In the world soaked in consumerism marketing stands on the peak of the 'draw the attention' mountain. Obviously, advertising takes one of the most important places in the run to reaching and persuading the customer to take interest in the particular offer. So, how to succeed?
The lavishing amount of ads surrounding us might be a bit scary. They're everywhere, all the time. Some people have already started to completely ignore them as the avalanche coming at them wherever they go is simply too overwhelming. On the other hand, it'd be rather difficult to abandon them completely; after all, they are the most appealing and 'loud' amid the marketing tools to reach the 'target'.
So, instead of the question 'what new solution would allow getting straight to the client' comes rather the one 'how to make the particular commercial stand out in the crowd of other ads'? Well, except for some amazing offers and great sales, which aren't always possible to arrange, there's also the picture.
Advertisements compete usually with visual aspects. That's their main weapon, so being visible is actually about being VISIBLE. The only problem is how, when there's so many other commercials around trying to do exactly the same? One of the ways - shock effect.
Even though, shockvertising is mostly used by non-profit organizations not only them have been using the technique for ages. It definitely draws attention and makes the ad stuck into the consumer's mind. The only problem, and at the same time the prime reason for the little use of shocking advertising by commercial companies, is the dose of shock. There is an incredibly thin line between being interestingly shocking and simply disgusting or repulsive.
It's vital to keep the balance and remember what outcome is desired. A company definitely doesn't want to offend customers and negatively change its image in their eyes. A firm wishes for exactly opposite reaction. Shock in ads might be a great solution if only used properly and with good taste.
The companies have to keep in mind that they're functioning on the profit they make, which means they cannot be as straight forward as NGOs and use the shock as freely as them. Well, they do have different goals - companies want to encourage people to use the offer and NGOs aim for highlighting a specific issue that's commonly ignored or taken for granted. That's why the commercial firms should be very careful with their shockvertising decisions and not take too much example from NGOs.
So, saying that the company made up it's mind and it is introducing shock into the campaign, when do we know it's too much? How can we tell if the line of funny and appealing has been crossed?
The simplest answer - people's reaction. The best example, at least for me, of being too vivid is the constant shock the HELL Pizza uses in their ads. The buzz around their campaigns has been going on for a very long time. The chain seems to be doing it on purpose - making ads so shocking and so controversial that everyone is talking about it. The only problem is that they've had plenty of trouble because of it. Their cases got to the court and they had to take down their ads not once. Take this one for example:
The lavishing amount of ads surrounding us might be a bit scary. They're everywhere, all the time. Some people have already started to completely ignore them as the avalanche coming at them wherever they go is simply too overwhelming. On the other hand, it'd be rather difficult to abandon them completely; after all, they are the most appealing and 'loud' amid the marketing tools to reach the 'target'.
So, instead of the question 'what new solution would allow getting straight to the client' comes rather the one 'how to make the particular commercial stand out in the crowd of other ads'? Well, except for some amazing offers and great sales, which aren't always possible to arrange, there's also the picture.
Advertisements compete usually with visual aspects. That's their main weapon, so being visible is actually about being VISIBLE. The only problem is how, when there's so many other commercials around trying to do exactly the same? One of the ways - shock effect.
Even though, shockvertising is mostly used by non-profit organizations not only them have been using the technique for ages. It definitely draws attention and makes the ad stuck into the consumer's mind. The only problem, and at the same time the prime reason for the little use of shocking advertising by commercial companies, is the dose of shock. There is an incredibly thin line between being interestingly shocking and simply disgusting or repulsive.
It's vital to keep the balance and remember what outcome is desired. A company definitely doesn't want to offend customers and negatively change its image in their eyes. A firm wishes for exactly opposite reaction. Shock in ads might be a great solution if only used properly and with good taste.
The companies have to keep in mind that they're functioning on the profit they make, which means they cannot be as straight forward as NGOs and use the shock as freely as them. Well, they do have different goals - companies want to encourage people to use the offer and NGOs aim for highlighting a specific issue that's commonly ignored or taken for granted. That's why the commercial firms should be very careful with their shockvertising decisions and not take too much example from NGOs.
So, saying that the company made up it's mind and it is introducing shock into the campaign, when do we know it's too much? How can we tell if the line of funny and appealing has been crossed?
The simplest answer - people's reaction. The best example, at least for me, of being too vivid is the constant shock the HELL Pizza uses in their ads. The buzz around their campaigns has been going on for a very long time. The chain seems to be doing it on purpose - making ads so shocking and so controversial that everyone is talking about it. The only problem is that they've had plenty of trouble because of it. Their cases got to the court and they had to take down their ads not once. Take this one for example:
Funny? Was supposed to be, I bet. However, it didn't turn out quite this way. The company was made to take those down not long after it'd put them up. But, as I mentioned before, HELL Pizza is persistent and it changed the banned commercials with those:
Not too fancy either. The company has not once proved that the good taste in marketing is not what it's trying to achieve. It also showed that there are certain subjects that one shouldn't mess about, like religion, for instance.
HELL Pizza has always made a lot of fuss and the use of unsubtle images isn't today's news in its case. The line has been crossed not once and I think at some point most of the people actually got used to it and the shock effect's got a bit weaker. Perhaps that's why the last ad exceeded any expectations and smashed all the walls limiting the company, not in the good way.
HELL Pizza has always made a lot of fuss and the use of unsubtle images isn't today's news in its case. The line has been crossed not once and I think at some point most of the people actually got used to it and the shock effect's got a bit weaker. Perhaps that's why the last ad exceeded any expectations and smashed all the walls limiting the company, not in the good way.
The outrage online was huge, hate tweets were flowing like a waterfall. I can't say the reactions surprised me. Honestly, this is far too much. How's it going to end for the HELL Pizza? Is it actually about to bring profit or will the shocking ad ricochet terribly on the books? Let's wait and see, I suppose.