Case on shock advertising in public health campaign

1. Shockvertsing

2. Omstreden film

3. Concept… A campaingby Regenbogen ("Rainbow"), a Germanchartiydesigned in advance to World AIDS day, 1 december 2009. “We wanted to give the virus a face, not the victims of the virus”, says Dirk Silz, creative director at Das Comitee (responsible ad agency).

4. Critics Spokesman of British National Aids Trust: “ I think the advert is incrediblystigmatizing to people living with HIV whoalready face much stigma and discriminationdue to ignoranceabout the virus.” The organization is concernedthatthis kind of campaignwill discourage peoplefrombeingtestedfor the diseasebecausetheymayfeel as thoughtheythemselves are "massmurderers." Furthermore the videos have been criticizedfornotgivinganyrealinformationabouthow to prevent the disease.

5. What does research say? Research fromDahl et al 2003 shows that“shocking content in anadvertisementsignificantlyincreasesattention, benefitsmemory, and positivelyinfluencesbehavior.” “Consumers are more likely to remember shocking advertising content over advertising content that is not shocking.” However, there is stilllittleinformationonwhether shock advertisingdirectlyleads to changes in behavior. There are criticswhofearthatoverexposure to shock advertisingwillresult in a public that is “desensitized” to advertisementsthatemploy shock tactics, particularlythosewithovertlysexual and violent images. Source: DW Dahl et al (2003). Does itpay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking content amonguniversitystudents. Journal of Advertising Research 43(3), p. 268 – 280.