a purely functional benefit (¼ moisturising cream) as its core proposition and is making a bold transition into a deeper sphere of meaning. I believe they are real leaders in the promotion of important ideas and I am sure management at Dove and Unilever will want to continue along this path in the future.