‘Shockvertising’ An exploratory investigation into attitudinal variations and

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1430
‘Shockvertising’: An exploratory investigation into attitudinal variations and
emotional reactions to shock advertising
SARA PARRY1*, ROSALIND JONES2, PHILIP STERN3 and MATTHEW ROBINSON4
1
Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG UK
2
School of Management, Glyndwr University, Wrexham, LL11 2AW UK
3
School of Business Economics, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU UK
4
Management Centre, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG UK
ABSTRACT
This study compares the reactions towards shock advertising in for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) organizations. Although the use of
shocking advertisements is a growing phenomenon, the findings regarding the effectiveness of such advertisements remain mixed.
Moreover, there is little consideration of the use of these tactics in different organizational contexts and the effect on the consumer. A qualitative
methodology was adopted and included the use of focus groups to explore the attitudes and emotional reactions of a range of individuals. The
shocking images from both the NFP and FP organizations were deemed successful at capturing the audience’s attention. Some images were
more ‘shocking’ than others, whereas some were more effective at drawing attention to the product or the cause. Importantly, the use of shock
advertising was perceived to be justifiable in the NFP sector but much less so in the FP sector. Reactions were somewhat influenced by both
religion and gender; however, it was apparent that this sample were inherently more accepting of shock advertising than expected. Despite
the apparent immunity of today’s youth to shock tactics, this study found that there are still themes that are considered inappropriate in FP
and NFP sectors; these include the use of religious taboos or morally offensive images. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
This study compares consumer reactions towards shock advertising in the for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) sectors in
the UK and develops knowledge of shock advertising by exploring differences in consumer perception and use of this advertising method in two different types of organizational contexts.
This research area is growing (Prendergast et al., 2002; Fam
and Waller, 2003; Chan et al., 2007; Fam et al., 2008) with some
studies investigating culture differences and geographic regions
in response to shock advertisements (Prendergast et al., 2002;
Prendergast and Huang, 2003). Other studies have explored
the reactions to either a single private sector campaign (Lightfoot
et al., 2006) or a set of public sector announcements (Dahl et al.,
2003) or have sought to measure the effect of a particular appeal
such as sex (Giebelhausen and Novak, 2012). Such research
findings at present remain somewhat inconclusive. This study
seeks to build on previous work in this area by examining the
differences in consumer reaction in respect of FP and NFP sector
advertisements that use shock tactics as their main method of
stimuli. In doing this, the study also takes into account the effects
of gender, religion and nationality of the participants. In particular, there is a paucity of research in the NFP sector concerning
assessment of an individual’s response to a range of shock advertisements. This study therefore makes a useful contribution to
developing theories related to non-profit marketing and causerelated marketing (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988; Polonsky
and Macdonald, 2000).
This paper is structured as follows: first, previous research
on shock advertising in both the FP and NFP sectors is
outlined, then the qualitative research methodology and use
*Correspondence to: Dr. Sara Parry, Bangor Business School, Bangor
University, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG, UK.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
of focus groups is described. From here, the findings are
presented and discussed. Particular attention is paid to
whether any differences are found between reactions to
shock advertisements in the FP and NFP sectors, and any
differences in attitudes among the cultural characteristics of
the participants. Finally recommendations are outlined with
the aim of guiding both sectors in the design and use of
shock advertising in future campaigns. Limitations of the
study are also considered.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Shock advertising is defined as an attempt to ‘surprise an
audience by deliberately violating norms for societal values
and personal ideals. . .to capture the attention of a target audience’ (Dahl et al., 2003 p. 269). Day (1991) observed that
advertising in general is evaluated by norms and becomes
shocking when it breaches those norms. Discussions of
shock advertising include terms such as ‘offensive advertising’ (Chan et al., 2007; Prendergast et al., 2008), ‘sex and
decency issues’ (Boddewyn and Kunz, 1991), ‘taboo in
advertising’ (Sabri and Obermiller, 2012) and ‘advertising
controversial products’ (Fam et al., 2008). However, Chan
et al. (2007) contend that the definition provided by Dahl
et al. (2003) is more comprehensive and consumer oriented.
Shocking imagery is often used in advertising as a stimulus
to invoke fear in audiences, fear being the emotional
response to the advertisement (Hastings et al., 2004). Such
‘fear’ or ‘threat’ appeals are a means of using scare tactics
to encourage attitude and behaviour change for example
stopping smoking or ensuring safer driving (Donovan and
Henley, 1997). Examples of shock advertising can include
the visual display of obscene sexual references, profanity or
Attitudes and reactions to shock advertising
gratuitous violence. Although some products are deemed
more ‘offensive’ than others, research has shown that audience members are more likely to be shocked by offensive
themes than the products or ideas advertised (Beard, 2008).
Shock advertising aims to reach consumers in an increasingly saturated commercial environment (Vezina and Paul,
1997). Indeed, several authors have noted the rise of shock
advertising (Fam and Waller, 2003; Giebelhausen and
Novak, 2012). However, there are contrasting views on
shock advertising, as some view it as a creative technique,
whereas others lambast it as gimmicky and attention grabbing (Van Munching, 1998). Studies so far have identified
shock advertising as a valid strategy to capture attention
(Vezina and Paul, 1997), particularly when introducing a
new product or brand (Sellar, 1999), but may cause negative
attitudes and reduced purchase intention towards the brand
(Sabri and Obermiller, 2012).
THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT SECTOR
West and Sargeant (2004) noted the recent and increasing
propensity for NFP organizations to use shocking advertising. Charitable organizations in the UK such as the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
are increasingly showing shocking advertisements portraying
images of animal cruelty and abused children with the intention of raising awareness about these social issues (West and
Sargeant, 2004). Shock tactics and threat appeals are
frequently used in order to facilitate large-scale changes in
behaviour and attitudes (Sutton, 1992). Even death threats
have been used in social marketing campaigns aimed at risk
behaviours related to disease and injury prevention (Henley
and Donovan, 1999a). Indeed, in a study investigating road
safety advertising, the two best performing advertisements
were highly dramatic showing graphic crash scenes, injuries
and death (Donovan et al., 1999). Shock appeals have been
employed in a variety of public health contexts such as seat
belt safety, sexually transmitted infections, acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (AIDS) awareness and smoking
(Bainbridge, 1996). A study assessing the effects of an
Australian anti-smoking campaign that employed graphic
fear-based messages found that the ‘hard-hitting’ and ‘gory’
campaign made smokers more likely to quit (Hill et al.,
1998; Wakefield et al., 2003). A study by Veer and Rank
(2012) also showed that shocking visual images that portray
the consequences of smoking resulted in heightened levels of
cognitive processing of the message and intentions to quit
smoking. An earlier study by Veer et al. (2008) indicated that
the NHS’s ‘Unhooked’ anti-smoking advertisement led to
more favourable attitudes towards quitting in smokers and
was deemed to be more self-liberating as it showed that by
quitting you would be liberating yourself from the hold that
cigarettes have on your life. This contradicts Janis and
Terwilliger’s (1962) proposed ‘defensive processing’ theory,
which found that high-fear messages were less likely to
change smoker’s attitudes towards smoking than low-fear
messages. Despite evidence of some success in employing
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
113
shock tactics, it is argued that arousing fear may be counterproductive when attempting to persuade people to stop
addictive behaviours such as smoking, drug and alcohol abuse
as it can potentially lead to helplessness and fatalistic thinking
(Henley and Donovan, 1999b). Hastings et al. (2004) criticized
the use of fear appeals in social marketing because of resulting
heightened anxiety among those most at risk and complacency
among those not directly targeted. Therefore, the literature
suggests that threat appeals can be effective provided that the
threat appeal is well targeted and the recommended behaviour
is perceived as efficacious (Beck and Frankel, 1981; Sutton,
1992; Henley and Donovan, 1999b).
Nudity and sexual stimuli have also been increasingly
used in social marketing, targeting a range of diseases from
skin and breast cancer to HIV awareness and sexually
transmitted disease campaigns (Reichert et al., 2001). In a
study investigating the effects of fear-arousing condom
advertisements, the high-fear condom advertisements did
not significantly differ from low-fear advertisements in
effectiveness. However, participants with a high fear of
getting AIDS viewed the advertisements as more effective
(Struckman-Johnson et al., 1990).
THE FOR-PROFIT SECTOR
For-profit organizations are also increasingly employing the
use of shocking imagery in advertising campaigns as a way
of attracting consumer attention by breaking through the
clutter or sometimes as part of a cause-related marketing
program. However, use of shock advertising has backfired
in this sector on several occasions; one example is that of
Benetton, who used shock advertising with the intent ‘not
necessarily to sell a product but to elicit attention for a brand
name in the crowded consumer market’ (Horovitz, 1992
p. 1). The highly controversial Benetton’s United Colors
campaign featured powerful visual images ranging from
slavery, a dying AIDS victim, to an African guerrilla fighter
holding a human leg bone (Ganesan, 2002). In 2003, a print
advertisement featuring a reclining naked Sophie Dahl for
Yves St Laurent received 948 complaints that it was too
sexually suggestive and unsuitable to be seen by children.
As a result, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
removed it from billboards, but it was still allowed to be used
in appropriate magazines (Telegraph, 2012). Despite the
highly contentious and controversial nature of these adverts,
they have also won numerous accolades and awards for
increasing public awareness surrounding these issues, and
yet, they have also fermented large public outrage and have
received numerous complaints (Tinic, 1997). During the
1990s, companies such as Benetton became notorious for
advertisements that carried explicit political and social
messages. These advertising campaigns have been both
praised and criticized (Sandicki, 2011). Meijer (1998) explored
consumer citizenship reactions to shock advertisements and
examined a range of advertisements including the Benetton
campaign. She argues that outdoor shock advertising, because
of its visibility and intrusiveness, ‘stimulates people to think
about themselves in terms of liberal or conservative, masculine
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
114
S. Parry et al.
or feminine, even black and white’ (Meijer, 1998 pp. 246–247).
Since Benetton launched their shock advertising campaign,
there have been copious imitations by other companies, contributing to a notable shift in the nature of communications
(Tinic, 1997). For example, in their 1997 campaign inspired
by pop culture violence and horror movies, Diesel had a
collection of very violent and shocking images such as
mutilated body parts (Andersson et al., 2004).
CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF SHOCK ADVERTISING
IN NOT-FOR-PROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT SECTORS
There is increasing public acknowledgement and acceptance
of shock tactics in advertising as it is an effective way of
attracting attention and can ensure that consumers remember
the message (Dahl et al., 2003). Earlier, Schlossburg (1991)
observed that there may be circumstances where the use of
shock in advertising is appropriate, for instance when
communicating about health or safety issues. Indeed there
is evidence to suggest that shock tactics are more appropriately applied to more immediate outcomes such as drinking
or sexual health adverts, rather than long-term health risks
such as that of smoking (Richard et al., 1998). Tinic (1997)
debated the issue between advocacy and controversy in
advertising messages, and contends that public health
messages are usually advocacy messages as they present a
problem, and offer a possible solution. This contrasts with
the case of Benetton as they communicated social problems
yet provided scant information about solutions or further
sources of information, thus attracting criticism. From the
consumer’s perspective, it is not necessarily the shocking
nature of the advertisements that they find disturbing; it is more
the ambiguous purpose that underpins such images (Tinic,
1997). An interesting difference between the FP and NFP
sectors in relation to shock advertising is that shock appeals
used by NFP organizations could be deemed riskier as most
NFP organizations are funded by monetary donations or taxes
from the public (West and Sargeant, 2004). A report by the
ASA note that they have an unwritten rule that charities are
allowed more leeway than other advertisers when using
shocking imagery because of what they are trying to achieve.
Nevertheless, charities can still cross the line of acceptability.
For example, in 2008, a Barnardo’s advert received 477
complaints (ASA, 2012a). An earlier Barnardo’s campaign
showing a cockroach crawling out of a newborn baby’s mouth
also prompted 330 complaints to the advertising watchdog
(The Guardian, 2003). Despite the growing debate about the
benefits and problems associated with shock advertising, there
is a lack of research comparing the differences in consumer
reactions in FP and NFP organizations. Furthermore, there is
little research investigating socio-demographic influences on
consumer reactions towards shock advertising.
CULTURAL INFLUENCES
Waller et al. (2005) highlighted culture, language, history and,
particularly, religion as factors that are likely to trigger different
responses to shock advertisements. Phau and Prendergast
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
(2001) also identified culture as a crucial factor when measuring
an individual’s perception of shock advertising. This exploratory study therefore investigates the participants’ country of
origin, religion and gender as important elements to consider.
In cross-cultural literature, Fam et al. (2004 p. 537) stated
that ‘differences in religious affiliations tend to influence the
way people live, the choices they make, what they eat and
whom they associate with’. A strong relationship is apparent
between religion and a variety of social factors such as a
greater concern for moral standards and having much more
traditional and conservative attitudes (Barton and Vaughan,
1976; Wilkes et al., 1986). Muslim countries such as Iran
and Saudi Arabia have been labelled as strong resistors of
the ‘invasion of Western advertising, themes and
approaches’ (Boddewyn and Kunz, 1991 p. 14), whereas
countries with a dominant religion such as Catholicism in
Ireland or cultures with authoritarian regimes (such as China)
have been found to hold conservative views (Boddewyn and
Kunz, 1991). Religion has been identified as a strong influencing factor on social behaviour and thus can have an affect
on attitudes towards shock advertisements (Fam et al., 2004;
Waller et al., 2005). White (2000) also identified religion as a
country-specific factor that can contribute to how people perceive and interpret provocative advertisements. Differences
have also been identified between Muslim and Christian
communities when viewing advertising of a sexual nature
(Gibbs et al., 2007). Boddewyn and Kunz (1991 p. 13) found
that Muslim countries were especially disapproving of ‘all
kinds of salacious displays and even indirect sexual references’. There is a lack of research into the ways non-Western
cultures respond to offensive advertising in general (Beard,
2008). A study by Holz (2006) investigated whether shock
advertising campaigns were influenced by culture and
compared German and English reactions to the Benetton
campaigns. The results showed that the English group rated
the shock factor more negatively than the German group,
suggesting that reactions to shock advertisements are influenced by cultural factors.
The media portrayal of women can vary across cultures;
for instance, in certain cultures, women are shown in a family
setting and are shown to be appealing to the opposite sex
(Boddewyn and Kunz, 1991). Studies have shown that
women are more prone to being offended by advertisements
(Barnes and Dotson, 1990), especially when the advertisements include sexual imagery (Pope et al., 2004). However,
there is limited research as to the reasons why they are
offended (Barnes and Dotson, 1990; Waller, 1999). The literature that exists offers conflicting views. There is evidence
suggesting that the use of nudity in advertising can result in
an advertisement being more positively portrayed (Severn
et al., 1990), but again, differences between both genders
have not been fully investigated.
Previous research on shock advertising has focussed on
single campaigns or on a particular sector. Considering the
conflicting findings with regards to the effectiveness of shock
advertisements, and a recent call to contrast the reactions of
cross-cultural consumers to such advertisements (Sandicki,
2011), this study compares consumer reactions towards
shock advertising in the FP and NFP sectors.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Attitudes and reactions to shock advertising
METHODOLOGY
In order to address this research gap, the objectives of the
study are as follows:
• to explore the differences between reactions to shock
advertisements in the FP and NFP sector and
• to explore whether cultural characteristics of the participants
affect attitudes towards shock advertisements.
Use of qualitative data provides rich and holistic descriptions, which have strong potential for revealing the complexities of ordinary events in their natural settings (Miles and
Huberman, 1994). Focus groups are one of the most commonly used methods of gathering qualitative data as they
allow participants to discuss issues using their own words
and provide an in-depth, subjective understanding of consumers (Calder, 1977). Focus groups were therefore deployed
in this study, allowing participants to inspire each other and
develop insightful live discussions of the subject matter
(Coolican, 2004). The nature of this topic required a discursive group interaction to raise thoughts, feelings and topics
of interest that could be further debated and explored. Focus
groups often surface new ideas, explore how individuals
think and why they think that way, in a technique that would
be less easily available in a one-on-one interview (Saunders
et al., 2007). Research using groups of participants is noted
for encouraging interpersonal communication, highlighting
group norms and cultural values (Hughes and Dumont,
1993), an important element of this study. This method has
previously been successfully used in cross-cultural research
and in studies with ethnic minorities (Zimmerman et al.,
1990; Fam and Waller, 2003). This method was therefore
deemed appropriate for exploring diverse cultural opinions.
The sample of participants consisted of international postgraduate students aged between 21 and 35 years, a typical
age group that shock advertisers aim to influence (Vezina
and Paul, 1997). Indeed previous research on shock advertising
have used university students in their samples (Vezina and
Paul, 1997; Dahl et al., 2003; Fam and Waller, 2003). Purposive sampling of students is also deemed superior to random
sampling for establishing equivalence and isolating cultural
differences (Dant and Barnes, 1988 cited by Fam and Waller,
2003). Therefore, a purposive sampling technique was adopted
in order to ensure a mix of gender, ethnic and religious
backgrounds to reflect cultural differences. Participants were
identified as religious (for example, Muslim and Catholic)
and non-religious (see Table 1 for participant details). Accessibility and availability were also reasons for selecting university
students (Fam and Waller, 2003). As sensitive issues were
being discussed, four same sex focus groups were held
(Saunders et al., 2007), with three women in one group, four
women in the second, six men in the third group and six men
in the fourth group. The participants consisted of postgraduate
students from a range of disciplines to ensure that participants
were from a mix of social, ethnic and religious backgrounds.
The study took place in North West Wales, and students were
recruited by general invitation via the university e-mail system
by one researcher who was responsible for controlling the
focus groups. Following extensive internet research, 12 billboard
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
115
Table 1. Demographic of focus group participants
Participant
Gender
Age
(years)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
30
22
22
27
22
25
32
28
27
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
25
29
23
22
23
28
27
22
20
22
Nationality
Religion
Focus
group
British
British
British
Peruvian
Russian
Pakistani
Russian
Pakistani
Saudi
Arabian
Indian
Argentinean
British
British
British
Iranian
Indian
British
British
British
Agnostic
Atheist
Christian
Christian
Agnostic
Muslim
Atheist
Muslim
Muslim
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
4
4
Hindu
Agnostic
Atheist
Agnostic
Agnostic
Agnostic
Atheist
Atheist
Agnostic
Agnostic
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
1
2
2
advertisements were purposefully selected on the basis of
their shocking nature. Concurrence as to the suitability of
the images was reached among the four researchers on the
basis that the images were shocking but diverse (some with
sexual scenes, some with violence, some with profanity,
some deemed as offensive to an ethnic minority or people
with disabilities and some highlighting social/global issues).
The researchers also wanted to achieve an equal balance of
FP and NFP advertisements (six from the NFP sector and
six from the FP sector). Because of the cross-cultural nature
of the sample, some of the advertisements were international, and effort was made to include advertisements that
had received complaints or had been banned in their country
of origin. The participants were informed that the images
were billboard advertisements, which was important as
research has shown billboard advertisements to be perceived
as more intrusive and problematic than other mediums
(ASA, 2003). The images were shown on printed sheets to
all focus groups, in the same order, one at a time. Using
one researcher who carefully controlled the focus groups
ensured continuity and accuracy of data gathering during the
focus group sessions. As students had received a personal invitation from this male postgraduate student, participants had
had the opportunity to volunteer or decline; therefore, those
in the focus groups were comfortable in expressing their
opinions in front of their peer, even when discussing sensitive
topics such as nudity and sexual images. The researcher acting
as the focus group ‘moderator’ summarized what was said and
left unsaid, whilst ensuring topics of significance were raised
within the group, an approach recommended by researchers
(Calder, 1977). Participants were assured of anonymity, and
all focus groups were recorded and fully transcribed verbatim.
Data analysis
The transcripts were read, coded and analysed by all the
researchers so as to evaluate the emotional reactions towards
each shocking image and to evaluate the differences between
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
116
S. Parry et al.
reactions in terms of sector and culture. Areas where there
appeared to be either consensus or divergence of reaction
and opinion allowed for comparisons and convergence of
ideas to surface (Guba, 1978). The data analysis procedure focussed on the interaction between participants as well as tried
to distinguish individual opinions that were expressed despite
the group consensus. Therefore, the researchers allowed for
ideas, themes and concepts to emerge, rather than used a prior
coding system (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). This open coding
approach was particularly insightful in achieving deep meaning and understanding of the participant’s reaction to the
shocking images. The study objectives along with re-readings
of the extant literature informed the coding process. Reviewing
of the transcripts therefore involved attaching labels to
‘chunks’ of data to enable an objective analysis procedure
(Carson et al., 2001). In this case, each advertisement was analysed separately to evaluate the degree of shock, the differences between the FP and NFP sectors were examined and
then cultural characteristics such as religion, gender and nationality were analysed. Words and paraphrases were then chosen to illustrate each theme. Data were coded and re-coded by
three researchers with experience in qualitative data analysis.
FINDINGS: REACTIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS
SHOCK ADVERTISEMENTS
The findings are presented and discussed below under the central issues explored in this study: the differences in reactions
towards NFP and FP advertisements, and cultural influences,
which focus specifically on gender, religion and nationality.
Quotes were extracted to illustrate both the interaction within
the focus groups and individual participant viewpoints. All
advertisements are described in the Appendix.
Differences in reactions towards NFP and
FP advertisements
There was a clear difference in participants’ reactions to
images in both the NFP and FP sectors. In fact, participants
perceived shocking images to be more justifiable in the
NFP sector if they were considered likely to influence a
positive change in behaviour. This evidence lends weight
to the findings of Dahl et al. (2003) who found that such tactics have a proven track record in raising awareness:
Anti-verbal abuse (NFP)
the message is so clear, so spot on so y’know it’s yeah
shocking but it’s much better than any words, this picture
shows it for what it is. (Participant E)
many participants asserted that a message from an NFP
source needed to be unambiguous:
The problem with this is that it doesn’t show the negative
effects of smoking’. (Participant A)I agree. . .you couldn’t just
look at that picture and go, oh yes that’s smoking, I’ll stop
smoking now. (Participant Q)(Dialogue from Focus Group 1)
That image does not make me want to not smoke. . .the
kind of advert that shows you pictures of lungs is more
effective for actual smokers. (Participant N)
These findings contradict a previous study that found that
this specific campaign led to more favourable attitudes
towards quitting in smokers (Veer et al., 2008), but participant
N still supports the use of graphic images in anti-smoking
campaigns (Hill et al., 1998; Wakefield et al., 2003).
There was further support for the use of shocking images
in the NFP sector as participant N noted that ‘this type of
advertising stimulates debate’ and participant S stressed that
‘you kind of need hard hitting images to show what’s
actually going on’, which emphasizes that the use of shock
advertising to highlight social issues is important to create
awareness and start moulding people’s attitudes and behaviours. However, none of the participants felt that attacking
religious taboos could be justified in either the NFP or FP
sectors because of the risk of mass offense. For example,
participant L said ‘you’d be stepping on too many egg shells
if they used an offensive religious advert, they need to steer
clear of that’. This indicates that care must be taken when
considering religious themes in shock advertising and to be
careful not to offend particular religious groups.
Hamlet (FP)
Interestingly, some of the advertisements from the FP sector
were not perceived as shocking:
that’s offensive. . .but it still makes me laugh (pause) I feel bad
for doing it. . . I don’t find it that shocking. (Participant C)
It’s not shocking, it’s funny in a way. (Participant K)
(Dialogue from Focus Group 3)
Here, participant C asserts that the image is offensive as it
ridicules short people, but the image generally elicited
humorous reactions in the focus groups as opposed to shock.
This could be because the actors used in the billboard appeared
to be happy and the slogan used is ‘Spread a little happiness’.
Participants clearly viewed the ridicule of short people as being
less offensive than other prejudicial attitudes such as racism.
Participant E illustrates the power of using a shocking
visual image as opposed to words, supporting Veer and
Rank’s study (2012), which found that shocking images
increase levels of cognitive processing.
TV Channel (FP)
you’d see that in a film and not be offended by it.
(Participant C)We are used to seeing this kind of stuff,
so it’s not that, its not that shocking (Participant F).
(Dialogue from Focus Group 3)
Anti-smoking (NFP)
Most of the participants believed that the use of shock by
NFP organizations was an effective way of highlighting
important social issues. However, as noted by Tinic (1997),
Participants were not shocked by this violent image,
which seems to support Scheidlower’s (1999) view that in
today’s society, consumers become more used to controversial images and thus advertisers have to go to greater lengths
to create shock value.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Attitudes and reactions to shock advertising
American Apparel (FP)
The reactions towards the use of sexual imagery in the FP
sector were mixed. Some participants found the American
Apparel advertisement acceptable whereas others were
shocked by the image:
they definitely can justify the use of sexual references
because sex sells and everybody knows that. (Participant E)
disgusting. . .and that’s for profit? (Participant L)
I think done in the right way it could be done for profit.
(Participant N)
(Dialogue from Focus Group 4)
Participants E and N were not shocked by this image and
felt that sexual references and nudity were justified in the FP
sector. Conversely, participant L was disgusted, and participant G was most shocked by this image and exclaimed
‘my god where did you find this?. . . I suppose it might make
people uncomfortable. . .’. Both participants who were most
shocked were atheists. This differs with research findings that
found that people with traditional and conservative views are
more disapproving of sexual advertising conservative views
(Boddewyn and Kunz, 1991). Despite the mixed findings with
regards to effectiveness of sexual appeals or references to sex
in advertising, there is general agreement that it can capture attention (Dahl et al., 2003). However, participant H warned that
FP companies may be too preoccupied with seeking new ways
to shock audiences to capture their attention and may become
‘in danger of concentrating too much on producing shocking
adverts that they might forget about their products, their target
audience and the affect it has on their company image’. This
argument also applies to the TV billboard advert, for which
no participant was able to identify the correct organization.
Benetton (FP)
I wouldn’t expect that to be a clothes company because
you don’t actually see any clothes. Probably unconsciously it could change my behaviour. (Participant K)
There were mixed reactions towards the shocking nature
of this image, but it did elicit debate. Participant K did not
know that the advert is from a clothes company, but admits
that it is an effective way of creating awareness about social
issues and tapping into the social conscience. However,
participant Q highlighted the importance of a link to further
information saying: ‘it shocks me and makes me want to look
at it but. . .I don’t know what it’s on about’. Despite claiming
to use such images to highlight global social ills, the only
logo on this advertisement was that of Benetton themselves,
illustrating the differences between FP and NFP sectors. This
suggests that even an FP company can successfully influence
behaviour and draw attention to a global cause.
VLCC Face Wash (FP)
I don’t like that, that’s too freaky for my liking. . .that’s
not gonna generate a profit is it? (Participant S)
that’s so unethical. (Participant J)You cannot buy that
product when you are going to see that. (Participant F)
(Dialogue from Focus Group 3)
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
117
The advertisement that provoked the strongest emotional
reaction was from an FP company. When the participants
realized that this image was advertising a face wash, they were
incredulous. This is an instance where an FP organization’s use
of shock advertising causes a negative and potentially
damaging reaction. Most participants exclaimed that they
would not purchase this product or brand as it was deemed
too offensive and unethical. All participants agreed that this
company’s advertising campaign had failed. This is an instance
whereby consumers are so offended and shocked by certain
adverts that they have applied pressure to advertisers to change
the adverts and have even boycotted the company’s products
(Tilles, 1998).
Barnardos (NFP)
In contrast, another shocking image of a baby from the NFP
sector was shown and also stimulated emotional reactions. It
was described by words such as ‘sick’, ‘horrible’ and ‘disgusting’. Participant C stated ‘urgh, that’s shocking, that’s definitely
shocking. . .the abuse of children, that’s horrible. A disgusting
image. Morally offensive’. However, when participants realized
that it was an image from a charity, they became less critical.
Participant N actually applauded the advertisement as it does
not directly ask for money:
it appeals to your morals. . . if you logically think it through
and come to a conclusion yourself that it’s a bad thing, then
you should give money morally. (Participant N)
This reaction reinforces why shock tactics and guilt
appeals are frequently used by NFP organizations in order
to facilitate large-scale changes in attitudes (Sutton, 1992).
Hell (New Zealand pizza chain) (FP)
I would go to that pizza parlour. . .the cheek of it is pretty
funny. . .I’d want to know more about it. (Participant M)
I was quite disappointed really when I found out that it was
for a pizza parlour, I expected something else. (Participant N)
(Dialogue from Focus Group 4)
None of the participants knew what product was being advertised in this image although it was successful in sparking
debate and interest. When the participants discovered that the
advertisement was in fact a New Zealand Pizza restaurant,
their reactions were quite damning. Participant Q said:
‘You wouldn’t want to go there would you?’ However, most
participants wanted to know more about it. This advert is
clearly effective at gaining attention, which is a fundamental
part of the aim of shock advertising (Waller, 1999; Dahl
et al., 2003). This advert may provoke outrage and offence,
but its use as a tool for capturing attention and standing out
in the public consciousness is unquestionable.
Overall, the use of shock advertising was perceived to be
more justifiable in the NFP sector but much less so in the FP
sector, which differs to West and Sargeant’s (2004) study,
who deemed shock advertising in the NFP sector as ‘risky’.
One reason for this variation is that consumers perceive that
NFP companies are looking after the consumers’ well being
and thus are justified for using such extreme methods.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
118
S. Parry et al.
Charities using shock tactics should still maintain an air of
caution as they could still possibly offend the public, which
could have the adverse effect of alienating its donors and
indeed could even serve in undermining the charity itself
through public complaints (Downer, 2002). However, this
study suggests that some element of leeway is afforded to
the NFP sector as they are justified ‘on the grounds that such
tactics are needed to overcome public apathy to good causes’
and have a proven track record in raising awareness of the
charity itself and of the promoted cause (Gray, 2002 p. 10).
Cultural influences
Some participants of varying cultural backgrounds reacted
differently towards the advertisements. For example, the
following advertisements provoked different reactions from
participants of varying cultures:
Anti-dowry (NFP)
it doesn’t quite relate to us, its not about something we
have a problem with, so I don’t know how emotional we
can get about this thing. (Participant E)
it’s thought provoking (and) it could stimulate a bit of
debate. (Participant B)
Participant E was Russian and did not understand the
message. She found it difficult to have an emotive reaction,
whereas participant B (British) recognized the advert, which
is from a women’s organization against dowry. (In India,
dowry is the amount a bride’s parents have to pay the
groom’s family.)
The advertisements with sexual references were deemed
more inappropriate by some participants with religious
beliefs than their non-religious counterparts. This suggests
that consumers with a strong religious presence may not
condone the public display of such images (Wilkes et al.,
1986; Boddewyn and Kunz, 1991). Participant H, a Muslim
from Pakistan, illustrates this:
when you’re advertising your product in other countries
you should take care about their religion. For example
you are using some symbols that are not good in a certain
religion so then the people could react more, so you
should be more careful about people’s religions. Mostly
in the Islamic world, people take religion more seriously,
it’s a bigger thing.
However, on the whole, participant views of the images did
not differ greatly, supporting the findings of McQuiston (1993)
who highlighted the changing social attitudes and generational
differences that are prevalent in today’s globalized society. For
example, the advertisements below provoked similar powerful
responses from most of the participants.
Anti-terrorism (NFP)
oh god, this is just too much. (Participant E)
Participant E reacted emotionally to this image, whereas
participant I, a Muslim, rationally questioned the effectiveness of the advertisement saying ‘I don’t think it’s a very
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
good way to put it. . .It’s just a bus, even for someone who
will kill for his faith, even if he sees that advert he will not
reconsider it because he’ll probably see blood everyday’.
Here, participant I is not convinced by the effectiveness of
this advert as he feels that someone who is prepared to kill
for his religion would not be dissuaded by this image.
AIDS (NFP)
urgh!!! it’s disgusting! It’s shocking! (Participant O)
Yeah but I think given the right time and place that is
quite a powerful. . . in the toilets of a pub perhaps or a
men’s club. (Participant C)
(Dialogue from Focus Group 3)
Participant O, an agnostic from Iran, was disgusted and
very shocked by this image suggesting that nationality and
religion can have an impact on participants’ reactions to
sexual images in advertising. However, participant C, a British
Christian, was not as shocked and made an important point that
care should be taken to ensure that shock advertisements are
viewed only by the intended target audience. This echoes the
example of Sophie Dahl’s sexually suggestive billboard for
Yves St Laurent, which received hundreds of complaints but
was still allowed to be printed in relevant women’s magazines
(Telegraph, 2012).
This study found some variations between men and
women in attitudes or reactions towards the advertisements.
For instance, some female participants seemed more shocked
by the ‘anti-verbal abuse’ image and seemed to more easily
link the advertisement to the topic of verbal abuse than the
male participants, supporting the findings by Pope et al.
(2004 p. 72), which states that women are better than men
at identifying the advertiser’s motives and are able to ‘attach
greater meaning to the images’. However, further quantitative research is needed to explicate this potential relationship.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This research has explored the use of shock advertising in
NFPs and FPs from a cultural perspective. Assessment of this
aspect of advertising is important as early indications are that
societal responses to advertising appear to deaden over time,
making customers less responsive and more accepting of
social taboos. In particular, this research adds value to the
literature on shock advertising by generating new insights
into the use of shock advertising and consumer acceptance
and resistance to FP and NFP imagery in advertising campaigns. It also addresses the paucity of research in the NFP
advertising literature by assessing individuals’ emotional
and attitudinal responses to a range of shock advertisements.
This research also responds to calls to compare and contrast
the reactions of cross-cultural consumers to such advertisements (Sandicki, 2011).
In this study, consumer reactions were shown to be somewhat influenced by both religion and gender; however, it was
apparent that this group of student participants were inherently
more accepting of shock advertising than expected. This evidence supports the findings of Zinkhan and Watson (1996)
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Attitudes and reactions to shock advertising
who described advertising as being reflective of the changes
seen in society yet also being accountable for the breaking
down of cultural barriers and influencing social norms.
The reactions of the focus group participants were much
more favourable towards NFP advertisements, providing that
the issues were made clear and relevant to the audience while
the strongest negative reaction was caused by an FP advertisement, highlighting the high-risk strategy of using such
tactics in a commercial context.
Despite the apparent immunity of today’s youth to shock
tactics, this study found that there are still themes that are considered inappropriate in FP and NFP sectors. These include the
use of religious taboos or morally offensive images, considered
in this study to be the use of dead babies in advertisements. The
evidence reported here suggests that marketers responsible for
the planning and organizing of shock advertising campaigns
may have to think more responsibly about the way in which
they stimulate response and the way in which they make use
of advertising material. In general, the shocking images presented in this study were effective in capturing the audience’s
attention, supporting previous findings. Some images were
considered more ‘shocking’ than others, whereas some were
more effective at drawing attention to the product or the cause.
This study contributes to the understanding of persuasion as it
explores attitudes and emotional reactions to extreme marketing
communications. Advertising often attempts to challenge attitudes; therefore, it is useful to identify the extent to which drastic
images are effective in influencing attitudes and persuading
audiences. This study shows that shocking advertising is
certainly effective at attracting attention; however, its power of
persuasion is dependant on the sector as well as the cultural
characteristics of the consumer. Thus, if executed correctly,
shock advertising can successfully challenge consumer attitudes.
119
The ASA celebrate their 50th birthday this year. They
have published the top 10 most offensive advertisements of
all time, which contain advertisements from both the FP
and NFP sectors (ASA, 2012b), making this a timely study
for exploring the boundaries for NFPs and FPs. Although
this is a small study, it has generated some thoughtprovoking findings from the use of focus groups. The
limitations of this study include the lack of generalizability
of the findings because of the sample size. Hence, future
research recommendations include quantitative research and
larger samples of participants. The authors assert that use of
focus groups has, in this case, facilitated generation of
greater, in-depth viewpoints and was the most appropriate
method for gathering valuable insights on a contentious
topic. More specific research could be conducted within a
single FP or NFP sector or product category, for example,
the use of shock appeals in children’s charities. As globalization of markets increases, it would be interesting to explore
the continued effect on consumers and to measure the impact
of frequent exposure to such stimuli. As the participants in
these focus groups were all university educated, it would be
also interesting to explore whether education has an impact
on perceptions as the research on this topic so far remains
inconclusive (Prendergast and Huang, 2003). As this study
focused on billboard advertisements, further investigation
of shock advertising in other types of media such as radio
and TV would also provide additional insights as to which
medium provokes the strongest reaction. Lastly, further
quantitative research is needed to further explore the potential relationships between the advertisements and gender
and religion, and to fully determine whether the reactions
to the advertisements are based on individual factors,
environmental factors or the advertisements themselves.
APPENDIX
DESCRIPTIONS OF ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertisement
Anti-verbal abuse
(NFP)
Anti-smoking (NFP)
Hamlet (FP)
TV Channel (FP)
American Apparel
(FP)
Benetton (FP)
VLCC Face
Wash (FP)
Barnardos (NFP)
Hell (New Zealand
pizza chain) (FP)
Description
The advert is showing a man opening
his mouth ‘shouting’ at his girlfriend or wife
with a fist coming out of his mouth. The slogan
is ‘Verbal abuse can be just as horrible’
This ‘Get unhooked’ campaign by the NHS
showed people with fish hooks through their mouths
to illustrate being ‘hooked’ on cigarettes
This ‘Spread a little happiness’ campaign shows
short people smoking cigars in men’s urinals
This advert shows a dead, bloody man lying
on a bed stabbed with a set of knives
This advert has three images of a sexually
suggestive naked girl
This advert shows a young soldier holding a
human thighbone behind his back
This advert shows the face of a dead
baby buried in rubble
This advert shows a newborn baby with a cockroach
crawling out of his mouth
This advert shows Hitler saluting with a
pizza in his hand, next to the quote, ‘It is possible
to make people believe that heaven is hell’
Link
http://osocio.org/message/
verbal_abuse_can_be_just_as_horrific/
http://blog.solopress.com/design-guide/
design-insight-the-most-shocking-antismoking-posters-ever-made/
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/hamlet_urinal
http://www.hookedonads.com/
shocking-ads-for-tv-channel-13th-street-calle-13/
http://elsija.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/ivory-coastbouake-picture-taken-06.html
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/urban-poverty?
before=1302692315
http://www.adpunch.org/new-zealandpizza-chain-withdraws-hitler-billboard.html
(Continues)
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
120
S. Parry et al.
(Continued)
Advertisement
Anti-dowry (NFP)
Anti-terrorism (NFP)
AIDS (NFP)
Description
Link
This advert simply shows the text ‘Say no
to D**wry you fucking prick’ on a purple background
This advert shows a van covered in a bloody
message saying ‘If dying for your faith makes
you a martyr, then what does it make those
whom you killed for your faith?’
This advert shows a man and a woman
having sex with large insects
http://www.cuttingthechai.com/2007/12/208/
shock-value-advertising/
http://lorenasepiphany.com/2009/07/17/
wheres-the-dignity-in-martyrdom/
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Dr. Sara Parry is a Lecturer in Marketing at Bangor Business
School, Bangor University. She completed her PhD in 2008, which
focussed on SME marketing and the marketing of technologies. Her
current research interests are consumer perceptions and attitudes of
marketing communications and ageism as a social marketing issue.
Dr. Rosalind Jones is a Lecturer in Marketing at Glyndwr University.
Her research interests specifically include research of technology and
tourism industries, entrepreneurial marketing and SME marketing.
She is a Chartered Marketer, SME Ambassador for the Chartered
Institute of Marketing in North Wales and co-chair of the Academy
of Marketing Special Interest Group in Small Business & Entrepreneurial Marketing.
Philip Stern is Professor of Marketing at the School of Business and
Economics, Loughborough University, and Visiting Professor at the
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia. He has published over 100 papers and is also co-author of Marketing Management
and Strategy, a leading text in the area. He has also managed and contributed to a range of executive courses for companies including TNT,
Barclay’s, Diaggeo, Unilever, Carlsberg-Tetley, HSBC and SevernTrent. Philip is an active consultant, and clients have included Bristol
Myers Squibb, GfK, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Lilly Industries,
Napp Pharmaceuticals, Organon, Procter and Gamble, Midlands Electricity, IMS, Premier Farnell and the National Audit Office.
Matthew Robinson is currently working as a Skills and Enterprise
Officer at Bangor University in the Research & Innovation Department. His activities mainly focus on providing services to businesses
in the form of developing workshops and CPD courses with the aim
of up-skilling their workforces. Prior to this, Matthew worked in the
Communications Department for a South-Yorkshire-based Internet
service provider focusing on client relations and delivering national
marketing campaigns. Matthew graduated from Bangor Business
School with a distinction in his MA Business and Marketing in 2009.
REFERENCES
Advertising Standards Authority. 2012a. ASA digs deep and talks
about charity ads. Available at http://www.asa.org.uk/ResourceCentre/Hot-Topics/Charity-ads.aspx (accessed on 21 June 2012).
Advertising Standards Authority. 2012b. Celebrating 50 years:
Legal, honest, decent and truthful. Available at http://www.asa.
org.uk/About-ASA/~/media/Files/ASA/Annual%20reports/AR
%20ONLINE_FINAL280512.ashx (accessed on 21 June 2012).
Advertising Standards Authority. 2003. Serious offence in nonbroadcast advertising. Available at http://www.asa.org.uk/ResourceCentre/~/media/Files/ASA/Reports/ASA_Serious_Office_in_NonBroadcast_Advertising_July_2002.ashx (accessed on 22 June 2012).
Andersson S, Hedelin A, Nilsson A, Welander C. 2004. Violent
advertising in fashion marketing. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management 8(1): 96–112.
Bainbridge A. 1996. Offensive ads at all-time high warns the ASA. Marketing. Available at http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
52089/WEEK--lsquoOffensive-rsqou-ads-all-time-high-warnsASA/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH [accessed on December 1 2011].
Barnes JH Jr, Dotson MJ. 1990. An exploratory investigation into
the nature of offensive television advertising. Journal of Advertising 19(3): 61–69.
Barton K, Vaughan G. 1976. Church membership and personality.
Social Behaviour and Personality 4(1): 11–16.
Beard FK. 2008. How products and advertising offend consumers.
Journal of Advertising Research 48(1): 13–21.
Beck KH, Frankel A. 1981. A conceptualization of threat communication and protective health behaviour. Social Psychology
Quarterly 44: 204–217.
Boddewyn JJ, Kunz, H. 1991. Sex and decency issues in advertising: general and international dimensions. Business Horizons
34(5): 13–22.
Calder B. 1977. Focus groups and the nature of qualitative market research. Journal of Marketing Research 16(August):
353–364.
Carson D, Gilmore A, Perry C, Gronhaug K. 2001. Qualitative
Marketing Research. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Chan K, Li L, Diehl, S, Terlutter R. 2007. Consumers’ response to
offensive advertising: a cross cultural study. International
Marketing Review 24(5): 606–628.
Coolican H. 2004. Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology.
Hodder Arnold: UK.
Dahl DW, Frankenberger KD, 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.
Day LA. 1991. Ethics in Media Communications. Wadsworth:
Belmont, CA.
Denzin N, Lincoln Y. 1998. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative
Materials. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Donovan R, Henley, N. 1997. Negative outcomes, threats and threat
appeals: widening the conceptual framework for the study of
fear and other emotions in social marketing communications.
Social Marketing Quarterly 4(1): 56–67.
Donovan RJ, Jalleh G, Henley N. 1999. Executing road safety
advertising: are big production budgets necessary? Accident
Analysis and Prevention 31: 243–252.
Downer K. 2002. WWF ads come under attack. Third Sector May 29: 1.
Fam KS, Waller, DS. 2003. Advertising controversial products in
the Asia Pacific: what makes them offensive? Journal of
Business Ethics 48(3): 237–250.
Fam KS, Waller DS, Erdogan BZ. 2004. The influence of religion
on attitudes towards the advertising of controversial products.
European Journal of Marketing 38(5/6): 537–55.
Fam KS, Waller DS, Ong FS, Yang Z. 2008. Controversial product
advertising in China: perceptions of three generational cohorts.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 7: 461–469.
Ganesan S. 2002. Benetton group: Unconventional advertising.
Global CEO (November): 53–59.
Gibbs P, Ilkan M, Pouloukas S. 2007. The ethics of marketing in
Muslim and Christian communities: insights for global
marketing. Equal Opportunities International 26(7): 678–692.
Giebelhausen M, Novak TP. 2012. Web advertising: sexual content
on eBay. Journal of Business Research 65(6): 840–842.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Attitudes and reactions to shock advertising
Gray R. 2002. Has the shock tactic ad started to lose impact? Third
Sector June 26: 10.
Guba E. 1978. Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in
Educational Evaluation. Center for the Study of Evaluation:
University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Hastings G, Stead M, Webb J. 2004. Fear appeals in social marketing: strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology and
Marketing 21(11): 961–986.
Henley N, Donovan RJ. 1999a. Threat appeals in social marketing:
death as a ‘special case’. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing 4(4): 300–319.
Henley N, Donovan R. 1999b. Unintended consequences of
arousing fear in social marketing. Proceedings of the Australia
and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Sydney.
Hill D, Chapman S, Donovan R. 1998. The return of scare tactics.
Tobacco Control 7: 5–8.
Holz K. 2006. United Colours—United Opinions—United Cultures:
Are Consumer Responses to Shock Advertising Affected by
Culture?—A Case Study on Benetton Campaigns under Oliviero
Toscani examining German and English Responses. Grin: Germany.
Horovitz B. 1992. Shock ads: new rage that spawns rage.
Los Angeles Times [accessed on March 22nd 2011].
Hughes D, Dumont K. 1993. Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research. American Journal of Community
Psychology 21(4): 775–806.
Janis IL, Terwilliger R. 1962. An experimental study of psychological resistance to fear-arousing communications. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 65: 403–410.
Lightfoot G, Lilley S, Kavanagh D. 2006. The end of the shock of
the new (shock marketing). Creativity and Innovation Management (UK) 15(2): 157–163.
Meijer IC. 1998. Advertising citizenship: an essay on the performative
power of consumer culture. Media Culture & Society 20: 235–249.
McQuiston L. 1993. Graphic Agitation: Social and Political
Graphics since the Sixties. Phaidon: London.
Miles MA, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd
ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pope L, Nigel K, Voges KE, Brown MR. 2004. The effect of
provocation in the form of mild erotica on attitude to the ad
and corporate image. Journal of Advertising 33(1): 69–82.
Polonsky MJ, MacDonald EK. 2000. Exploring the link between
cause related marketing and brand building. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary sector Marketing 5: 46–57.
Phau I, Prendergast G. 2001. Offensive advertising: a view from
Singapore. Journal of Promotion Management 7(1): 71–89.
Prendergast G, Cheung W-L, West D. 2008. How far is too far? The
antecedents of offensive advertising in modern China. Journal of
Advertising Research 48(4): 484–495.
Prendergast G, Ho B, Phau I. 2002. A Hong Kong view of offensive
advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications 8: 165–177.
Prendergast G, Huang CH. 2003. An Asian perspective of offensive
advertising on the web. International Journal of Advertising
22(3): 393–412.
Reichert T, Heckler SE, Jackson S. 2001. The effects of sexual
social marketing appeals on cognitive processing and persuasion. Journal of Advertising 30(1): 13–27.
Richard R, de Vries H, van der Pligt J. 1998. Anticipatory regret
and precautionary sexual behaviour. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 28: 1411–1428.
Sabri O, Obermiller C. 2012. Consumer perception of taboo in ads.
Journal of Business Research 65(6): 869–873.
Sandicki O. 2011. Shock tactics in advertising and implications for
citizen-consumer. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science 1(18): 42–50.
Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. 2007. Research Methods for
Business Students. 4th ed. Prentice Hall: Essex.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
121
Scheidlower J. 1999. The F-Word. 2nd ed. Faber & Faber: London.
Schlossberg H. 1991. AIDS-prevention ads spark battle over what’s
proper. Marketing News April 29.
Sellar S. 1999. Pop goes the gerbil. Sales and Marketing Management. 151(5): 15.
Severn J, Belch GE, Belch MA. 1990. The use of sexual and nonsexual advertising appeals and information level on cognitive
processing and communication effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 19(1): 14–22.
Struckman-Johnson CJ, Gilliland RC, Struckman-Johnson DL,
North TC. 1990. The effects of fear of AIDS and gender on
responses to fear-arousing condom advertising. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 20(17): 1396–1410.
Sutton S. 1992. Shock tactics and the myth of the inverted U. British
Journal of Addiction 87: 517–519.
Telegraph. 2012. YSL Opium advert is eighth most complained
about. Available at http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/
TMG9299894/YSL-Opium-advert-is-eighth-most-complainedabout.html (accessed on 21 June 2012).
The Guardian. 2003. Barnardo’s shock ads spark 330 complaints.
Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/nov/24/
advertising2 (accessed on 21 June 2012).
Tilles D. 1998. DDB France pulls religious VW ads. Adweek
39(7): 5.
Tinic SA. 1997. United Colors and untied meanings: Benetton and
the commodification of social issues. Journal of Communication
47(3): 3–25.
Van Munching P. 1998. The Devil’s adman. Brandweek August
24.
Varadarajan PR, Menon A. 1988. Cause related marketing: a coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy.
Journal of Marketing 52: 58–67.
Veer E, Rank T. 2012. Warning! The following packet contains
shocking images: the impact of mortality salience on the
effectiveness of graphic cigarette warning labels. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 11(3): 179–272.
Veer E, Tutty M, Willemse J. 2008. It’s time to quit: using advertising to encourage smoking cessation. Journal of Strategic
Marketing 16(4): 315–325.
Vezina R, Paul O. 1997. Provocation in advertising: a conceptualization and an empirical assessment. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 14: 177–192.
Wakefield M, Freeman J, Donovan R. 2003. Recall and response of
smokers and recent quitters to the Australian National Tobacco
Campaign. Tobacco Control 12: 15–22.
Waller DS. 1999. Attitudes towards offensive advertising: an
Australian study. Journal of Consumer Marketing 16(3):
288–294.
Waller DS, Fam KS, Erdogan BZ. 2005. Advertising of controversial products: a cross-cultural study. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 22(1): 6–13.
West DC, Sargeant A. 2004. Taking risks with advertising: the case
of the not-for-profit sector. Journal of Marketing Management
20(9/10): 1027–1045.
White R. 2000. Advertising. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company: London.
Wilkes R, Burnett J, Howell R. 1986. On the meaning and measurement of religiosity in consumer research. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 14(1): 47–56.
Zimmerman M, Haffey J, Crane E, Szumowski D, Alvarez F,
Bhiromrut P. 1990. Assessing the acceptability of norplant
implants in four countries: findings from focus group research.
Studies in Family Planning 21: 92–103.
Zinkhan GM, Watson RT. 1996. Advertising trends: innovation and
the process of creative destruction. Journal of Business Research
37(3): 163–171.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 112–121 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Copyright of Journal of Consumer Behaviour is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.