Attention?

Lynx are a huge brand across the world.
So why do they continue to create advertisements that the majority end up banned?
Is it for fun? Or do they like the attention?
When you think of a lynx add, you immediately think of woman chasing men, or something across them lines, so their advertisements are being banned, but we all still know what they are.

COOL AS FCUK

FCUK

French Connection United Kingdom, are a clothing brand.

They use shock advertising in a way that doesn't use image. But using text gets them the exact same attention.

You have to look twice.

The News

Relating to my post about how the Internet can effect our reaction to Shock Advertising, the News can play a large part also. The News is shown all day 24/7 on certain channels, children can be watching during the day, making them capable of seeing some of the Shocking news that is announced.

When you watch something on the TV that is shocking and we know is happening in real life, why would be shocked by the fictional Shock Advertisements we see.

Internet

Are we becoming immune to Shock Advertising because of the Internet? We are able to access shocking images and videos on the Internet without even knowing it, pop ups and viruses can cause us to see things we wish we hadn't... Are we just 'getting used to it'...

Cigarette Packaging

Are Cigarette Packets using shock advertising?

Is this classed as advertising? The NHS advert 'Get Unhooked' was banned for being to blunt and grim, however can we even class that as an advertisement? It had the exact same concept as the images and text we see on Cigarette packets, trying to get people to stop smoking. However these images are still on packets of Cigarettes, and seem to be more common than ever.

Text analysis 3

Why charity's should abandon shock advertising.

Regina Yau
Charity worker
Guardian Professional





Regina works a lot with charity, and she seems to express her opinion on how charity work should lead away from shock advertising, and stop the guilt trip.
Her article in the Guardian is very interesting, especially for me since I agree 100%, charities that use a guilt method to raise money could raise money in a much better way, take Comic Relief for example, they raise money for the exact same cause as Unicef, to help children in poverty, however Comic Relief do not make you feel guilty, their campaign is fun, they use humour and comedy to raise money, as Unicef show you depressing images to make you donate, almost as if you are being forced to donate, so you get this feeling you have donated money but after you feel depressed, as comic relief you donate the money, and you feel happy that you did due to the atmosphere of the campaign, Comic relief raised more than £10,000,000 over Unicef in 2011.

Regina also crated her own charity, to help prevent violence against woman.

"The charity I founded, The Pixel Project, works to prevent and stop violence against women. Right from the start, we stuck to using positive images, ideas and strategies to power our campaigns and empower survivors and supporters to take action. From music to photography to cupcakes, our campaigns make people smile while mobilising musicians, photographers and independent businesses to spread awareness in their communities and raise funds for the cause. One of our volunteers, Gia Ibarra, described our approach best when she said: "As a survivor of rape and domestic violence working to heal and help other survivors, I feel at home with The Pixel Project who showed me that activism can be fun and that you can help the cause without using or being exposed to the triggering images or videos that many anti-violence against women organisations use to raise awareness."

She states how she use positive images, it is good to see that she stands by her beliefs, and even thought it may not be as popular to use positive images in a charity campaign, she has stuck with what she believes and dont it how she wants it done.

Text analysis 2

When to use the 'shock' factor and why it works.

Melinda Varley

Melinda is a graduated student of Sunshine State University, she has been involved in business speculation since graduation, her specialism is how business works, and ways to really create a successful business.
She is known for posting online blogs giving out information about what is right, and what is wrong.
So after reading her article on when it is right to us the shock advertising method, I understand that she does not relate to the design itself, she relates to the business side of things, what works and when.

It is hard to really say if Melina is being biased towards either side of this article, she seems to be very opinionated  you would think from somebody who is trying to develop people's businesses she would use facts, but she seems to be very opinionated, such as in the first line of her article, she states how french ARE the best at shock advertising.

When it comes to shock advertising, the French do it best, as demonstrated last week by the release of its latest anti-smoking campaign. 

She states how shock advertising is not about text, layout or anything else other than the imagery, she says how you can't have a shock advert without imagery, personally I disagree, text can be very powerful in the design world, but at the same time I understand she does not know the design world.

I dont think Melina has done enough research before posting this blog, there is a lot more to shock advertising than just trying to shock people. It is not a way to just get away with putting abusive or sexual imagery into the public. As a business speculator she should be giving people the whole package, letting people know about how powerful it can be, and not to let people think it is just a way to make your ad's stand out.

A interesting point she does make is the warning label on cigarette packets, she classes this as advertising, is it? It makes me think, because they are not trying to persuade you to buy anything, they are not persuading you to do anything either, but at the same time I guess they are trying to persuade you to put down the cigarettes.