In a context of the war for attention, ever more fierce with the multiplication of screens, the temptation to shock in order to make an impact exists. This is particularly the case in advertising. Is this strategy still the right one? What results can we expect?
We all remember shocking advertisements featuring a child victim of hunger and war or a polar bear on a tiny raft of ice… Advertisers regularly use images that provoke difficult emotions in us or that go to the go against social norms in order to get our attention, a phenomenon called shockvertising.
Dettol, for example, imagined a campaign for its hygiene products in which we saw a bloody hand in the foreground, and in the background a human corpse with a dagger stuck in its chest and this logo: “When a simple soap does not not enough.” Advertisers intentionally arouse strong, unusual emotions, such as disgust, in order to capture attention. Yet the combination of a provocative image and a brand goes against all expectations in advertising. The goal is often to attract attention and find a place in the advertising jungle.
Until today, research into this phenomenon has mainly focused on the question of the effectiveness or otherwise of this strategy. In an advertising landscape where attention has become a major issue, the use of shock acts a bit like an override switch to force consumers to pay attention to a campaign. This prospect may seem tempting at first glance. However, the reality could well be quite different.
The different aspects of disgust
Work with Elena Fumagalli sought to determine not only the impact of shockvertising, but also how different types of strong, shocking images affect those who view them. Is the audience’s emotional response different if the image is morally revolting rather than frightening or physically repugnant? And to what extent is the person concerned aware of this reaction? There is currently a disconnect between how we understand the nature of disgust and how marketers view it.
In psychology, disgust is considered a complex and varied phenomenon, while marketing professionals generally do not perceive its various facets. In psychology, it is customary to distinguish different kinds of disgust, each triggering a different behavioral, physiological and psychological reaction. Disgust can be physical – as is the case with spoiled food or bodily fluids – or moral, for example, when we feel outraged because of a racist or violent act. Some researchers have shown that there is a link with the feeling of threat in relation to different dimensions of our security, whether social, moral or bodily.
According to our research, ideas that threaten the self-concept can unconsciously influence buyer behavior. In fact, our perception of ourselves remains quite stable over time, and we tend to want to protect the factors that help maintain this image, such as control, self-esteem and a sense of belonging. So when something shakes up our stability, we take measures to regain our psychological balance.
Consumption versus disgust
The idea is that when we feel that a certain aspect of ourselves is shaken, we try to regain a grounded position. Let’s imagine a person who had a bad day at work, so that it undermines their social or power status. To feel better, for example, she can buy or wear items that symbolize this status or power, such as luxury products. This behavior temporarily reinforces one’s self-perception, even if the person is not fully aware of it. It seems that this mechanism for regulating our perception of ourselves comes into play when a repugnant or disturbing image enters our mind. A person experiencing physical disgust sees that their sense of control and power is threatened.
Read more: Mass distribution: are consumers sensitive to comparative advertising?
Based on previous research, it was predicted that morally unpleasant stimuli would lead to a state of rupture with collective moral norms and a reduction in the feeling of belonging and, consequently, behavior likely to reestablish belonging. and social connection, for example a donation to a charity or helping someone. Physically unpleasant stimuli were expected to threaten the feeling of control and power, and lead to compensatory purchasing behavior in order to regain a feeling of power.
Differentiated effects on the ego
Eight experiments confirmed these predictions. Compared to a control group (neutral stimuli), participants exposed to the moral disgust stimuli were more likely to donate to charity or help someone in a subsequent study. As for the panel subjected to physical disgust stimuli, they tended to prefer more imposing brand logos and other signs of conspicuous consumption.
Thus, a disgusting image makes us sad without knowing how to precisely identify the cause of this gloom. However, through these experiences we can determine which aspects of the self feel threatened by a given repugnant image. These results, powerful as they are, must be interpreted and handled with caution: the causal link between the type of shockvertising support and the consumer’s reaction remains tenuous. We are not talking about a trigger that would definitely lead to a predictable result.
Additionally, other marginal effects need to be considered by marketing experts in their shockvertising strategy to attract audience attention. It is also important not to forget that seeing shocking images will provoke extreme emotions, which can lead to actions that are not necessarily desirable from a marketing point of view.
This study also reminds marketers that strong images should be chosen carefully based on the type of response advertisers are seeking to elicit. However, she points out that the behavioral repercussions linked to strong or emotional content have not yet been fully discovered.
