Do shock tactics work anymore?

Firstly a heads-up – some of the links could be considered distressing, offensive, cripplingly nostalgic or all three.

Now I'm not a fan of the "nanny state", however last year I expressed regret at the loss of the Central Office of Information, which will be wound up at the end of March. I consider myself something of an aficionado of public information films – you could call that "sad" but judging by most of the content on this blog that's par for the course.

"Whether it's taking extra care with chip pans, or making sure you don't accidentally on purpose get hit by a train. It was comforting to know that the state actually cared enough about you to warn you of these things, even if it came across as incessant nagging."

More often than not it was via public information films during school holidays, warning you to stay away from stagnant water, not to throw fireworks in other people's faces or get trapped inside an abandoned fridge.


In school, excitement would build as the portable television was wheeled to the front of the classroom, only for a British Transport Police officer to describe in some detail what it's like to scoop someone who had an unexpected encounter with the 7:30 from London Paddington into a bin bag. Or a SWALEC education liaison officer showing a teenager getting fried trying to retrieve a football. The one that sticks in the mind though was seeing a group of kids die in various horrible ways in farming accidents. I can honestly say I've never been near a slurry pit since and look both ways when crossing a railway line. Shock tactics certainly work on the young and impressionable.


Although it's before my time, the Saatchi & Saatchi AIDS awareness campaign – arguably the most successful public information campaign ever (Margaret Thatcher isn't everyone's cup of tea but I think you can list this as one of the "good things" she did) - was notable for its apocalyptic and blunt style. The message and imagery was clear – "ignore this and you'll be carving your own tombstone".


The Welsh Government recently launched an equally candid campaign against smoking in cars with children, possible leading to legislation at some point in the future. The underlying message again is point blank - "you're poisoning your children".


In the last decade or so the public information campaign has evolved from being almost entirely about personal safety to encompass charities, social awareness and equalities issues. Anti-fur groups have long produced gory 18-rated horror campaigns for cinemas as have environmentalists. I think the turning point was back in 1999 when the NSPCC produced a TV spot on child abuse as part of their "Full Stop" campaign. It was so shocking, that in the end it was only broadcast after the watershed. In terms of raising awareness, and funds, the campaign was a resounding success. However, the BBC report that in the same year, the NSPCC spent more on administration and campaigning (£38m) than it did on actual children's services (£28m).


Shock tactics are nothing new and that's the problem.


"Hard-hitting", "scare 'em straight", "dropped anvils" – there are many descriptions for this tactic. But 2012 is a different world. It's post 2 Girls 1 Cup, BME Pain Olympics and Blue Waffles. With absolutely anything you can possibly think of being a mouse click away, it's an increasingly desensitised world too. Images that would've once been exclusive to medical textbooks are now on Wikipedia.


Animal rights group PETA sparked controversy this month by producing a darkly-humourous advert that shamelessly implies that violent sex is a side effect of veganism. It got people talking – not about PETA's causes – but about the misogyny (you can argue there's a bit of misandry in there too), prompting debate over whether charities should resort to shock tactics at all.


That sums it up – "resort to". It's almost becoming a rather lazy fall back position for advertisers that have run out of ideas. If shock tactics continue to be used so casually, we could reach a point where absolutely nothing grabs the audiences attention.


Picture this. You're settling down with a curry for some ITV drama, then Ray Winstone pops up to say:

"Vis ain't just 'ard 'ittin' , it's 'ard-shitting".

A morbidly obese woman – resembling Bella Emberg - takes a rather painful dump in a dank, miserable public toilet, sweat dripping off her face, crying in anguish. The sights, the sounds - it evokes memories of that regrettable vindaloo from Caroline Street. In the end there's a close-up on a lot of dark blood clotting on toilet paper.

"Evry yeeuh, fifteen faahsand peepw in the UK die from bowew cancer. So tha' next time you take a tom tit, and notice somefing a bit fahnny in the old Wrigley's, get dahn the GP's."

You carry on eating. These adverts are now part of the background noise. Five years previously someone would've been looking at an obscenities charge, or the very least a Daily Mail headline reflecting on the hell of it all, but who's going to drag a charity through the courts? They all do it.


There are hints that shock tactics are starting to go out of fashion. The British Heart Foundation launched a campaign at the end of last year featuring Vinnie Jones. It was a funny, catchy way to remember basic life saving information using music and rhythm rather than a sense of impending doom, gore or primal fears.


In contrast, back in 2008, the same charity used "shock tactics" – "Watch Your Own Heart Attack" – in which Steven Berkhoff describes in agonising detail what having a heart attack (or being beaten up by Steven Berkhoff) actually feels like.


I have my own opinion on which is more effective and sticks in the mind.


With charities now facing traditional business pressures as "consumers" become ever more discerning about where and why they donate money, I don't think the shock tactic, or the heartstring tugging advert are going to disappear any time soon. However, if it becomes a default position that all advertisers and campaigners – private and public – fall back on because they can't think of something more creative, then the effect of knocking you around the head to change your behaviour or your lifestyle will ever lessen.

It'll become as corny as the low-budget crackle, the Hammer Horror production values and the gentle nagging of the 70s public information film.