Tone Deaf or Great Marketing?

Controversies are there everywhere these days. They range from the overwhelmingly
serious (the state of politics, civil rights, and health) to the unquestionably silly (whether
toilet paper should spool over or under). Moreover, marketing is not an anomaly to
controversial content.

What does the term "controversial marketing" elucidate?

Advertisement has been defined in various ways so far, and the first definition of
advertisement can be traced back to the early 1900’s. Many different definitions have
been provided by researchers all these years. Richards and Curran have presented the
most notable - "Advertising is a paid non-personal communication from an identified
sponsor, using mass media to persuade or influence an audience." This definition is
considered the most relevant and comprehensive one by the experts than the subject's
recent theories. Contributing to Advertising Theory, Russell Laczniak underlined that the
elements which contribute to an advertisement are evolving as the world and the society
does as well. As a result, advertising theory is evolving. It uses economics, psychology,
and sociology to create a complete aspect of advertising and its function (Laczniak).

Nowadays, the advertisement environment is characterized by the fact that it has been
drifting into an increased advertising clutter, and by the overall consumers" low
motivation to process messages (Kadić-Maglajlić). According to Nan and Faber, "a high
level of advertising clutter decreases viewer attention, memory, and recognition, and
cognitive responses" (Webb et al.). Thus, it has been established that "when consumers
watch a commercial that is cognitively demanding, they should be less likely to engage
in extensive message elaboration, which will impair brand recall" (Puccinelli). In order to
gain the consumers" attention, the advertisement has to be appealing or has to leave a
strong impression on the recipient. E.g., the effect could be what the listener feels when
a joke is sounded to him/her. In a typical joke, the laughter is generated by an
unexpected outcome of the situation being described. Similarly, advertisers tend to use
controversial advertisements: "Controversial advertisement executions (also known as
shock appeals, provocative appeals or offensive advertisement executions) are being
more frequently used as advertisers attempt to find ways to attract attention in an
increasingly competitive advertisement environment" (Pope et al). It has to be noted that
the purpose of these advertisements is to draw maximum attention from its recipients by
deliberately shocking them to increase their awareness about the
brand/company/product.
What are the reasons behind controversial advertising?

The advertisements exist not only to inform consumers of products, services,

promotions, and sales; they exist to allow brands to distinguish themselves from others
(their competitors). Advertisements create a desire among the audience to buy their
products. However, despite this, they are known to employ devious tactics because of
which many consumers are highly skeptical and even disdainful of advertising in
general. Furthermore, advertisers generally take the risk of shocking the public… The
question is, why? Why do they shock the public? What is the reason behind it?

To answer why, we have to understand what is the first attempt of advertisements (in
general) in order to reach the customer. Advertisement is the first attempt to reach the
consumer, it can also leave the first impression a consumer can have about a brand or
company. As it is commonly said in the business world, the first impression is the most
important one. The consumers‟ first impression conditions what they will think about the
company, the brand, product or service and can affect positively or negatively his
decision when he seeks to purchase something. And, to ensure that the first impression
of the company leaves a stronger footprint than that of the rival company, advertisers
employ controversial advertising as controversial advertising will try to raise the most
attention possible from their audience and assure a good brand recall in consumers‟
minds.

What are the consequences of controversial marketing?

For advertisers, the problem can be that controversial advertising campaigns can either
be highly successful or highly damaging, depending on what ultimately happens in the
marketplace.
Figure 1: Benetton advert on the death row campaign
(Floros, George, and George Floros. “10 Most Controversial United Colors of Benetton Ads.”

FriendlyStock, 2 May 2020,

friendlystock.com/top-ten-controversial-united-colors-of-benetton-ads/)

For example, the clothing company Benetton has long been criticized for its advertising,
which uses controversial images to send a message of "social concern" (Evans and
Sumandeep), until the death-row campaign was felt to have gone too far (Curtis).

Figure 2: Calvin Klein’s explicit controversial advert

(“Lara Stone Poses with Justin Bieber for Calvin Klein Jeans Ad.” Fashion Gone Rogue, 6 Jan.
2015, www.fashiongonerogue.com/lara-stone-poses-justin-bieber-calvin-klein-jeans-ad/.)

Similar problems occurred to Calvin Klein, who had been criticized for running
campaigns with explicit sexual images but had to publicly apologize after the outrage
caused by an alleged movement to use child pornography (Irvine).

The controversial advertising campaign can result in an offense that can lead to several
actions which include negative publicity, attracting complaints to advertising regulatory
bodies, falling sales, and product boycotts.

Why are some controversial advertisements more effective than others?

Controversial advertisements could propel a brand faster and demean them. However,
why does this happen? Why are some controversial adverts/marketing campaigns more
efficacious compared to others? To understand this, let us look at a few examples of
some record-breaking controversial adverts.

ADVERTISEMENT#1

Figure 3: Pepsi’s controversial advert; Kendall Jenner handing Pepsi to the police
officer.
(Frishberg, Hannah. “Protesters Give Pepsi to Police to Troll Kendall Jenner's Commercial.”
New York Post, New York Post, 8 June 2020,
nypost.com/2020/06/05/protestors-troll-kendall-jenners-pepsi-ad-by-giving-soda-to-police/.)

The Pepsi commercial features the American fashion model and television personality
Kendall Jenner. The ad begins silently with a person cracking open a Pepsi can. We
could see a young man shot while playing the cello on a rooftop. The view switches on
a city and then zooms in on the musician with sweat flying off his face as he continues
playing. The music soundtrack commences, without any sound accompanying the
visual footage. The view changes to a protest with mostly young people walking along
with a few old, displaying carrying signs of peace, including one that says "Join the
Conversation".

Then the view switches to Jenner wearing a silver dress in a photoshoot, modeling but
showing an increasing awareness of the protesters passing nearby. The cellist, shown
in a new location, notices the protest and then drinks a Pepsi while viewing passing
marchers from a balcony. Then the view switches to protesters, and more young people
are shown marching.

Jenner's character is displayed again, still modeling but very focused on the protest.
Her manager asks her to join him, but Jenner responds by pulling off her blond wig to
reveal her dark brown hair. She hands over the wig to a black woman assistant without
looking at her and heads toward the protest.

The camera then shows several police officers standing rigidly watching the protest,
then two young protesters, then two men - one in a religious robe - and a woman,
several of these characters displaying peace signs. Now in a more casual outfit, Jenner
swiftly passes through the crowd of protesters and advances toward the rigid police
officers. She hands a Pepsi can to one of the police officers who drinks from the can,
and the crowd of protesters cheers enthusiastically. The commercial comes to an end
displaying the phrases "Live Bolder," "Live Louder," and "Live for Now."

This advert was not effective or successful for Pepsi at all. This advert was a blowout of
youth and race exploitation gone wrong. Jenner and Pepsi were highly criticized on
social media for co-opting protests as a 'trendy' demonstration, rather than a necessary
form of activism to tackle important issues. It was also accused of trivializing social
movements to sell a product and ignoring Black people's experiences following
centuries of violent subjugation.

ADVERTISEMENT #2

Figure 4: Nike’s controversial advert (starring Colin Kaepernick)

(sport, Guardian. “Nike's 'Dream Crazy' Advert Starring Colin Kaepernick Wins Emmy.” The

Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 16 Sept. 2019,

www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/16/nikes-dream-crazy-advert-starring-colin-kaepern
 ick-wins-emmy.)

This Nike advert features Colin Kaepernick, former quarterback on San Francisco
49ers, to display a message, "Believe something. Even if it means sacrificing
everything."

This advert used Colin Kaepernick, a very controversial figure because of his protest
against racial inequality and Black people's oppression in America by not standing up
for the American national anthem.

This advert was deemed as a highly successful advert. Nike created a political division,
and it implied that Kaepernick's ideals [justice, freedom] and Nike's ideals coincide.
Nike's financial countenance increased by $6 billion by maintaining an ongoing
commitment to appeal to its diverse racialized customer base.

ADVERTISEMENT #3

Figure 5: Gillette’s ‘The Best Men Can Be’ controversial campaign advert
(Taylor, Charles. “Why Gillette's New Ad Campaign Is Toxic.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 19
Jan. 2019,
www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/01/15/why-gillettes-new-ad-campaign-is-toxic/#43daf
b0e5bc9.)

The advert begins by invoking the brand's slogan, "The Best a Man Can Get," by
questioning, "Is this the best a man can get?" The slogan is followed by scenes
demonstrating negative behavior among males, including bullying, sexism, sexual
misconduct, toxic masculinity, acknowledgment of social movements like #MeToo, and
footage of Terry Crews, an actor who stated during Congress testimony that men "need
to hold other men accountable.” The advertisement continues to explain that "we
believe in the best in men: To say the right thing, to act the right way" since "the boys
watching today will be the men of tomorrow." As a result, the original slogan is
re-worked to reinforce this message, becoming "The Best Men Can Be.”
This advertisement received praise and criticism on social media and quickly became
the most disliked video. Some applauded Gillette for addressing current social issues
and promoting values among men. But, the advertisement faced criticism and threats of
boycotts from critics who said it emasculated men and disagreed with its message.
Regarding their embrace of "woke culture" and corporate responsibility, Josh Barro of
New York magazine compared the ad unfavorably to a recent Nike campaign featuring
Colin Kaepernick, arguing that Nike's ad was successful since it was "uplifting rather
than accusatory", and consistent with Nike's values as representing "bold action — on
and off the field", but that in regards to Gillette's ad, "the viewer is likely to ask: Who is
Gillette to tell me this? I just came here for razors. And razors barely even feature in
Gillette's new campaign."

In conclusion, I would say that the interests advertisers align themselves to make their
ad more or less effective.

This answer could be proven as Pepsi's claims seemed to align with mocking the Black
Lives Matter movement resulting in a boycott. In contrast, Nike’s Colin Kaepernick
advert aligns with the idols of justice and freedom, making it more appealing to the
targeted audience and more effective. However, unlike Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner advert,
Gillette used a serious and relevant social problem effectively. Nevertheless, the
problem was that it did not attract the targeted audience but instead did appeal to other
audiences.

What factors make advertising controversial?

Previously, we analyzed that some controversial advertisements are more effective than
the others because of the interests advertisers align themselves to. However, that is not
the only reason why some adverts are considered controversial.

By the nature of the product, some advertisers may be perceived as controversial, and
any promotion of their product may generate negative responses, such as cigarettes,
alcohol, condoms, or feminine hygiene products. Previous studies in this area have
mainly looked at these products in terms of the products being "unmentionables."
Wilson and West defined "unmentionables" as: "... products, services, or concepts that
for reasons of delicacy, decency, morality, or even fear, tend to elicit reactions of
distaste, disgust, offense, or outrage when mentioned or when openly presented".

What are the customer attitudes towards controversial advertising?

Controversial advertisement impacts the viewers across three states: the cognitive state
(awareness and knowledge), the affective state (liking and preferences), and finally, the
conative state (conviction and purchase).

Vézina and Paul assessed consumer beliefs about the cognitive, affective, and conative
attributes of provocative ads and their effect on consumer attitudes and behaviors. The
authors drew on the Hierarchy-of-Effect Model to explain that cognitive attributes refer
to the belief that provocative ads increase consumer awareness and knowledge of the
brand and product. Affective attributes refer to the belief that consumers have. Conative
attributes refer to the belief that provocative ads have an effect on consumer purchase
intentions.

The authors found that provocative appeals increase awareness and knowledge of the
brand and product and that individuals seem to have a general positive appreciation for
provocative appeals. However, mildly provocative ads seem to be better received than
highly provocative ones.

Dens et al. found that disgusting advertisements led to a significantly more negative
attitude towards the ad than non-disgusting advertising. The authors found that
disgusting advertisements induced negative attitudes towards the advertisements and
did not lead to better brand recall. In another study exposing 240 consumers recruited
via a web panel to assess the effects of taboo themes in advertising, researchers found
that the use of sexual and death taboo themes in controversial ads produced a more
negative attitude towards the brand (Obermiller et al).

There are also significant complaints towards controversial advertising when it includes
misleading information, persuasion to buy unnecessary things, and the promotion of
desirable and harmful values.

We can conclude by understanding that there are both positive and negative attitudes
toward controversial advertising. These attitudes are affected due to the content
displayed, such as sexual and death taboo or repulsive content in ads and persuasive
techniques to present misleading information.

Controversial Advertising: tone-deaf or great marketing?

Tone-deaf advertisements make companies seem out of touch with the consumers they
wish to appeal to, and incapable of thinking about what kind of messages they convey
to the world. In contrast, great advertisements make you think, laugh, talk about it, or at
least make you look twice.

This question is the analysis of the research and discussion above, so I will draw some
conclusive statements. Controversial advertisements qualify as both: some are
tone-deaf, and some are great. It depends on the content, the persuasive techniques
used, the advertiser’s beliefs, and whether they appeal to the targeted audience or not.

Today, that is how you capture attention.

Works Cited

TEXTS

Websites

17:22pm, Emily Craxton-24 April 2019, and Emily Craxton. “What Makes an Ad the Right Side

of Controversial?” The Drum,

www.thedrum.com/opinion/2019/04/24/what-makes-ad-the-right-side-controversial.

Agrawal, AJ. “The Pros And Cons Of Controversial Marketing.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 8

Jan. 2016,

www.forbes.com/sites/ajagrawal/2016/01/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-controversial-marketing

/#4e38bbf03e51.

“Analysis of Colin Kaepernick in Nike's Just Do It Campaign.” UKEssays.com,

www.ukessays.com/essays/design/analysis-of-colin-kaepernick-in-nikes-just-do-it-campai

gn.php.

Carr, Sam. “The Top 8 Most Recent Controversial Ads... So Far.” PPC Protect, 12 Aug. 2020,

ppcprotect.com/top-controversial-ads/.

Chi, Clifford. “Should Your Brand Use Controversial Advertising? 5 Examples to Help You

Decide.” HubSpot Blog, blog.hubspot.com/marketing/controversial-advertising-examples.

“Consumer Attitudes towards Advertising and Offensive Advertising.” UKEssays.com,

 www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/consumer-attitudes-towards-advertising-and-offensi

ve-advertising-marketing-essay.php.

Green, Imogen. “Controversial Advertising: Marketing Ploy or Lack of Awareness?” The Drum,

The Drum, 18 Dec. 2018,

www.thedrum.com/opinion/2018/12/17/controversial-advertising-marketing-ploy-or-lack-

awareness

Reuters. “Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad Draws Outrage.” The Business of Fashion, The Business of

Fashion, 5 Apr. 2017,

www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/kendall-jenner-pepsi-ad-draws-outrage

Salvat, Tom. “When (and How) to Effectively Use Controversial Advertising.” Concured,

www.concured.com/blog/when-and-how-to-effectively-use-controversial-advertising.

Taylor, Charles. “Why Gillette's New Ad Campaign Is Toxic.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 19 Jan.

2019,

www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/01/15/why-gillettes-new-ad-campaign-is-toxic/

#43dafb0e5bc9.

Magazines

Curtis, Maree (2002) “Blood Sweaters and Tears”, Sunday Magazine – The Sunday
Telegraph, 21 July: 22-26

Journals
Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2008). Exploring consumer reactions to
incongruent mild disgust appeals. Journal of Marketing Communications.

Evans, I.G. and R Sumandeep (1993) "Is The Message Being Received? Benetton Analysed",
International Journal of Advertising, 12 (4), 291-301.
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.

Laczniak, R.N., 2015. The Journal of Advertising and the Development of Advertising Theory:
Reflections and Directions for Future Research, Journal of Advertising.

Pope, N. K., Voges, K. E., & Brown, M. R. (2004). The effect of provocation in the form of mild
erotica on attitude to the ad and corporate image. Journal of Advertising.

Puccinelli, N., Wilcox, K., and Grewal, D., 2015. Consumers' Response to Commercials: When
the Energy Level in the Commercial Conflicts with the Media Context, Journal of
Marketing.

Richards, J. I., and Curran, C. M., 2002. Oracles on "Advertising": Searching for a Definition.
Journal of Advertising.

Vézina, R., & Paul, O. (1997). Provocation in advertising: A conceptualization and an empirical
assessment. International Journal of Research in Marketing
Books

Irvine, Susan (2000) “The Black Prince”, Good Weekend, 8 April.

Review

Wilson, Aubrey and Christopher West (1981) "The Marketing of `Unmentionables'",

Harvard Business Review, January/February.

IMAGES

Floros, George, and George Floros. “10 Most Controversial United Colors of Benetton Ads.”
 FriendlyStock, 2 May 2020,

friendlystock.com/top-ten-controversial-united-colors-of-benetton-ads/.

Frishberg, Hannah. “Protesters Give Pepsi to Police to Troll Kendall Jenner's Commercial.” New

York Post, New York Post, 8 June 2020,

nypost.com/2020/06/05/protestors-troll-kendall-jenners-pepsi-ad-by-giving-soda-to-police/

“Lara Stone Poses with Justin Bieber for Calvin Klein Jeans Ad.” Fashion Gone Rogue, 6 Jan.

2015, www.fashiongonerogue.com/lara-stone-poses-justin-bieber-calvin-klein-jeans-ad/.

Taylor, Charles. “Why Gillette's New Ad Campaign Is Toxic.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 19 Jan.

2019,

www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/01/15/why-gillettes-new-ad-campaign-is-toxic/

#43dafb0e5bc9.

sport, Guardian. “Nike's 'Dream Crazy' Advert Starring Colin Kaepernick Wins Emmy.” The

Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 16 Sept. 2019,

www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/16/nikes-dream-crazy-advert-starring-colin-kaepern

ick-wins-emmy.