Controversial Ads: Are they Worth the Risk?
New products and companies are being forced to think outside of the box and are challenged to start embracing creative strategies targeting consumer reaction as a KPI in current and future campaigns. The advent of television, radio, print mediums and now social media have caused new advertising methods to saturate the market. The potential for wear out is a crucial factor in the advertising industry, so how does a company make a splash without getting wet?
Advertisements, by design, should be memorable. They are meant to evoke feeling or incite conversation. Some advertisements are controversial because they reflect and resonate with cultural happenings, like Apple’s “1984” commercial, and others become more notoriously remembered for lack of strategic or emotional thinking. However, that is usually the point with the more “unsavory” and shock-value driven advertisements, some are are truly unnerved when the public reacts negatively to their bad taste. Controversial advertising is not a new concept and in some cases, an entire marketing or public relations campaign depends on it. When brands do something completely different from the norm, it can be shocking, but does shocking the public really equate to doing good?
PEPSI: KENDALL JENNER
The idea that strategizing in order to purposely put out content that is controversial is not adopted without eventually facing adversity.. Then there is the notion of organizations aware of controversy surrounding an issue but not always knowing all aspects of the issue, for example, if it’s connected to a social movement, social cause or heated topics of the current time.
There is some room for debate in trying to define Pepsi’s “Peaceful Protest” advertisement. In fact, Pepsi is a brand known to be meticulous in scrutinizing potential marketing plans and public relations outcomes. It would be a huge understatement to say that it was unlike them to produce the ad. But was this disastrous public mistake truly crippling to the soda giant? Stock earnings reports from later in the same year proved otherwise. In fact, Pepsi boasted a 5% increase in quarterly sales from the same time the year before and a share increase of 7.1%.
FRENCH CONNECTION UK
Like so many of us do, Stephen Marks, the CEO of French Connection UK, drove to work contemplating new ideas and executions that could ultimately lead to more profits. On one particular drive he passed an ad depicting an iconic woman half-naked. The ad caused him to contemplate how he was branding the French Connection. He contacted Trevor Beattie, who created the ad, requesting a similar eye-catching advert. Beattie noticed a connection between the letters of the French Connection UK when abbreviated: FCUK, alluding to the cultural implications of cursing. Thus, they elicited controversy with the release of the “FCUK FASHION” campaign.
Branded t-shirts activated the campaign, which were priced at 20 pounds and selling over one million units. In the case of “FCUK FASHION”, the long-term results were nonexistent. In fact, the advertising term known as wearout occurred very quickly once the public and media channels became desensitized to the campaign. In the long run, the effects of this controversial campaign did not last. Other companies attempted to follow French Connection UK’s example by faking their clothing to match the “FCUK” marketing, which diluted the brand and oversaturated the market.
SNAPCHAT
Snapchat, a popular social app, is also added onto the list of controversial advertisers with the release of their “Would You Rather” in-app ad. The advertisement asked users to join in on a game of “would you rather” by choosing between two seemingly impossible choices: slapping Rihanna or punching Chris Brown. The ad immediately caused an uproar with fans, who labeled the advert as “tone-deaf.”
Rihanna responded to the ad and ended her statement with: “You let us down! Shame on you. Throw the whole app-oligy away.”
Snapchat’s usage trends are in a slow decline while revenue is being maintained by increasing revenue gained per user. The profits remain the same. However, value is lost due to the dwindling audience size.
The idea that controversial advertising works to increase brand awareness and generate profit is presumably tied to the brands’ established success and current likability. There seems to be a connection between controversial advertising, rising stocks, revenue and profit for the company and its investors. For example, Nike and their stock took a 4% hit after the release of the Colin Kaepernick “Just Do It” campaign. Shortly after its release, however, the stock then rose and online sales grew by 31%. Three things should be kept in mind:
1) Your organization should be able to afford handling the campaign’s failure or success.
2) Advertisers should understand that the benefits of a successful campaign are short-term, considering that shock value eventually wears off.
3) A failed campaign, like in the case of Snapchat’s, can add to an organization’s already-dwindling socioeconomic status.
So are controversial ads worth the risk? The answer is yes depending on the value and promise of a brand. In short, controversial advertising is part shock-value, part timing, and can be beneficial to the financial success of a business.
