Does Shockvalue Advertising Work?1

DOES SHOCKVALUE ADVERTISING WORK?1

Financed by Fear: Does ShockValue Advertising Work For Charities?

Stuart Haack

University of Southern California

Financed by Fear: Does ShockValue Advertising Work For Charities?

Now more than ever before, charitable advertisements are using shockvalue to create awareness and drive motivation (Herships, 2009). Shock value advertisements are advertisements that introduce imagery or concepts that are purposefully used to scare viewers into action (Williams, 2009). Examples of such advertisements are abundant, including such iconic commercials as “Your Brain on Drugs” (Chitwood, 2010)and others more infamous, such as World Wildlife Fund’s “9/11” television commercial (Kennedy, 2009). The speed with which the “shockvalue” charity advertising trend is growing is, well, shocking. But does this advertising style truly work to create empathy and ultimately, action among its viewers?

A study in the U.K. showed that younger individuals (40 and under) are more likely to give to charities that reward them with social experiences such as classy social events and dinners rather than with tax credits (Kottasz, 2004). However, shock value ads seem to show a different picture than high-class social gatherings. According to an article in Precision Marketing, the over-abundance of charity options creates a situation in which, to maintain support, charities must find ways to stand out in the market (“Analysis: When does,” 2008). Most agree that shockvalue advertising does help bring an issue to attention in the mind of consumers, for better or worse (Williams, 2009). And furthermore, the use of shockvalue tactics can increase the reach of an ad, spreading through social media platforms and gaining attention of media outlets (Williams, 2010).

Others, however, believe that the rise of such shockvalue ads are creating desensitized viewers, arguing that so much shockvalue advertising creates a jaded mindset in which consumers no longer have strong, if any reaction to these ads (Williams, 2009). And of course, some instances of shockvalue tactics are said to be offensive to viewers (Williams, 2010; Kennedy, 2009).

Research on the subject of shockvalue advertising is somewhat scattered and is, of course, difficult to obtain considering the subjectivity of what qualifies as “shock value”. This experiment will attempt to shed light on empathy and emotions towardcharities based on viewing three shock value advertisements

Method

Participants

Eighty-one participants took part in the study (41 males and 40 females). The majority of participants (46.9%) wereaged between 18-30, 31-40 (25.9%), and 41-50 (11.1%). Participants were primarily undergraduate and graduate communications students at the University of Southern California. Additional participants were obtained via an e-mail sent to friends and family members. This e-mail explained the purpose of the study and asked recipients to participate. Themajority of participants were Caucasian (84%), African-American (8.6%), and Hispanic/Latino (2.5%).

Materials and Procedure

An online experiment was used to collect data fromAugust 1, 2012until August 2, 2012.The independent variable was whether or not participants viewed three advertisements promoting Barnardo’s, a charity in the United Kingdom that uses shock value techniques in their promotional communications, prior to participating in our survey. The dependent variables consisted of41 questions (see Appendix A). The dependent variables were divided in three sections: Empathy, Charitable History,andDemographics. The first section, Empathy, assessed the level of empathy and emotion participants felt towards other human beings. An example question from this section was “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”. The next section examined Charitable History.An example question from this section was “How often do you donate money to charitable foundations?” The final section examined Demographics.An example question from this section was “What is your household income?”

The majority of questions were answered using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Describes me very well” to “Doesn’t describe me well”. The remaining questions used multiple choice options to learn about participant history of charitable giving, as well as to find out the demographics of our participants.

Results

Do shock value advertisements within the category of charity actually work to create empathy and charitable feelings?Nearly half of the survey participants viewed three shock value advertisements before taking the survey, while the remainder did not. Those who did not answer a particular question were eliminated from the results of that question. Higher mean scores indicate higher levels of empathy or charitable action.

The data is very ambiguous; however, it seems to show that the shock value advertisements did not have a significant impact on our participants’ overall level of empathy. In several instances, viewing the ads actually seemed to work against feelings of empathy. For example, an independent-sample t test was conducted to evaluate if viewing the three shock value ads affected whether or not participants described themselves as having “tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.” The test was non-significant, t(79) = -.30, p = .77, although there was a tendency for those who did not view the videos (M = 2.75, SD = 1.09) to describe themselves as having more of such feelings than those who did not view the videos (M = 2.68, SD = 1.12). On the other hand,in another independent-sample t test, the research evaluated if viewing the three shock value ads affected whether or not participants described themselves as being protective of people being taken advantage of. The test was non-significant, t(79) = 1.61, p = .111, although there was a tendency for those who viewed the videos (M = 3.50, SD = .638) to describe themselves as feeling more protective of those who can’t defend themselves than those who did not view the videos (M = 3.21, SD = .840).

In arguably more telling data about the effectiveness of creating action from our participants toward charities, anindependent-sample t test was conducted to evaluate if viewing the three shock value ads affected whether or not participants believed that charities played an important role in society. The test was non-significant, t(79) = .69, p = .50, although there was a tendency for those who viewed the videos (M = 4.11, SD = .956) to answer more enthusiastically about the importance of charities than those who did not view the videos (M = 3.96, SD = .876). However, these results didn’t seem to impact future giving. Another independent-sample t test was conducted to evaluate if viewing the three shock value ads affected whether or not participants expected to contribute more or less than normal in the near future. The test was non-significant, t(72) = -.26, p = .80, although there was a very slight tendency for those who did not view the videos (M = 3.33, SD = .747) to plan on giving more in the near future than those who did view the videos (M = 3.28, SD = .737).

Discussion

While there was little to no significance within the data that was collected, the results from this experiment are nonetheless telling. The reasons why the data showed what it did, however, may be slightly more ambiguous.

It seems that viewing shock value advertisements has little to no effect on consumers at all. Some instances of viewing these particular advertisements may yield slightly more empathy and concern for charity, while other instances seem to yield the opposite. This could very well add merit to the idea that so much shock value advertising in the market today has desensitized consumers to that particular advertising tactic (Williams, 2009). It is possible as well that such strong and disconcerting tactics could be compartmentalized in a different section of a consumer’s emotions than charity, and thus, they may not associate the two with one another, even with the logo of the charity shown at the end of the advertisement, and the overall message of the communication.

This research could be highly invaluable to modern marketers and advertisers within charitable organizations, and perhaps even in different industries. Clearly, these messages are not creating their intended or desired affects of increased levels of empathy, as well as action in the form of charitable giving on the part of the consumer. With that in mind, marketers may need to consider using new tactics in order to increase empathy and ultimately, charitable giving. Further research is needed to discover what tactics would provide marketers with these benefits.

There were, however, a few issues within this experiment. (1) There is no way to tell whether or not participants who were given the videos actually viewed them in their entirety. (2) The survey was completed by substantially more individuals that were not given the videos prior to the survey. (3) Subjectivity comes into play when considering just how shocking the shock value advertisements that were chosen actually are.

References

Anonymous (2008). Analysis: When does ‘hard-hitting’ become a step too far? Precision Marketing, 10.

Chitwood, T. (2010). Red ribbon week: Georgia Meth Project doesn’t beat around bush. Ledger Enquirer. Retrieved August 5, 2012 from

Herships, S. (2009). Do ads with high shock value work? American Public Media. Retrieved on August 5, 2012 from

Kennedy, H. (2009). World Wildlife Fund ‘appalled’ by tasteless 9/11 terror ad. NY Daily News. Retrieved on August 5, 2012 from

Kottasz, R. (2004). How should charitable organisations motivate young professionals to give philanthropically? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(1),9–27.

Williams, E. (2010). Shock tactics. The British Journal of Photography, 157(7780), 82-83.

Williams, M. (2009). Does shock advertising still work? Campaign, 11.

Appendix A

The following statements inquire about your thoughts and feelings in a variety of situations. For each item, indicate how well it describes you by choosing the appropriateresponse on the scale.READ EACH ITEM CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING.When you have decided on your answer, click next to continue. Answer as honestly as you can. Thank you.

1) I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about things that might happen to me.