OK... for all those who have requested to view the article but could not link thru to the site... here it is in all it's entirety...

ARTICLE CREDIT TO CAMPAIGNBRIEF.COM

____________________________________

SHOCK AND AWE: WHY IT WORKS

Controversial advertising sells. That’s the conclusion reached by Rob Belgiovane, creative director of BWM, Sydney. Creator of many a controversial ad in his time, he explains why now we are seeing more of them than ever.

Would you approve an ad for a breath freshener targeting primarily 18-24s that featured: A young guy waking up on someones sofa after a huge night out, he coughs and stretches and we see a dog’s paw emerge from his mouth, followed by a scruffy grey dog, the announcer says: ‘Avoid dog breath with X Mints’. Would you approve that ad? Keep in mind that the target is 18-24 year old males.

I stress the target market because controversial advertising is only controversial to certain groups in the community - and rarely, if ever, does everyone agree on what they find offensive or controversial. 18-24 males, in particular like ads that offend segments of the community. Even if they personally don’t love the ad, they love the fact that it offends someone.

The quandary we face is that brands targeting young males and increasingly, young females, are often more liked if they offend the target’s parents or grandparents.

Wrigley’s is one of the most conservative marketing organisations in the world. What on earth would have prompted them to run an ad where a guy vomits a dog?

What makes brands choose controversial advertising and why is this type of advertising more common today? It’s no coincidence that the last time Campaign Brief ran a story about controversial ads was during the Gulf War, 12 years ago. We were also experiencing a fairly dramatic economic crisis at the time. Recession, reduced budgets and war jammed media environments that make it tough to stand out, are the perfect cocktail for controversial ads.

But handling explosive materials requires skill and caution. In Michael Newman’s new book Creative Leaps he refers to a detonator ad. A one off that is designed to attract the maximum level of attention to the primary selling point of the campaign that follows it. His example is a picture of a naked pregnant woman, with a headline; “There’s nowhere more comfortable than inside a wide body.”

Voila, the most complained about print ad in Australian history was born.

A planned controlled explosion can be a useful tool and in this case very successful. I bet however that the client was relieved that it was only running once. It takes clients with 4 balls to not panic and flee from this type of event, even if it’s working.
So god only knows how many balls the owners of French Connection had when they changed their name to French Connection UK or FCUK, permanently throughout the world.

If Mike Newman’s ad was a detonator then this was a nuclear blast, only it continues to go off every single day.

Since their launch 4 or 5 years ago they have reaped millions of dollars worth of free publicity just for being called a misspelt expletive. Who had ever heard of French Connection? TBWA London added the U.K. The popularity of the campaign that followed has created one of the biggest selling brands in the world. A few weeks ago in London, a juror at a crown court in Wales wore his Fcuk t-shirt to court. When the judge spotted the logo, he immediately dismissed him. The judge told barristers, “The misspelling of a basic Anglo Saxon word on a garment hardly dignifies court proceedings. It is beyond me why anyone can think they should wear anything like that in public, particularly in court”.

The Criminal Law Solicitor’s Association said: “It raises the question of whether the judge understood what the t-shirt was all about. It would be more helpful if someone explained to the judge that it was a very clever marketing ploy.
Thank you Judge Daniel.

Thank you for yet another free 30 million pound advertisement….our sales increased by 3% worldwide.

Whether you find an ad offensive depends on where you were brought up, your values, education, religious beliefs and morals. And given that those factors vary so much within one suburb, let alone cities, countries and the whole world, how can anyone truly judge whether an ad is, or will be, controversial? When first launched, Toyota ‘Bugger’ created by Saatchi & Saatchi, Wellington and first aired in New Zealand was one of the most controversial ads in Australia. After a few weeks on air it became one of the most loved ads in Australia. Pretty soon it will be screening at some film museum as a definitive ‘commercial cultural icon’. It’s almost impossible to know what the effect of a potential controversial communication will be on the community. Not just for ads, but movies, magazines, the internet - all constantly battle shifting public opinion and consequently censorship issues. This doesn’t mean studios stop making controversial films. And publishers don’t stop producing controversial magazines or sensationalist newspapers.

Why? Because they sell.

Can sensationalism have a negative effect on sales? I’ve never seen sales go backward over a controversial ad. (I’m sure there may be some). But invariably sales go up.

As long as you define your target to have a positive view on controversy, sales will rise. Just make sure the people you offend, weren’t ever going to buy your product anyway. Obviously if your brand has broad market appeal like Coke - age 10 to 100 – controversial advertising may not be right for you.
You also need to consider environmental issues. An ad from Penthouse magazine, suddenly appearing in New Idea would be a bad idea. And an ad for Armed Services Recruitment appearing during wall to wall coverage of the Iraqi crisis wouldn’t be a great idea either.

In the U.K. now, a furore has erupted over a raunchy ad for Gucci in the latest issue of Vogue. Model, Carmen Cass is pictured almost naked with a male model pulling down her knickers to reveal her pubic hair shaved into Gucci’s trademark ‘G’ logo. I would’ve thought the environment was right, but Vogue UK attracts a very conservative readership, consequently, extra ‘cool points’ for Gucci?

And there’s a male version from Yves Saint Laurent, which clearly shows the male models’ penis. Again, big competition, squeezed budget?

What type of advertising offends? In a study by lecturer David S. Waller at the University of Newcastle, Australia, using a large sample of 3rd year students, it was revealed that the types of advertising most likely to cause offence are:
Racially extreme groups (you’ll find plenty on the net), religious denominations, female hygiene products, cigarettes, political parties, gambling, funeral services, female contraceptives, weight loss programmes, sexual diseases, condoms and alcohol.

The top scorers: racial extremists and religious groups are in that position because people who don’t share a given religious belief, find ads for it offensive. Imagine an ad running tonight asking you to join the Muslim Children. It could be as benign as showing happy children playing and praying to a song by Cat Stevens, but I bet a large percentage of the Australian population would be complaining in a split second, even though it would be extremely racially prejudiced to do so. O.K., religion is controversial but how come funeral services get a mention so high up the list? Let’s face it - death is not a great sales technique. Benetton’s work four or five years ago, showing amongst other things an AIDS sufferer in his death bed, might have garnered attention, but it didn’t make the cash registers ring. The second most complained about ad in history was the Levi’s spot, where a hamster dies from boredom after his exercise wheel breaks. The outcry was so huge that the animal’s owner was forced to make public appearances with the playful (still very alive) pet.
Charitable organisations also need to be cautious. Pictures of starving kids in particular are more and more often regarded as emotional blackmail, but there was no ‘money for pity’ angle on the controversial NSW Spastic Centre campaign BWM created last year. The last spot featuring a complaint line phone number connected you straight to the donation line. It got quite a few calls.

Another charity spot that attracted its share of complaints was Real Children Don’t Bounce Back in the UK. By using an animated “cartoon” kid in an extremely violent environment they were able to show graphic scenes that made the ad extremely powerful and a little disturbing. Controversy was the key to the success of the ‘Dokic’ campaign that put motor vehicle KIA on Australian consumers’ radar, quickly, last year during the Australian Tennis Open. The ads attracted more column inches than the tennis.

My personal controversial favourite during the .com craze was for outpost.com featuring a gerbil being fired out of a canon through a hole in the outpost.com sign. The unusual aspect of this campaign is that the presenter explains that they want us to remember their name, hence the cannon ball gerbils. And it worked. Long after the brand went to .com oblivion, I still remember their name. As well as the Australian ‘Black Guys’ spot for U.V. sunscreen that has the dubious distinction of Colgate in the US taking it off air, before it received any complaints. The advertisers parent company in the U.S found the use of black guys offensive. It wasn’t racist, they weren’t used gratuitously, they were 100% relevant to the idea.
What’s that about?

Above all, make sure your clients boss’s wife or family aren’t offended….this always spells death not only for the ad, but also the creative who wrote it and sometimes the agency.

Which fortunately wasn’t the case when a furore erupted over 2 posters for Hahn Larger created by BAM some years ago. Once again the main problem was the use of African tribesmen in questionable taste. They made it to the EGN section of most newspapers. John Laws covered the debate they created for 2 weeks, daily. And most national news TV shows covered it at least once. 2 posters, with a media budget of $200 000 created at least $1 million of coverage. Demand, especially by young males, went through the roof nationally, despite the fact that it was only available in Sydney.
Clearly, 99% of the time a controlled controversy can lead to dramatic increases in sales, in many cases permanently, so do we need to worry? Maybe. Traditionally most complaints against advertising in Australia have come from small clusters of the kind of people who drive slowly in the fast lane on express-ways. Fairly harmless individuals, who used to complain about something in an ad they didn’t like. Of concern is a more recent trend. Now they not only complain about the whole ad, but educated by the likes of Ad Busters, No Logo and the more radical Muslims Against Advertising our Lada Niva drivers are learning some dangerous new tricks.

ß Why take out an ad, when you can take out the whole category?
ß Why bother with the ads when you can take out the media in which they appear? (Posters have become "a canvas of the people" in many parts of the world).
ß Why bother with the ads and media when you can take out the advertiser?

People were actually killed in protests against McDonald's in Italy recently, two restaurants were burnt to the ground...apparently you could hear the fiddle over the fires.

Being annoyed with stereotypical portrayal of women or the word "bugger" seems one hell of a long way from the rage consumers are expressing against their perception of McDonald's and Nike's aggressive techniques to gain global domination.
"We don't want to go to Nike High, or have them rename our streets".

It appears that Marketing Chapter 1: strive to become No 1 in your category, has become a source of enormous resentment in some parts of the world.

Fortunately it's not quite that bad here yet, but don't be fooled, there's plenty of evidence to suggest it will be.

There are bills already passed or currently being assessed by the parliaments of Europe, the US, Canada, Asia and Australia which threaten to ban the advertising of:
ß Alcohol, gambling, tobacco
ß Prescription Pharmeuticals
ß Foods too high in cholesterol, salt and preservatives
ß Financial services (for enticing people info finance they can't afford)
ß Politics
ß Religion (offensive to people of other religions)
ß Motor vehicles (only severely restricted, so far)
ß Beauty products for women (for causing eating disorders)
ß And, of course, children's foods and toys.

China has barred advertising for condoms since 1998, despite a one-child government policy. Prescription medicines are also outlawed in China. Iran has recently banned advertising for all American products. (Banning the ads from a whole country isn't something I'd like our slow, fast-lane drivers to discover is possible just yet).
Broadcasters in Greece claim the ban on toy advertising to children between 7am and 10pm has cost them $45m per year in revenue. Denmark didn't stop at toys. In 2000 the "former" government banned all advertising to children, now reversed by the new government. Note-these bills do not seek to ban the manufacture or sale of the product or services.

Right now, worldwide, banning or at least attacking advertising is very popular and it doesn’t need to be particularly controversial.

So in reality, controversy can leave punters in shock or awe. And the definition of controversy can range from Ronald McDonald, to logos in pubic hair, but if you know your target well and they’re young, controversy equals free publicity and sales. Importantly, no matter what, it’s impossible not to offend some of the people, most of the time.

____________________

The site is partially up. still sorting out the microsoft OLE server problems but you can view the article with accompanying pics.

http://www.campaignbrief.com/html/feature.asp?id=7