Excuse me, this doesn't look like the picture on the box

Brands misrepresent, falsify, big up their products all the time. They're advertising to make it look good, you wouldn't buy it otherwise.

Hello? Are you paying attention?

Our attention span these days is so short, its a wonder people can even manage to stay awake in class (but not yours sir, they're always wonderful of course). But its a real problem. We're exposed to thousands to images and ads a day, its a miracle we can even take a second to realize what ad we're looking at. With this much advertising coming our way on a daily basis, is it corrupting our attention span even more? Or is it just not fascinating enough for us to focus on?

Personal experience when it comes to paying attention to anything is my first rule of "tl;dr", which literally means "too long, didn't read." If I see something that needs my attention but has a gigantic block of text on it, I will most likely ignore it. I just don't have the attention span to read through a whole bunch of copy and stay interested after a few lines. I feel like advertising is the same. We see so many ads in a day that we just ignore it was a daily part of day that we take for granted. Its just there, it will always be there and if it was really important enough we'd have paid attention to it. Advertising today is fighting to keep us interested, fighting to keep especially the younger generation, raised on technology and social media, interested. We're online daily and it takes our attention away from mainstream advertising. Brands today have to now use social media sites more than ever to keep our interest and use those sites as a means of advertising. Did you know "social media expert" is now a paying job title? Companies have to pay someone to keep up with social media trends and know-how technicalities so they can keep up with their consumers.

I could literally be getting paid to know how to use facebook effectively right now. Seriously, should I have picked "communications" as a course after all?

With our attention span now as small as 5 minutes, its no wonder that advertising is becoming less and less appreciated. Does that mean they have to increase their advertising and throw more ads our way? I don't think so. I think brands have to become more creative if they want to capture our attention and keep us interested in the product. On the other hand, could it be all the advertising already getting thrown at us thats decreased our attention span to so little? I also don't think thats the case. I think its the growing use of technology and the fact that its now mobile so it goes everywhere with is thats keeping our attention short. We're so interested in the online world that we just don't notice things outside of it anymore. So if brands want to stay relevant, they only have 5 minutes to do so.

Shockvertising

These days its hard for a brand to become recognizable. Most generic ads get lost in the sea of marketing and advertising the average consumer sees today. The solution some brands go for is using shockvertising - an advertising method that uses shocking and sometimes graphic imagery and messages to catch consumer attention. These ads range from a subtle message to full on graphic imagery that may make you want to throw up. The question, do brands need to resort to such methods to establish themselves? Does it work? Or are they just hurting themselves in trying to be household names?

When it works:

Using shockvertising is a great way for activist organizations to get their message across to a large audience. Many organizations ranging from drug abuse to animal abuse or human rights use shocking ads to capture people's attention and bring light to their cause. In their case they force the audience to think about the message, making a lasting impression on them.

Graphic Anti-Whaling Campaign

 



Battered Women Ad

'Humans for Animals' Graphic Anti Sea Clubbing Ad

 

In the case of these ad campaigns, shockvertising works very well. These organizations are trying to invoke an emotional response from the audience by using graphic and thought provoking scenarios. Their way of getting a message across is effective to the point that they may not make their brand recognizable but they are able to create an impression on people's minds about what their organization stand for or against, which si their ultimate goal.

 

When it kind of works:

 

Some brands will use shockvertising to sell a product. Usually that involves nudity (the case of most high fashion ads) or sexual references. Usually shockvertising in these ads aren't as graphic, but more so controversial. These ads try to bring out an emotional response as well, but in most cases its a negative or "oh my god did they actually do that!?" kind of response. And in most cases of high fashion ads its perfectly ok with the brands to be seen as negatively or controversial. They're trying to look edgy and cool and sexy, so these ad campaigns often involve shock material that relates to sex.

 



Terry Richardson Watch Campaign

Tom Ford Eyewear Ads

Belvedere Vodka Ad

 

In these cases they're using sexually explicit material to sell their product. They're associating their brands with sex and fun and being edgy. This is the look they want their brands to represent, and the market they're targetting has an appeal for this, so it works out.

 

When they kind of miss the point. Sometimes completely:

 

Sometimes you see ads that use shockvertising but they completely confuse the audience into going "what am I even looking at? what the f*** is this? are they stupid?". Some brands take a chance with shockvertising and miss their mark completely, sometimes resulting in their brands being put in a negative light. This is when they really should have done some market research and got someone to re-evaluate their ad campaigns.

 

I'm not sure what they're trying to sell but there's insects all over the place and ew.



 

Magazine cover. Just why. How is this relevant to anything? I don't understand!?

Next time when you're trying to sell accesories, try not alienating 50% of your audience by portraying women as shoe racks.

 

Also try not using a reference to AIDS when selling handbags. Not only is it completely irrelevant, its also kinda offensive because thats sensitive subject material.

 

 

So basically, shockvertising to me is an effective advertising medium as long as it is relevant to your brand or company and doesn't effect it negatively (unless you want to be seen as the "controversial" brand). I understand that all publicity is good publicity, but if I see an ad for handbags that says "we're all potential carriers" i'm more likely to assume i'm getting AIDS from your handbags than anything else. Keep it simple, keep it relevant, and make an effective use of this creative advertising category.