From Hindustan Times-owned Fever FM to the latest stunt of celebrity Poonam Pandey, who faked her death to raise awareness about cervical cancer, there seems to be no limit to building a false narrative in order to create an impact. Needless to say, both initiatives had an impact on the desired target consumers, but that leaves a looming question: Is shock advertising, popularly termed shockvertising the game of advertising and marketing in the future, no matter how distasteful in nature? “This has had a negative impact and has built a negative imagery. Both brands have fooled their consumers and non-consumers alike with their morbid messaging. People do not like to be fooled. Except on the first of April. And this is not the first of April,” brand guru Harish Bijoor, told BrandWagon Online.
Shockvertising!
Typically, shock advertising or ‘shockvertising’ is a method used by brands to capture the attention of viewers by evoking strong emotional feelings which could be either positive or negative. This approach is undertaken to break through a clutter of ads. This approach is undertaken with content that intends to attract attention and often raise awareness or challenge societal norms. While HT Media’s CEO Ramesh Menon’s announcement via video on LinkedIn, wherein he declared that the company has brought the shutters down on Fever FM had nothing to do with raising any kind of awareness, besides a pure marketing gimmick, Pandey playing the dead was largely due to her highlighting the issue of cervical cancer. For many, shock advertising works because it taps into subjects people discuss. Whether taboo subjects like sex, religion, or starkly presenting issues such as animal cruelty and global crises. But this time, it only seemed to have backfired. “Falsehood seems to have become a state of life, truth has become a luxury. This has now got a social cache starting from our politics. When our leaders scoff at facts they create a world of make-believe and makeovers. The herd follows. Advertising is supposed to be a reflection of the world around us. I guess that’s the most important lesson for me. A multiverse of falsehoods is where we now exist,” said Meenakshi Menon, founder, Spatial Access, a Deloitte business.
When it comes to creating false narratives brands seem to have found ways other than shocking consumers. For instance, the recent L&T print ad, saw the company claiming to have taken a part in building the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Experts believe that the brand could have created the same ad with more subtle messaging wherein it could have been stated to have played a significant role in building the temple. For Bijoor, brands are about trust, “If you can’t trust your brand to be a custodian of that trust, who else can you?”, he noted.
Old wine in a new bottle?
Interestingly, this is not the first that either a celebrity or a brand has indulged in ‘shockvertising’. In 2016, AT&T, as part of its Close to Home campaign, commissioned an ad to raise awareness of the danger of using phones while driving. The ad shows a young boy riding his bicycle near his neighbour as two cars approach each other. In one car a man is shown talking to his wife, while in the other a mother is shown talking to her daughter. As she bends her head down to check her phone, the two cars collide at the crossroads. Moments later, the scene reverses with a voice-over stating, ‘It can wait.’ According to Unruly, a video advertising platform the ad scored 48% for strong shock, which was the highest score of all the ads tested in the US. “There is a way to build a narrative, but from what it appears brands have gone through capitulation. Also, the morality of institutions and the public is changing. For people brands as with brands brands, now it is all about what is the next most preferred stunt to shock. You’ve to breach the last peak of shock and awe. This happens without even realising it. Even earlier brands created impactful campaigns by shocking consumers. However, the shock would only last for a second till the page turned to a reveal, but now it goes on for a day or two. What this means is that the tenure of shock hood is increasing taking it into the realm of falsehood,” Amer Jaleel, founder, Curativity – A division of Pitchverse Platforms and former, chief creative officer and chairman, MullenLowe Lintas Group.
Similarly, in 2016, UNICEF rolled out a bunch of ads to raise awareness of child marriage. The ad shows a man and woman getting ready for their wedding ceremony, with glimpses of a girl painting her paint book. As she approaches the alter where her groom could be seen waiting for her, one can see her back and wonder if she is a very short-height woman when compared with her groom. It is only when the groom lifts her veil then one gets to see that it is a teenage girl who got married to an older man. As per data by Unruly, at the time of the ad, 15 million girls a year were subject to child marriage, by 2019 this figure had dropped to 12 million. As per UNICEF’s latest finding worldwide, an estimated 640 million girls and women alive today were married in childhood, or 12 million girls per year, The share of young women who married in childhood has declined from 21% to 19% since the last estimates were released five years ago.
Released in Australia, the ad called, UNICEF: A storybook wedding – except for one thing evoked emotions of shock in 35% of respondents and 32% of respondents said they wanted to find out more after seeing the ad, which is higher than the norm as per Unruly. 42% of respondents said they’d talk about the ad after viewing it compared to a 26% norm in this market, demonstrating the power that evoking shock has on spreading awareness if it’s done in the right way, claimed the platform. For Sanjeev Kotnala, brand and marketing consultant, Intradia World – a brand consultancy outfit, the marketing gimmick has created a divide among audiences. “While viewers or consumers of 35 years and above in age have termed the entire activity very distasteful and morbid, the younger generation below 35 years of age bracket, have shrugged it off as just another marketing gimmick and have moved on for the next big one. This shows the difference in expectations. Not to mention, this kind of proves a point that just like everything is fair in love and war so is in advertising,” he argued.
Critics largely call the two initiatives distasteful and further add that Pandey should be banned by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Moreover, the celebrity should reveal or should have revealed as a disclaimer this is a paid initiative. As consumers await the next big shocking ad, is it time for brands of all kinds to rethink before taking a plunge? Only time will tell.