Shock Advertising (Research)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Shock Advertising (Research)

on

  • 531 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
531
Views on SlideShare
531
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Shock Advertising (Research) Shock Advertising (Research) Presentation Transcript

  • 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
  • Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 3
  • Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 4
  • Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 5
  • Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 6
  • Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 7
  • 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? Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 8
  • SCOPE COMPARING SHOCKING AND NON-SHOCKING ADS EVALUATE IMPACT ON ATTENTION AND MEMORY EVALUATE IMPACT ON IMEDIATE BEHAVIOR ANALYSE THE REAL LIFE EFFECT Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 9
  • DEFINITION SCARE TACTICS: INFORMATIVE, FEAR APPEAL, SHOCKING, ETC. INFORMATIVE: e.g. HEALTH WARNINGS ON CIGARETTES. FEAR APPEAL: e.g. QUIT NOW (AUSTRALIA, 1983). SHOCK ADVERTISING: e.g. AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL TOBACCO CAMPAIGN (NTC) (SINCE 1997). Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 10
  • 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) Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 11
  • CLAIM SHOCK ADVERTISING GAINS MORE ATTENTION, ENCOURAGES COGNITIVE PROCESSING AND HAS AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON BEHAVIOUR. Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 12
  • 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 ADVERTISING RESEARCH (SEPTEMBER, 2003) Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 13
  • 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 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 14
  • 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 Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 15
  • 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 A I M : T E S T F O R I M PA C T O N I M M E D I AT E BEHAVIOUR Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 16
  • STUDY #1 FINDINGS SHOCKING % WHO TOOK HIV/AIDS RELATED ITEMS FEAR APPEAL INFORMATIVE CONTROLLING 47.1% 52.9% 20.6% 23.5% SHOCK AND FEAR APPEAL CONTENT IN ADVERTISING HAVE ALMOST EQUALLY STRONG EFFECT ON IMMEDIATE BEHAVIOUR. Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 17
  • 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) Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 18
  • 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. Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov November 10, 2011 19