5. GEN Y
19 - 24
Students & Full-Time Workers
16 Participants - Mixed Gender
1 Pilot (Results not included - gender bias)
1 Male Focus Group | 1 Female Focus Group
2 Male In-Depth Interviews | 2 Female In-Depth Interviews
12. –Dahl et al. 2003
No advanced warning
Breach advertising clutter
Demand attention
SHOCK ADVERTISING
13. “to make people think they will look
good to someone else, in a sexual
way if they wear the brands clothes”
–Female Interior Designer, 19
14. Awareness: Product & brand
Knowledge: Deeper level of awareness
Liking: Associating feelings to advertisements
Conviction: Making an active judgement
Purchase: Acting on feelings and judgement
- Hierarchy of Effects, Lavidge & Steiner (1961)
15. Shock Advertising
Sex Appeals
Negative Attitude Towards
Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
1. Awareness
2. Knowledge
3. Liking
4. Conviction
5. Purchase
24. Shock Advertising
Sex Appeals
High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude Towards
Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
1. Awareness
2. Knowledge
3. Liking
4. Conviction
5. Purchase
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
25. High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude
Towards Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
i.e. SCEPTICISM i.e. CONGRUENCE
26. High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude
Towards Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
i.e. AWARENESS
i.e. VALUES
27. High Interest
in Ad Message
High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude
Towards Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
i.e. AWARENESS
i.e. VALUES
36. Different age group
Different professions
Media and Humour
Congruence - industries beyond apparel
Pre-existing relationships with brands
FUTURE STUDIES
37. Shock Advertising
Sex Appeals
High-Intensity
Of Appeal
Negative Attitude Towards
Advert
Low Offence
Negative
Behavioural Intent
Positive
Behavioural Intent
Positive Attitude Towards
Advert
High Offence
Figure 1 : Conceptual Framework, Magnani 2015
1. Awareness
2. Knowledge
3. Liking
4. Conviction
5. Purchase
Perceived ‘Fit’
of Brand with Appeal
High Interest
in Ad Message
38. - Lightfoot et al. 2006, p.157-163
“The shock of the new that was modernity, is no
longer new… Our new, if it is anything, is old”
39. Andreasen, A.R., 2001. Ethics In Social Marketing. Washington
D.C.:Georgetown University Press.
Dahl, DW., Frankenberger KD. and Manchanda RV., 2003. Does It Pay To
Shock? Reactions To Shocking And Nonshocking Advertising Content
Among University Students. Journal Of Advertising Research 43 (3), 268–
281.
Lavidge, R.J. and Steiner, G.A., 1961. A Model For Predictive
Measurements Of Advertising Effectiveness. Journal Of Marketing, 25 (4),
59–62.
Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S and Kavanagh, D., 2006. The End Of The Shock Of
The New. Creativity & Innovation Management. 15 (2), 157-163.
REFERENCES
