The value of shock and fear in advertisements has been well known, and oft used, by advertisers since the dawn of the industry. Sometimes referred to as “shockvertising” or “scarevertising”, these emotion based appeals can be very effective, when used properly.
Researchers at the Centre for Business Research at Bangor Business School in England conducted a study in 2013, from which they concluded that, in general, people are receptive to shocking images in advertisements, but find the tactic more acceptable when employed by non-profit agencies rather than their profiting counterparts.
Consistent with the apparent trend in present day culture, of taking a good idea/practice and getting a bit… carried away… with it (consequently turning the effective into the excessive,) in recent years, advertisers have taken the concept of using shock and fear appeals to the extreme.
This method of marketing appears in many forms, from its mildest versions, to the downright ludicrous. It’s unclear when the more extreme versions of experiential advertising first came into play, but once it struck, this trend spread like wildfire.
This ad for the 2013 remake of the movie Carrie, by agency Thinkmodo, is a fantastic example of the radical brand of experiential ads currently sweeping the industry. (Seriously though, you want to watch this video. Do it!)
However, thanks to the rapid popularity of this trend, and the thin line upon which it trods, for every good use of this tactic, there’s also an outlandish, unnecessary, unseemly, or unfortunate ad that employs it as well. For example, this spot for the 2013 Colin Farrell movie, Dead Man Down (essentially it subjects unwitting civilians to the “real life” dilemma of “what would you do if you walked in on a murder in progress”), although riveting, is questionable in its propriety.
In addition to the obvious ethical considerations of subjecting people to that experience, the implementation of the “experiment” opens the door to many potentially troubling questions. For example, this one, posed in a comment by a Youtube user;
Propriety issues aside, there’s one thing you can count on, where there is a trend, there will be parodies. In this case, we have the innovative Canadian agency john st. to thank for their brilliant response to the experiential ad craze, a little number called “ExFEARiential” (video at the bottom of the page)
The concept of an advertising agency creating ads, advertising their ability to create ads, conjures a feeling reminiscent of Russian nesting dolls, and generally, agencies that manage to do a good job of it are few and far between. But for several years, john st. has been releasing brilliant self-promos that exhibit their supreme talent and creativity, each one targeting a current advertising trend and subjecting it to their own form of mockvertising.
In 2011 john st. brought us “Catvertising”, their hilarious response to the cat fad dominating the interwebs. Their 2012 poke at viral videos took the form of a “faux service” called “BUYRAL- Professional Clicking” whose aim, as stated by an article in Vice, is to “guarantee a video goes viral by eliminating the need for actual viewers”
John st.’s “ExFEARiential” which garnered them Strategy’s 2013 “Agency of the Year” award, targets the international phenomenon that is experiential advertising, with ploys that include a home invasion beer commercial, and a deodorant ad in which they steal women’s babies. The latter being a direct parody of this German deodorant commercial.
“ExFEARiential” is clever, witty, and skillfully done. The video contains cultural references, such as that to the BP oil spill, and appreciable humor.
“You’ve heard of sending people to space, we’re gonna do that, only, we’re not going to bring them back.”
The john st. take on self promos, and advertising in general, is refreshing in a world so dominated by engulfing trends, media culture, and negativity bias.
“Most ads are dramatic, we want them to be traumatic.”
Cheers john st.
This May End Badly 