IS IT NECESSARY TO SHOCK? INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF SHOCKING CONTENT IN ADVERTISING IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

SH. YAKUBOV || 24.06.2011

AGENDA PURPOSE OF THE STUDY DEFINITION OF SHOCK ADVERTISING IMPACT ON MEMORY IMPACT ON IMMEDIATE BEHAVIOUR TOBACCO CONSUMPTION RATES CONCLUSION

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

3

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

4

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

5

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

6

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

7

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

8

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SHOCK ADVERTISING IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.

IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO USE SHOCKING ADVERTISING?

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

9

SCOPE COMPARING SHOCKING AND NON-SHOCKING ADS

EVALUATE IMPACT ON ATTENTION AND MEMORY

EVALUATE IMPACT ON IMEDIATE BEHAVIOR

ANALYSE THE REAL LIFE EFFECT

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

10

DEFINITION SCARE TACTICS: INFORMATIVE, FEAR APPEAL, SHOCKING, ETC.

INFORMATIVE: e.g. HEALTH WARNINGS ON CIGARETTES. FEAR APPEAL: e.g. QUIT NOW (AUSTRALIA, 1983). SHOCK ADVERTIS ING: e.g. AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL TOBACCO CAMPAIGN (NTC) (SINCE 1997).

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

11

DEFINITION SHOCK ADVERTISING DELIBERATELY STARTLES AND OFFENDS ITS AUDIENCE.

OFFENSE IS CAUSED BY NORM VIOLATION, SUCH AS TRANSGRESSIONS OF CUSTOM, BREACHES OF MORAL OR SOCIAL CODE AND ETC.

ACCODRING TO GUSTAFSON AND YSSEL (1994), VENKAT AND ABI-HANNA (1995) AS CITED IN DAHL (2003)

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

12

CLAIM SHOCK ADVERTISING GAINS MORE ATTENTION, ENCOURAGES COGNITIVE PROCESSING AND HAS AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON BEHAVIOUR.

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

13

RESEARCH BY D. DAHL UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

“DOES IT PAY TO SHOCK? REACTIONS TO SHOCKING AND NON-SHOCKING ADVERTISING CONTENT AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS”

JOURNAL OF ADVER T I S ING RESEARCH (SEPTEMBER, 2003)

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

14

STUDY #1 105 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS - AGE 18-27

THREE TYPES OF ADS: INFORMATIVE, FEAR APPEAL AND SHOCKING

ADS RELATED TO HIV/AIDS AWARENESS

AIM: TEST FOR EFFECTS OF ATTENTION, RECALL AND RECOGNITION

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

15

STUDY #1 FINDINGS

SHOCKING FEAR APPEAL INFORMATIVE

RECALL 96.9% 78.1 78.1

RECOGNITION 100% 81.3 81.3

SHOCK ADVERTISING ATTRACTS MORE ATTENTION AND FACILITATES MEMORY

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

16

STUDY #2 140 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS - AGE 18-27

F O U R T Y P E S O F A D S : I N F O R M AT I V E , CONTROLLING, FEAR APPEAL AND SHOCKING

ADS RELATED TO HIV/AIDS AWARENESS

AIM: TEST FOR IMPACT ON IMMEDIATE BEHAVIOUR

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

17

STUDY #1 FINDINGS

SHOCKING FEAR APPEAL INFORMATIVE CONTROLLING

% WHO TOOK H I V / A I D S RELATED ITEMS

47.1% 52.9% 20.6% 23.5%

SHOCK AND FEAR APPEAL CONTENT IN ADVERTISING HAVE ALMOST EQUALLY STRONG EFFECT ON IMMEDIATE BEHAVIOUR.

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

18

REAL LIFE EFFECTS AUSTRALIAN ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGNS

QUIT NOW: 1983-1996, FEAR APPEAL TOBACCO CONSUMPTION: 40% REDUCTION

NTC: 1997-2008, SHOCK APPEAL TOBACCO CONSUMPTION: 27% REDUCTION

CRITICISM: TOO MANY INFLUENCING FACTORS

DATA FROM BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (15 OCTOBER, 1983), CANCER COUNCIL VICTORIA (AUSTRALIA, 2008)

November 10, 2011 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov

19

CONCLUSION SHOCK ADVERTISING: STRONG IMPACT ON ATTENTION AND MEMORY FEAR APPEAL: EQUALLY STRONG IMPACT ON BEHAVIOUR ULTIMATE TARGET IS TO INFLUENCE BEHAVIOUR NOT MEMORY. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SHOCK. FEAR APPEAL – LESS OFFENSIVE OR DISTURBING – CAN BE USED WITH THE SAME SUCCESS.