The document discusses the use of shock advertising and sex appeals in marketing to Generation Y. It presents a conceptual framework that shows how high-intensity sex appeals in advertising can lead to both positive and negative attitudes and behavioral intentions, depending on the perceived offensiveness and fit of the appeal with the brand. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with Gen Y participants to explore their perceptions, evaluations, and reactions to brands using shock advertising and sex appeals. The findings suggest these appeals may work better for some industries and brands depending on their perceived congruence with the brand's image and values.
5. GEN Y
19 - 24
Students & Full-Time Workers
16 Participants - Mixed Gender
1 Pilot (Results not included - gender bias)
1 Male Focus Group | 1 Female Focus Group
2 Male In-Depth Interviews | 2 Female In-Depth Interviews
12. –Dahl et al. 2003
No advanced warning
Breach advertising clutter
Demand attention
SHOCK ADVERTISING
13. “to make people think they will look
good to someone else, in a sexual
way if they wear the brands clothes”
–Female Interior Designer, 19
14. Awareness: Product & brand
Knowledge: Deeper level of awareness
Liking: Associating feelings to advertisements
Conviction: Making an active judgement
Purchase: Acting on feelings and judgement
- Hierarchy of Effects, Lavidge & Steiner (1961)
15. Shock Advertising
Sex Appeals
Negative Attitude Towards
Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
1. Awareness
2. Knowledge
3. Liking
4. Conviction
5. Purchase
24. Shock Advertising
Sex Appeals
High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude Towards
Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
1. Awareness
2. Knowledge
3. Liking
4. Conviction
5. Purchase
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
25. High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude
Towards Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
i.e. SCEPTICISM i.e. CONGRUENCE
26. High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude
Towards Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
i.e. AWARENESS
i.e. VALUES
27. High Interest
in Ad Message
High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude
Towards Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
i.e. AWARENESS
i.e. VALUES
36. Different age group
Different professions
Media and Humour
Congruence - industries beyond apparel
Pre-existing relationships with brands
FUTURE STUDIES
37. Shock Advertising
Sex Appeals
High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude Towards
Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
1. Awareness
2. Knowledge
3. Liking
4. Conviction
5. Purchase
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
High Interest
in Ad Message
38. - Lightfoot et al. 2006, p.157-163)
“The shock of the new that was modernity, is no
longer new… Our new, if it is anything, is old”
39. Andreasen, A.R., 2001. Ethics In Social Marketing. Washington
D.C.:Georgetown University Press.
Dahl, DW., Frankenberger KD. and Manchanda RV., 2003. Does It Pay To
Shock? Reactions To Shocking And Nonshocking Advertising Content
Among University Students. Journal Of Advertising Research 43 (3), 268–
281.
Lavidge, R.J. and Steiner, G.A., 1961. A Model For Predictive Measurements
Of Advertising Effectiveness. Journal Of Marketing, 25 (4), 59–62.
Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S and Kavanagh, D., 2006. The End Of The Shock Of
The New. Creativity & Innovation Management. 15 (2), 157-163.
REFERENCES
Notes de l'éditeur
1. CHOICES
Both EMPOWERING and COMPROMISING.
We can make so many choices every day. Some choices are made for us we can feel a whole range of emotions from pleasantly surprised to totally offended.
2. MEDIA
Advertisers can choose what they would like to communicate to us. They have a blank canvas - the pictures they paint can warm our hearts they can make us laugh.
Advertising can be a nice surprise
3. - or it can just surprise full stop and what we make of what adverts is highly subjective. Some of us may find this hilarious, some may find it appalling.
4. There is a fine line when it comes down to individual preference and we are back to that word again - “choices” and advertisers have more to make.
5. If they choose to surprise us, do they intend for the surprise to be nice or not? And when we are surprised, what will our response be? What is the purpose?
Advertisers choose to surprise or shock us to get our attention and get their messages across giving us something to remember and talk about.
A theme within shock advertising is sex and obviously the age-old argument that sex sells.
Fashion brands have long used sex to sell their fashion products, usually with the idea that it will communicate the notion…
When considering the feelings we have towards advertisements and the brands behind them, there is a sequential model that consumers are thought to undertake.
We see an advert, we interpret the messages, make an evaluation and judgement, form an intent to behave and finally, we make an act based on our thoughts and evaluations.
Ultimately, what happens from step 1 is key, so you would presume that in this case, first impressions count. However in shocking audiences using sex appeals, many form negative attitudes towards the advertisements they see. This model doesn’t consider the implications of negative consumers have towards adverts, and the mediating factors in between each stage.
Therefore, in working out how effectively sex appeals work on young audiences this model is very limited, but offers a good starting point.
Adding preference to the model, we consider that not everyone is going to ‘like’ an advert or perceived favourably. This is more realistic.
A step is still missing. What influences us to not like a shock advert?
ASA Rulings - Pilot helped me categorise
Nudity isn't - nudity is >> diff readings
Although highly subjective, for the purposes of the study these 4 categories were formed so i could try and evaluate the triggers for offence amongst my research participants
i.e. which categories cause most offence?
The intensity of a shock appeal is the mediating factor that can either influence someone to like or dislike an advert.
Subjective variables indicated: humour and media
Another key theme was the commodification of sex. It was seen as a dated, irritating tactic. Advertisers assume that young audiences are only interested in this. Doesn’t consider that young audiences have values beyond immediate gratifications.
Research suggests that high intensity appeals cause high offence when the ads are perceived as misleading. High intensity makes the ads harder to read, consumers feel disengaged.
Misleading messages -
What is being sold?
Who is selling it?
What is the message?
Perceived that SuitSupply shouldn’t be using this tactic because it is pathetic. It was identified that men were being targeted, but the men interviewed talked a lot about credibility. If the suits were really nice, they would surely have a more credible way of showing them - only half the suit is visible!
poor fit - generate negative attitudes and hostility towards brands and their messages.
Fit is a mediating variable that came up repeatedly amongst my participants and a number of studies I found, directly indicating negative attitudes towards the brand.
Equally, when a sexual appeal did fit with the brand, positive attitudes were formed.
Back to choices - both EMPOWERING and COMPROMISING.
Back to choices - both EMPOWERING and COMPROMISING.
Back to choices - both EMPOWERING and COMPROMISING.
