In the Middle Ages, a common method for judging the guilt of those accused of crimes would be to force them to retrieve a stone from a pot of boiling water, in a process called “trial by fire.” The accused would often have to reach in elbow deep and then had three days before a priest would assess whether their wounds were healing or festering. If it was the latter, the accused would be considered guilty.

For brands using shock tactics in advertising, the process is akin to this trial. The crowd of bloggers, tweeters, facebookers, commentators, writers, preachers, celebrities, politicians, TV show hosts, agony aunts and the rest gathers to witness the trial…  the only question is: will your brand heal or fester after getting all that heat?

Richard Tunbridge, who has more than 20 years experience as a regional creative director working with the likes of Proctor & Gamble, British Airways, and Mandarin Oriental, and helped set up agency The O Group, says shock tactics were originally used to shake people out of complacency, “but now people think offending someone is all they have to do.” WWF learned this to their dismay when its Brazil office released a print ad and TVC depicting dozens of planes crashing into New York City circa 2001 in a poor attempt to highlight the death toll of the Asian Tsunami. No wonder its US office first denied all involvement, before condemning the campaign.

“Most shock campaigns are ill-conceived, ill-advised and ill-informed, and usually done by people without any real experience or knowledge,” says Tunbridge. “People forget the difference between being provocative and being offensive – advertising needs to generate some kind of response beyond outrage – if you are antagonising a mass audience you’re probably being irrelevant,” he adds.

German AIDS awareness group Regenbogen eV outraged with a print and TVC campaign depicting a woman having sex with the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and an accompanying “AIDS is a mass murderer” slogan, which critics said contributed to ill-informed fear mongering of already stigmatised HIV/AIDS sufferers by comparing them to evil dictators. “The same rules apply to shock tactics as to any other piece of communication – awareness is not an objective, it’s not even a result – you have to inspire people to do something,” says Tunbridge.

The heat is on
“Know your audience. Do they want to be shocked? What will shock them? These ads can easily cross the line or come off as stupid and cheesy,” says Patti Williams, Associate Professor of Marketing at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. When painkiller brand Motrin ran a campaign mocking mothers who carried their baby in a sling, saying they were trying to “look like an official Mom” and came across as “tired and crazy” – the response from mothers was less than enthusiastic. One Youtuber and mother (among the many outraged) says, “Motrin, thanks for giving me more than enough reason to walk away… you tried to relate to us when actually all you were doing was patronising us… my headache has nothing to do with wearing my baby – my headache was caused by you.” It gives new life to Motrin’s slogan “We feel your pain”. Ouch.

Having said this, Williams also points out that shock tactics can have the right cultural resonance with consumers. “Sometimes they like to see such ads, just in order to consume the shock,” she says. Judging the tolerance levels of its consumers, IKEA tapped into its audience appropriately with a series of provocative ads. In Fork, a young man prepares for his hot date’s visit. When the lovely young lady enters, the couple embraces in an act of passion on the sofa, only for the man to discover that his date has been impaled on a mislaid fork. The pure surprise and comedy sensibility of the spot is intelligent and well timed, hooking perfectly into a “Straighten up. If you don’t do it for yourself, do it for others” slogan.

While most ads have a short shelf life, the scars from a particularly nasty trial by fire can last for a long time. But there is hope for brands that have been scorched. “Consumers move on unless the marketer has done something terribly egregious. But in the short term, they will have to deal with wasting their marketing communications budget on an ad that prompts negative backlash,” says Williams.