Strategic and Ethical Assessment of Charity Shock Advertising

Shock advertising in charity marketing grabs attention and stirs emotion, but its impact on donations and long-term trust is unclear.

Background

A common thread in the majority of articles in this publication is that charities face significant challenges in garnering support, particularly since funding patterns have led to a greater reliance on individual donors. Charity marketing, as a discipline, developed at a more accelerated pace in response to the need to attract individual donors and distinguish charities from competing organisations. Emotions have become the focus of charity marketing, following the suit of general marketing, especially in relation to pinpointing emotions that are the strongest drivers of donation behaviour (Lee, 2010). This focus reflects the broader understanding that emotions are the cornerstone of persuasive messaging (Lee, 2010). Shock advertising, a strategy for causing highly affective states among consumers, emerged as one of the potent solutions for driving short-term donations. The use of shock advertising by charities is somewhat controversial and a point of contention. On the one hand, because charities are considered to be inherently moral and ethical organisations, the use of shocking and disturbing imagery is perceived as being in direct conflict with their ethos (Jones & van Putten, 2008). At the same time, the use of such advertising is perceived as more permissible and effective than when used in commercial settings, as it serves the greater good (Jones & van Putten, 2008).

Often, the burden of the decision on whether or not to use shock advertising is placed on individual charities. According to some assessments, the existing ethics frameworks in the UK primarily serve the interests of organisations and companies, which is why this type of advertising is permitted in the first place (Auxtova, 2020). The goal of this article is to review the use of shock advertising in charity marketing, addressing both strategic and ethical perspectives simultaneously. The strategic assessment aims to provide guidance during the decision-making process regarding the effectiveness of this method, as well as its advantages and disadvantages. The goal of ethical assessment is to provide multiple perspectives on the ethics of this approach and the conditions that must be met to avoid generating unethical advertising content.

Defining shock advertising

Despite decades of shock advertising’s presence in media and substantial academic interest in this subject, this area of research remains disjointed and riddled with conceptual fluidity (Bui-Nguyen & Canu, 2024). This conceptual fluidity resulted in the proliferation of various names given to shock advertising, including shockvertising, controversial advertising, transgressive advertising, and provocative advertising (Bui-Nguyen & Canu, 2024). Regardless of the specific term assigned to this form of marketing, the key premise is that marketing and social norms are violated through the use of shock tactics, controversial imagery, and/or addressing issues that are considered potentially offensive or controversial (Auxtova, 2020). Within this context, it is also possible to differentiate between a controversial issue/service/product and a controversial execution (Auxtova, 2020). These two are considered to be two key dimensions when it comes to shock advertising. Controversial products or services are “associated with consumer problems and their social norms direct them not to be debated in public, for example, female hygiene products, contraceptives, underwear, etc” (Singh & Chahal, 2019). On the other hand, controversial execution is based on the selected themes and methods of depiction, which include “use of nudity, indecent language, violence, racism, etc” (Singh & Chahal, 2019). In a charity context, shock advertising is more commonly a matter of controversial execution than the cause being a source of controversy.

Shock advertising, however, is somewhat subjective. Research evidence suggests that whether a certain advertisement is perceived as shocking or controversial heavily depends on culture and religiosity (Singh & Chahal, 2019). There are several studies confirming that cultural differences determine whether a person would be offended by shock advertising. One such study found that Chinese participants seem to be less receptive to shock advertising than German participants (Chan et al., 2007). Interestingly, despite finding them more offensive, Chinese participants also considered shock ads to be more persuasive and informative than their German counterparts (Chan et al., 2007). This is a good example illustrating that, when it comes to shock advertising, an affective reaction does not necessarily equal a behavioural reaction (Chan et al., 2007).

In relation to religion, there is ample evidence that higher levels of religious commitment translate into greater sensitivity to different forms of advertising, thereby impacting the threshold for what is considered shocking (Kadić-Maglajlić et al., 2015). The relationship is moderated by one’s perception of whether or not the use of shock advertising is ethical (Kadić-Maglajlić et al., 2015). There is some evidence that one’s denomination can further moderate one’s perception of shock advertising. Islamic factions tend to be more sensitive to shock advertising, with higher levels of offensive reactions recorded compared to members of other religions (Wang et al., 2017). Authors interested in the subject of intercultural differences in terms of sensitivity to shock advertising are not addressed by regulatory restrictions, which do not account for heightened sensitivities (Wang et al., 2017). Furthermore, the already mentioned list of potentially controversial products is heavily dependent on one’s culture (Singh & Chahal, 2019). While female hygiene, for example, is considered a part of public discourse in some cultures, in others, this is a strictly private issue, which is why the mere mention of female hygiene products is controversial and met with disapproval, regardless of the ad execution.

While culture, religion, and other identity markers play an important role in the perception and consequences of shock advertising, very few studies have directly tested differences between different groups of donors and consumers. The present article summarises the results of such articles, but this constitutes a smaller portion of the content. This is why blank statements presented in the following sections require further follow-up, while contradictory results can be potentially explained by differences in sample characteristics.

Shock advertising in charity marketing

Amnesty International, Action Contre la Faim and Reporters Sans Frontières are among many charity organisations that utilise shock advertising and intentionally feature highly emotional and deliberately aggressive visuals to elicit donations and support (Albouy, 2017). When applied in the context of charity marketing, shock advertising is supposed to produce a feeling of disturbed surprise, a complex affective reaction that combines negative emotions with the disconfirmation of expectations and a response to incongruity. The use of shock charity advertising has been reported as successful and effective. For example, Save the Children charity reported that their donations significantly increased following shock advertising campaigns, and this conclusion was confirmed through the inspection of the charity’s financial documents (Magee, 2021). A similar effect was reported by the children’s charity Barnardo’s, which featured highly controversial images of “heroin babies” (Quainton, 2014). While the campaigns received substantial public backlash, they generated an equally substantial financial support. A long-term effect of this strategy was that the charity in question has managed to differentiate itself and position itself as an important charity supporting children (Quainton, 2014). These are some notable anecdotal examples, while the following subsections will address research and empirical studies dissecting the use of shock advertising in charity marketing.

Shock versus positive/neutral advertising in charity marketing

Research showed that potential donors classified shock advertising as more shocking but also more informative, frightening, and sad compared to positive and neutral advertising (Cockrill & Parsonage, 2016). Furthermore, in terms of emotional impact, shock advertising is by far the most impactful form of charity advertising (Cockrill & Parsonage, 2016). However, what is interesting is that the impact on donation intention is not elicited via the experience of shock (Cockrill & Parsonage, 2016). Research indicates that shock advertising in a charity context causes surprise, interest, and empathy, all of which are positively coded emotions (Cockrill & Parsonage, 2016). In contrast, emotions of shock and fear do not act as predictors of shock advertising effects, and they solely increased the likelihood that a person would talk about an ad (Cockrill & Parsonage, 2016). A key conclusion drawn from this line of research is that the effectiveness of shock advertising may not be solely due to its shock value and other negative emotions associated with it (Cockrill & Parsonage, 2016). This means that charities have the choice of eliciting emotions such as surprise, interest and empathy while omitting the disturbing and potentially polarising elements associated with shock advertising.

The effects of disgust imagery in charity shock marketing

The use of disgust-inducing imagery is another strategy that falls under the category of shock advertising. The effectiveness of this method was evaluated in relation to charities that support children’s well-being. An experimental study was conducted in the child victim segment where several dependent variables were measured and evaluated in relation to disgust and non-disgust images (Allred & Amos, 2017). The variables of interest included donation intention, empathy, and guilt (Allred & Amos, 2017). It was found that disgust imagery had no effect on guilt levels as it elicited the same outcomes as the non-disgust imagery. (Allred & Amos, 2017) The other two variables were significantly affected, but the direction of influence differed. Results demonstrated that disgust imagery increased empathy levels, but the non-disgust imagery had a positive effect on donation intention (Allred & Amos, 2017). This study prompted researchers to recommend caution when using disgust imagery because, while it affects empathy levels in the desired direction, there is no effect on donation intention. The lack of effect on donation intention is especially problematic when one takes into account that most charity adverts compete for attention and support, thus putting disgust-based ads at a disadvantage compared to ads that elicit stronger donation intentions.

Mechanisms and factors behind the efficacy of shock advertising

The majority of studies quoted in this article operate under the premise that the effects of shock advertising can be attributed to the fact that it crosses social norms. This assumption is, in general, dominant in the literature on shock advertising (Lee et al., 2020). However, there are several studies that have considered the exact mechanism behind the shock advertising effectiveness, and this section summarises their key findings.

Shock charity advertising and emotions

When discussing the impact of shock charity and its connection to emotions, it is necessary to first address the emotional intensity of an advertisement. Generally, more emotionally charged advertisements have greater persuasive efficacy, increase attention, and facilitate deeper message processing (Chang & Lee, 2010). At the surface level, the sheer emotional intensity of shock charity ads can be an explanation for their efficacy. Furthermore, the effectiveness of shock ads can be explained via circuits that trigger negative emotions. Literature on prosocial behaviour is rich in evidence that negative emotions, such as shock and fear, can trigger helping behaviours in the majority of people (Marsh & Ambady, 2007). Similar results were reported for feelings such as sadness, shame, and guilt (Wymer & Gross, 2021). However, there is evidence that some negative (and positive) emotions can hinder prosocial behaviours despite their intensity, which is why a closer look at specific mechanisms of influence is needed.

A study investigating the effects of charity shock advertising on prosocial behaviours confirmed that the mechanism of influence included its ability to elicit negative emotions (Albouy, 2017). The mechanism can be summarised as follows: shock advertisements trigger negative emotions, which in turn increase the persuasiveness of the ads, and part of this effect is achieved through the triggering of an empathetic response (Albouy, 2017). Negative emotions that had a positive effect, as confirmed in this study, included guilt, fear, sadness, and shock. These findings are partially consistent with results reported by other researchers (Albouy, 2017). Empathy plays a role in this mechanism because such negative stimuli can prompt people to protect themselves (e.g., ignoring the ad and not engaging with the charity to prevent the future emotional toll of this involvement) or protect others (e.g., deciding to donate or sign a petition). Furthermore, the experience of negative emotions is moderated by three cognitive variables, including the efficacy of the solution, self-efficacy and cause involvement (Albouy, 2017). In the quoted study, “solution” refers to the options provided to the audience, which included donations and petitions. There were no differences between the effects of these two solutions; however, the behavioural outcome was significantly influenced by the individual’s perception of their capability to implement the solution at the moment. The combination of all these factors results in an observable increase in donation behaviour and intention.

Shock advertising and moral emotions

Another mechanism that potentially explains the impact of shock advertising is the effect it has on moral emotions. Moral emotions constitute the key effect of people’s moral apparatus and belief system because they affect the relationship between moral standards and moral behaviour (Tangney et al., 2007). Moral emotions can be positively or negatively valenced, but the research on shock advertising has mostly focused on negatively valenced moral emotions (Tangney et al., 2007). Moral emotions include shame, guilt, anger, disgust, and embarrassment (Tangney et al., 2007). In addition to having relevance to shock advertising, these emotions are commonly researched in relation to prosocial behaviours, including donating behaviour (Tangney et al., 2007). Shock charity and non-profit advertisements were found to trigger moral emotions, which further contributed to increased intention to engage in prosocial behaviours (Dasmi et al., 2022). A study conducted in the field of non-profit environmental organisations found that the use of shocking imagery resulted in elevated moral emotions with negative valence, namely anger and contempt (Dasmi et al., 2022). Triggering these emotions further prompted several different responses, including heightened attention to the advertisement and problem at hand, greater willingness to engage in discussions around the central issue, and higher levels of awareness about the problem (Dasmi et al., 2022). While there are no studies that have researched the effects of shock advertising on moral emotions and donation behaviour, literature has already recognised the importance of moral emotions in facilitating donation behaviour from an early age (Ongley et al., 2014).

Shock advertising and congruence theory

The third mechanism presented in this paper originates from cognitive psychology. Congruence theory, in its broadest sense, refers to a fit between two or more entities. In relation to shock advertising, congruence refers to the fit between the advertising stimulus and consumers’ preexisting schemas about that stimulus (Eklund & Helmefalk, 2021). Schemas are cognitive structures which allow individuals to decode the world around them. Once a person is exposed to an advertising stimulus, they compare the stimulus against their existing schemas, process how relevant the new information is, and assess its congruence with the existing information (Eklund & Helmefalk, 2021). When a stimulus is incongruent, it clashes with these preexisting schemas and shock advertising is rooted in this perception of incongruence. (Eklund & Helmefalk, 2021) The more incongruent a piece of information or a stimulus is, the more intense the feeling of surprise. There are two main strategies for resolving incongruence: investing additional effort in information processing and avoiding the incongruence altogether (Fleck & Maille, 2010). It is interesting to note that avoidance of incongruent stimuli is a dominant strategy in some cultures, which may also contribute to cultural differences in the reception of shock advertising (Fleck & Maille, 2010). What is especially relevant for advertising is that consumers seem to prefer brands and organisations that are congruent with their actual or desired self, which is why incongruence is used in a highly selective and calculated manner (Abosag et al., 2020).

The perceived familiarity with a brand mediates the effects of shock advertising (Lee et al., 2020). Empirical research has shown that consumers will demonstrate a significantly more negative attitude towards a familiar brand that utilises shock advertising if this is not their typical strategy and if they are operating in the domain of socially acceptable products or services (Lee et al., 2020). The effect of shock advertising on familiar brands operating in the category of controversial products is significantly less adverse (Lee et al., 2020). This difference is explained by the perceived incongruity, which is higher for brands advertising socially acceptable products, and disgust, an emotion that emerges in response to perceived incongruity (Lee et al., 2020). The pattern of these effects can be considered in the context of charities, and a potential implication of this study is that widely recognised charities are not advised to adopt shock advertising if it was never part of their marketing strategy. On the other hand, lesser-known charities can expect more positive outcomes when using this strategy, as evidenced by some of the previously quoted successful examples from practice. The importance of brand congruity should also be considered, as this form of incongruity can have negative effects (Abosag et al., 2020). For example, charities that heavily focus on branding themselves as caring and gentle should carefully consider whether shock advertising would create such strong incongruence that it would lead to discomfort and disgust among potential donors.

The strategic point of view: short- versus long-term effects of charity shock advertising

Shock advertising carries a risk of being perceived as unethical and eliciting emotional and behavioural responses that are contrary to those targeted by such campaigns. As part of the risk management procedure, it is advisable to assess both the positive and negative aspects of this strategy. This section adopts a strategic perspective, and the evaluation is based solely on the effects of shock advertising rather than the inherent ethics of this approach. It is also essential to determine here what constitutes effectiveness. Research warns that evaluations of shock advertising can yield significantly different results, depending on how they measure its effectiveness. In commercial settings, the most common indicator is the ability to cut through the advertising clutter, while social marketing usually prioritises the capacity to change people’s behaviours (this also includes the intention to donate and donation behaviours) (Maison & Pawłowska, 2017).

Positive effects of shock advertising

Catching attention is one of the main short-term benefits of shock advertising (Myers et al., 2020). Studies employing eye-tracking methods have found that shock advertising (e.g., ads that rely on the use of taboos) captures people’s attention, prolongs the amount of time they spend processing an ad, and, due to the increased processing time, potentially results in superior ad recall (Myers et al., 2020). A study conducted on a large sample of university students found that shock advertising is more effective than traditional advertising as it increases attention, benefits memory, and even promotes behavioural changes (Dahl et al., 2003). Some studies challenge these findings (e.g. Urwin, 2014), but there is ample evidence that shock advertising is successful in capturing attention. However, attention does not necessarily equal desired behavioural action, which is why other forms of benefits have also been researched. Furthermore, there are differences in how shock ads are perceived. In general, they are more effective when targeting the female population, as women have stronger emotional reactions to shock advertising (Engelbart et al., 2017). Additionally, the greatest effect is achieved when the cultural context presented in the ad is congruent with the audience's cultural background, as incongruence can lead to a lowered sense of empathy (Engelbart et al., 2017). This is an important finding implying that shock advertising might be more effective when used by local charities rather than international charities.

Empirical results on the effects of shock advertising on donation intention and donation behaviour are mixed. One study reported that shock advertising had a positive effect on the level of awareness and comprehension of the issues highlighted by the advertisements, but there was no impact on donation intention (Su Aung & Siok Inn, 2019). An explanation offered by participants is that they required additional information about the charity in order to donate, as the shock imagery on its own was insufficient (Su Aung & Siok Inn, 2019). Another explanation offered by participants in the study was that the limited impact of shock advertising was also due to financial constraints, as their financial situation was the strongest factor in deciding whether or not they would donate (Su Aung & Siok Inn, 2019). These results are in contrast with studies that recorded the immediate effects of shock advertising on donation intention while also reporting that shock advertising was the most successful marketing strategy in strengthening donation intention (Yan & Chapa, 2020). However, it was noted that the perceived charity image was more negative for charities that used shock advertising compared to those who did not deploy this strategy (Yan & Chapa, 2020).

Shock advertising and its impact on organisational image and reputation

Even studies that reported positive effects on attention cautioned that, depending on the type of imagery used, it is possible to detect an immediate decline in positive perception of a brand image (Maison & Pawłowska, 2017). These results were primarily collected in relation to for-profit organisations, while, overall, there is a greater lenience when it comes to charities and non-profit organisations. Still, charities also face the risk of deterioration in their brand image due to shock advertising. Research has shown that this risk exists when shock advertising efforts are perceived as too drastic, causing high levels of incongruity among potential donors (Olofsson & Funke, 2020). The significant shortcoming of these assessments is that they do not offer guidelines on what constitutes “too much” when it comes to shock charity advertising. However, a historical analysis of complaints against charity ads in the UK revealed that ads featuring children, those that are potentially harmful or offensive to children, and those depicting harmful or offensive treatment of children recorded the highest number of complaints (Auxtova, 2020). This suggests that charities focused on causes that support children should seriously consider whether shock advertising constitutes an effective strategy for them. It is also worth noting that the same study recorded an increase in the perceived incongruity of contemporary advertisements, with more recent shock ads causing greater distress and shock than ads from the previous decade (Olofsson & Funke, 2020).

Long-term effects of shock advertising

Shock advertising has also been studied in relation to promoting various forms of positive behaviours. For example, one study researched whether the use of shock advertising appealing to people’s concerns for their children’s well-being would prompt them to change their smoking behaviours (Mukattash et al., 2021). The study did not adopt a longitudinal design and instead relied on participants estimating the long-term effects of shock advertising on their behaviours. (Mukattash et al., 2021) The results of the study found that shock advertisements were highly effective in eliciting the desired emotional response, but the participants stated that any effects on their behaviour would likely be short-term and would not result in substantial behavioural changes (Mukattash et al., 2021). Other studies do not contradict these findings, and at present, there is no evidence that shock advertising leads to long-term behavioural changes.

The decline of shock advertising effectiveness

When assessing the effectiveness of shock advertising, charity marketers also need to consider studies that suggest shock advertising may not be as effective as previously believed, especially among younger generations. One study focused on millennials and measured levels of shock, norm violation and memory recall (Urwin, 2014). Norm violation was manipulated across several categories, with adverts showing different types of shock, including impropriety, moral offensiveness, sexual references, disgusting images and religious taboos (Urwin, 2014). Most of the shock imagery had no effect on memory recall, showing that participants did not report superior memory of shock adverts (Urwin, 2014). Furthermore, in cases where participants did remember the adverts, they reported recalling the imagery but not its context, relevance, or the brand it was associated with (Urwin, 2014). It should be noted that the presented study was primarily limited to commercial settings, with only one condition related to the charity setting. This is important because a historical perspective on the effectiveness of shock advertising suggests that, over time, the number of conditions under which it can exert the desired effects continues to shrink (Bui-Nguyen & Canu, 2024). The narrowing of shock advertising effects has taken place in relation to contexts, audiences, and types of effects that can be elicited (Bui-Nguyen & Canu, 2024). Additionally, the cumulative effects of shock advertising decrease over time because, due to its widespread use, the audience is becoming desensitised to it (Cockrill & Parsonage, 2016). Furthermore, as consumers evolved over the past several decades and their sensitivities to marketing content were highlighted, criteria such as whether shock advertising is justifiable or ethical emerged at the forefront while its ability to capture attention is no longer sufficient (Bui-Nguyen & Canu, 2024). With this in mind, the following section discusses the ethics of shock advertising and the conditions under which this marketing strategy is deemed acceptable.

Ethics of shock advertising

Audience perspective

The majority of existing literature about the ethics of advertising prioritises the application of general ethical principles in this domain, thus obscuring the perspective of its target audience (Shabbir et al., 2018). When the audience, or as business researchers refer to it, the consumer perspective, is taken into account, the key variables that need to be addressed include consumer ethical judgment, consent, and context. So far, the consumer perspective has been researched in two key scenarios. One, ethical judgement in organisational contexts (Lindebaum et al., 2016) and two, the relationship between consumers’ ethical judgement and behaviour (Vitell et al., 2015). Discussing how consumers react to shock advertising, from an ethical standpoint, represents a significant departure from these traditions. The interest in this subject is supported by ample evidence that shock advertising and threat appeals can generate both positive and negative reactions, and the nature of the reaction is moderated by factors that are relational, situational, and informed by one’s ethical standards (Putrevu & Swimberghek, 2012).

Seminal work on this subject explored the effects of shock advertising by addressing variables that sit at the intersection of ethics and organisational objectives, including ephemerality, commercial resonance, post-experience brand congruence, target-audience appropriateness and contextual acceptability (Moraes et al., 2019). The outcome of this research was the establishment of the concept of consumer-experienced positive shock. This concept refers to a very positive reaction to otherwise threatening advertising content, and it was predated by research on consent (Moraes et al., 2019). Consent, in general, can transform morally questionable or reprehensible acts into acceptable ones (Stannard, 2015). However, this is difficult to achieve in a marketing context due to the dynamic of advertising campaigns, but also because marketing has a persuasive component, which often involves exposing consumers to certain content and then persuading them that the exposure was justified and generated benefits for them. Additionally, prefacing advertising content with an explanation that would result in giving consent removes the shock value, rendering this method ineffective (Miller & Wertheimer, 2010). For this reason, it is assumed that, under certain conditions, consumers, or potential donors in this case, might feel that exposure to shock advertising containing threat appeals violates their consent, thus resulting in a negative emotional response and cognitive evaluation of this marketing tactic as unethical (Miller & Wertheimer, 2010).

Research on the ethics of shock advertising from the consent point of view outlined the conditions under which the audience is inclined to react positively to this type of advertising. Advertising materials need to have a high emotional impact, leading to changes in one’s affect, attitudes, and, in social marketing, behavioural change (Moraes et al., 2019). The effect needs to be momentarily, appropriately targeted, clearly respecting consumers’ rights, and without negative consequences (Moraes et al., 2019). An ideal scenario features an option for a tension release following an intense emotional reaction (in a charity context, the opportunity to donate plays this role) (Moraes et al., 2019). Another important element is that shock advertising and threat appeals need to be seen as congruent with the brand identity; otherwise, the positive effects would be absent (Moraes et al., 2019). Finally, a significant characteristic of successful and ethical shock advertising is that it appears purposeful (Moraes et al., 2019). In the context of charity shock advertising, it seems fundamental to ensure that this type of advertising is paired with immediate donation options and that charities rely on this type of advertising solely in relation to their primary cause. Departure from these practices might cause potential donors to evaluate such advertising as unethical and causing unnecessary emotional harm.

Positive outcomes as the means for justifying shock advertising

The ethics of shock advertising were compared across commercial and non-profit settings. A common thread across such studies is that people are more inclined to see shock advertising as ethical when implemented in social marketing campaigns (Van Putten & Jones, 2008). Depictions of violence, suffering, and distressing imagery are significantly more palatable to audiences when it is meant to result in a positive behavioural change or, even more so, help those featured in such content (Van Putten & Jones, 2008). A direct comparison of shock advertising in non-profit and for-profit contexts found that its use is perceived significantly more positively and justifiable in non-profit sectors (Parry et al., 2013). The majority of themes used in shock ads for non-profit organisations were deemed acceptable (Parry et al., 2013). Still, there were limitations in the non-profit context as well since the audience does not approve of the use of religious taboos and morally offensive imagery even when it is for a good cause (Parry et al., 2013). These studies confirm that the perceived justifiableness of shock advertising plays a pivotal role in determining whether this approach is ethical. Again, it is pertinent to repeat that what constitutes a religious taboo or morally offensive imagery, for example, depends on the individual and cultural characteristics of a potential donor.

Shock advertising versus socially responsible advertising

Some authors argue that shock advertising, based on its primary goal of eliciting strong negative emotions, goes against the principles of socially responsible advertising (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018). The latter term includes “marketing activities which do not arouse negative emotions and do not breach ethical values or ideals shared by customers” (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018). This line of argument emphasises the importance of socially responsible advertising, arguing that its norms and expectations are even more relevant because the regulations surrounding ethical advertising are insufficiently strict and defined (Preston, 2010). The nature of this code of conduct is, thus, voluntary, having emerged from communities and their needs rather than being externally imposed (Preston, 2010). Upholding expectations that constitute socially responsible marketing is then further linked to the ethics of an organisation itself, which are assumed to include trust, transparency, honesty and respect for stakeholders (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018).

In the context of socially responsible advertising, shock advertising is unequivocally unethical for several reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, it elicits negative emotions and causes emotional damage, even if for a limited amount of time, which goes against the principle of benevolence (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018). Secondly, this type of advertising can be perceived as going against organisational values, thus triggering a line of negative reactions that amount to abandoning the organisation or brand in question (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018). Finally, some authors state that the unethical nature of shock advertising emerges from the destruction of the relationship of trust between an individual and an organisation (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018). Trust is essential for maintaining a connection between consumers/donors and companies/organisations, and a significant part of this relationship is the belief that a company or an organisation would act in the best interest of its consumers or supporters (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018). The effect of trust deterioration is considered especially strong in the case of companies operating in commercial spaces; however, non-profit organisations are not exempt from this effect (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018). The reason for the broad application of this conclusion lies in the crucial argument that the transgression of societal norms is what deteriorates the relationship of trust, which is based on the assumption that both sides would uphold the covenants of a social agreement, as expressed via the concept of socially responsible advertising.

Conclusion

There is no definitive answer to the question of whether shock advertising is a suitable strategy for charities. However, several important messages can be drawn from this article. Firstly, while there are examples of highly successful applications of shock advertising among charities, it is clear that this strategy should not be universally accepted. Charities with no previous history of using shock advertising and those heavily invested in branding themselves using positively valenced emotions can create such substantial incongruity that could lead to negative effects. Furthermore, the inspection of mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of shock advertising opens a new field of opportunities in advertising. It seems that the elements of shock and fear have no impact on donor behaviour, which is why charities can experiment with alternative marketing strategies that also elicit intense emotions without including disturbing elements. Furthermore, each charity pursuing this strategy should consider the information regarding the effectiveness of shock advertising and the lack of consistent data regarding specific effects. This knowledge should be coupled with concerns surrounding the effects of shock advertising on attitudes towards charities. The choice of whether or not to pursue a shock advertising strategy appears to be tied to short-term benefits, as research also suggests that this strategy does not result in long-term behavioural changes.

The second important question that was discussed in this article pertains to the ethics of shock advertising. A more lenient line of research suggests that shock advertising, although it may violate consumers’ interests and create unfavourable emotional reactions, can be considered ethical due to the existence of a goal that is “for the greater good”. The stricter point of view, one that stems from the socially responsible advertising concept, asserts that shock advertising is unethical and formulates this statement in definitive terms. From a regulatory perspective, shock advertising is permitted, and from the donor perspective, it is not inherently unethical. Still, both from an ethical and strategic standpoint, the use of shock advertising should be carefully considered, calculated, and, if possible, pre-evaluated on a portion of the target audience.

References

Abosag, I., Ramadan, Z. B., Baker, T., & Jin, Z. (2020). Customers’ need for uniqueness theory versus brand congruence theory: The impact on satisfaction with social network sites. Journal of Business Research, 117, 862–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.016

Albouy, J. (2017). Emotions and prosocial behaviours: A study of the effectiveness of shocking charity campaigns. Recherche et Applications En Marketing (English Edition), 32(2), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570716689241

Allred, A. T., & Amos, C. (2017). Disgust images and nonprofit children’s causes. Journal of Social Marketing, 8(1), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsocm-01-2017-0003

Auxtova, K. (2020). Shocking, offensive and controversial receptions of uk public and non-profit advertising campaigns: A multistakeholder, regulatory and rhetorical analysis (dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

Bachnik, K., & Nowacki, R. (2018). How to build consumer trust: Socially responsible or controversial advertising. Sustainability, 10(7), 2173. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072173

Bui-Nguyen, T., & Canu, R. (2024). Shockvertising: Trajectory of a controversial advertising technique. Recherche et Applications En Marketing (English Edition), 39(2), 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/20515707241243159

Chan, K., Li, L., Diehl, S., & Terlutter, R. (2007). Consumers’ response to offensive advertising: A Cross-Cultural Study. International Marketing Review, 24(5), 606–628. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330710828013

Chang, C.-T., & Lee, Y.-K. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.2501/s0265048710201129

Cockrill, A., & Parsonage, I. (2016). Shocking people into action: Does it still work? Journal of Advertising Research, 56(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.2501/jar-2016-045

Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). Does it pay to shock? reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(03), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021849903030332

Dasmi, C., Acuti, D., Grazzini, L., & Aiello, G. (2022). How does the use of shockvertising trigger moral emotions? A focus on the plastic issue. International Series in Advanced Management Studies, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12027-5_10

Eklund, A. A., & Helmefalk, M. (2021). Congruency or incongruency: A theoretical framework and opportunities for Future Research Avenues. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(4), 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-03-2020-2795

Engelbart, S. M., Jackson, D. A., & Smith, S. M. (2017). Examining Asian and European reactions within shock advertising. Asian Journal of Business Research, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.170036

Fleck, N., & Maille, V. (2010). Thirty Years of conflicting studies on the influence of congruence as perceived by the consumer: Overview, limitations and avenues for research. Recherche et Applications En Marketing (English Edition), 25(4), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/205157071002500404

Jones, S. C., & van Putten, K. (2008). An analysis of consumer complaints about social marketing advertisements in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495140802165550

Kadić-Maglajlić, S., Arslanagić-Kalajdžić, M., Micevski, M., Michaelidou, N., & Nemkova, E. (2015). Controversial advert perceptions in SNS advertising: The role of ethical judgement and religious commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2755-5

Lee, M. S. W., Septianto, F., Frethey-Bentham, C., & Gao, E. (2020). Condoms and bananas: Shock advertising explained through congruence theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102228

Lee, S. Y. (2010). Ad-induced affect: The effects of forewarning, affect intensity, and prior brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(4), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260902869038

Lindebaum, D., Geddes, D., & Gabriel, Y. (2016). Moral emotions and ethics in organisations: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3201-z

Magee, K. (2021, December 15). Shock tactics - do they work? PR Week UK. https://www.prweek.co.uk/article/1108125/shock-tactics-work

Maison, D., & Pawłowska, B. (2017). Using the FACEREADER method to detect emotional reaction to controversial advertising referring to sexuality and homosexuality. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62938-4_20

Marsh, A. A., & Ambady, N. (2007). The influence of the fear facial expression on prosocial responding. Cognition & Emotion, 21(2), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600652234

Miller, F. G., & Wertheimer, A. (2010). The ethics of consent: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press.

Moraes, C., Kerrigan, F., & McCann, R. (2019). Positive shock: A consumer ethical judgement perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(4), 735–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4092-y

Mukattash, I. L., Dandis, A. O., Thomas, R., Nusair, M. B., & Mukattash, T. L. (2021). Social marketing, shock advertising and risky consumption behavior. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(8), 1994–2011. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-09-2020-1111

Myers, S. D., Deitz, G. D., Huhmann, B. A., Jha, S., & Tatara, J. H. (2020). An eye-tracking study of attention to brand-identifying content and recall of taboo advertising. Journal of Business Research, 111, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.009

Olofsson, O., & Funke, M. (2020). The risks of shock advertising for Non-profit Organizations: A qualitative study of the effects of shock advertising on consumer processing and evaluation (dissertation). Karlstads universitet, Handelshögskolan (from 2013).

Ongley, S. F., Nola, M., & Malti, T. (2014). Children’s giving: Moral reasoning and moral emotions in the development of donation behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00458

Parry, S., Jones, R., Stern, P., & Robinson, M. (2013). ‘shockvertising’: An exploratory investigation into attitudinal variations and emotional reactions to shock advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1430

Preston, I. L. (2010). Interaction of law and ethics in matters of advertisers’ responsibility for protecting consumers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(1), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01166.x

Putrevu, S., & Swimberghek, K. (2012). The influence of religiosity on consumer ethical judgments and responses toward sexual appeals. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1399-y

Quainton, G. (2014, January 24). Change makers: Barnardo’s. Change makers: Shock therapy for Barnardo’s brand. https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/change-makers-barnardos/communications/article/1188136

Shabbir, H. A., Maalouf, H., Griessmair, M., Colmekcioglu, N., & Akhtar, P. (2018). Exploring perceptions of advertising ethics: An informant-derived approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), 727–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3784-7

Singh, P. P., & Chahal, H. S. (2019). Consumers attitude towards controversial television commercials and its impact on purchase intentions. Management and Labour Studies, 45(1), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042x19890242

Stannard, J. E. (2015). The emotional dynamics of consent. The Journal of Criminal Law, 79(6), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018315615290

Su Aung, Z. H., & Siok Inn, T. (2019). The impact of shock advertising on donation intention. Malaysian Journal of Business and Economics (MJBE), (1). https://doi.org/10.51200/mjbe.v0i0.2077

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

Urwin, B. (2014). Shock advertising: Not so shocking anymore. an investigation among generation Y. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n21p203

Van Putten, K., & Jones, S. C. (2008). It Depends on the Context: Community Views on the Use of Shock and Fear in Commercial and Social Marketing. Partnerships, Proof and Practice - International Nonprofit and Social Marketing Conference 2008 - Proceedings, 17, 1–9.

Vitell, S. J., King, R. A., Howie, K., Toti, J.-F., Albert, L., Hidalgo, E. R., & Yacout, O. (2015). Spirituality, moral identity, and Consumer Ethics: A multi-cultural study. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(1), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2626-0

Wang, Z., Deshpande, S., Waller, D. S., & Erdogan, B. Z. (2017). Religion and perceptions of the regulation of controversial advertising. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 30(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2017.1358681

Wymer, W., & Gross, H. (2021). Charity advertising: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1723

Yan, S., & Chapa, S. (2020). Exploring the use of shock advertising by for-profit and nonprofit organisations in China. Journal of Cultural Marketing Strategy, 5(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.69554/yfah6601