The ethics of PUK using "shockvertising".

So what is "shockvertising"? I could easily respond that the clue is in the name, it is advertising that is meant to shock.

It is what it says on the tin.

Which is, as far as it goes, true enough, however, to give a bit more detail, according to Wikipedia, it's "a type of advertising that deliberately, rather than inadvertently, startles and offends its audience, by violating norms for social values and personal ideals." 

Not the type of advert you would expect to come across from a Health care charity, trying to raise funds and educate the public. 

But you would be wrong. See for instance Sarah's Story by the MND association:

You will notice that the video ended by saying "now you know what it's like to have Motor Neurone Disease". My initial response was "What on earth is this trying to achieve and BTW, no I don't. In what way does this inform the public about MND?"

Now I have to be careful what I say here as I don't suffer from MND. Sensitivity is not normally one of my strong suits, but a close relative died from MND, so I do have some insight into what it's like to be diagnosed, live with and to die off, MND.

And I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

But, to me at least, this 'shockvert' seems more like a scene from "Stranger Things", but with better production values. Is this appropriate? Apart from learning that MND is horrendous, but not how, or in what way, or what the MND Association is doing about it, in what way does this advert inform?

Don't go down into spooky, empty subterranean car parks?

When you get MND, your clothes will fly off?

Prepare to be dragged along the ground, by some unseen force or hand?

I have to say, none of this would be familiar to my relative, but perhaps she was just lucky.

Of course, it's not only the MND Association that has succumbed to this form of advertising, so has Parkinson's UK.

My wife watched this and within the hour had sent in a complaint, saying that the advert was unnecessarily frightening and would cause distress to both the families and sufferers, especially if they were recently diagnosed.

Within another hour following a flurry of emails she had cancelled her membership, sick of the banal responses, usually along the lines of;

Dear Mrs Smith,

thank you so much for your e-mail, we very much appreciate the time you took.

We do understand your concerns but due to the necessity for getting our message out to the public,

and also to highlight the need for funding, we need to be innovative

We are sure you will understand

Regards

etc

    What they were actually saying of course was;

Dear Mrs Smith,

why are you bothering us, please stop wasting our time,

We don't care about your concerns, we know best,

We need more money and if we have to frighten the shit out of a few people, so be it, besides which cutting-edge adverts with high production values don't come cheap,

we're sure you understand,

Now go away you silly woman

etc.

I have previously said the first half seems to me to resemble something out of Dante's Nine Circles of Hell and again what is it trying to say? That all these terrible symptoms of PD will come and afflict you? That there is no future worth looking forward to? If you have PD, life will be hell?

Ok, the second half tries to be more positive and says that there is indeed hope? But the first time I saw this, I was still reeling from the impact and rewinding the video to see if it was as bad as I thought. Besides the second half is so bland, you quickly forget what it says. 

It's just too forgettable to give any hope. All you will remember is the shock of the first half.

Both campaigns caused division, anger and sadness, within the two communities. There was a large number both for and against the adverts. The agency responsible for the PD campaign, blonde, published an online description of the thought process, problems and issues faced. And also the success of the campaign. And it would appear that it was "highly successful". 

The campaign volume of donations was higher than ever for the charity during the Christmas period; the online conversion rate doubled.

It had over 1 million views, without skipping.

It was shared over ten times more than PUK's usual content.

When shown, people were impressed by its modern feel, appreciating its punchy visual style.

    The agency declared the campaign an outstanding success.

So PUK was right, Maybe I am just being fussy, and besides which, maybe I am both out of date and well past my sell-by date, who just doesn't get modern advertising. Probably fair and correct. maybe I am and maybe I don't. But when I read the article, besides the significant increase in contributions, which I acknowledge has to be a good thing, the benefits to PUK and the Parkinsons community seemed more nebulous. Measured in clicks and views.  

But not in attitudes changed, or additional support given. 

And it still doesn't address the reasonable concerns many held. A read of the comments section against the advert on YouTube shows the disquiet many, including medical professionals have. For example:

"I am a PD Nurse and while this advert has a very strong message. My patients have found this advert very distressing ", and

"@Parkinson's UK You are replying to every negative comment with the same pre-decided phrase. These people are individuals and deserve an individual response. I am an NHS medical doctor and my father has Parkinson's and I was shocked at your advert and now at your lack of empathy in responding to these comments. I will be complaining."

and there are other examples.

It's not as if advertisers, psychiatrists and social scientists agree as to the effectiveness of shockvertising. But then isn't something that sets itself out to deliberately violate social norms going to be divisive? Will it not alienate as much as inspires? And surely a charity that represents a vulnerable community, that has many individual members who are distressed and frightened, surely such a charity needs to measure success not by clicks achieved, but by greater social understanding and sympathy.

Is it enough simply that consumers find shockvertising exciting when you are a charity like PUK, don't you need to be sensitive as to the ethics of the medium?

Now I think that with the advertising PUK commissioned, has managed, just, to remain ethical. I just wonder if it was also compassionate.