Discussion and Peer response - Dancer

Prof.
Elio
L.
Arteaga
 VIC3002—Visual
Design
for
Media
 Module
5
Lecture
Notes
 Shock
Advertising
 
 The
ASPCA’s
animal‐cruelty
prevention
campaign
incorporates
a
new
logo,
as
well
 as
new
print,
outdoor
and
online
elements.
Saatchi
&
Saatchi
Copywriter
Jake
 Benjamin
and
Art
Director
Mark
Voehringer
were
faced
with
a
challenge:
how
to
 portray
animal
cruelty
without
showing
suffering
animals?
A
literal
representation
 of
animal
cruelty,
although
accurate,
might
repel
some
visitors,
but
avoiding
graphic
 details
means
a
weaker
message.
Their
solution
was
to
let
the
viewers’
imaginations
 fill
in
the
blanks.
The
result
is
a
strong
message,
without
relying
on
the
kinds
of
 images
that
nauseate
readers.
 



 
 Visit
the
ASPCA
website
at
http://www.aspcaspeak.org
 
 “The
reality
of
animal
abuse
is
worse
than
anything
that
could
ever
be
shown
in
an
 ad,”
says
Benjamin
and
Voehringer.
“But
that’s
exactly
what
we
realized
needed
to
 be
communicated.
Anything
less
would
be
candy‐coating
the
issue.”
 
 What
about
giving
ideas
to
lunatics?
“We
were
never
worried
that
these
ads
might
 give
someone
twisted
ideas.
The
truth
is
that
these
horrific
things
are
happening
 every
day
—
the
ideas
were
given
to
us.
And,
disturbingly
enough,
the
examples
we
 chose
to
feature
weren’t
even
the
worst
scenarios
we
encountered.
There
were


times
when
we
became
physically
nauseated
from
researching
case
files
for
this
 campaign.
But
the
client
realizes
that
people
are
numb
to
many
of
the
traditional
 approaches
of
raising
awareness
of
animal
abuse,
so
we
decided
to
steal
a
little
trick
 from
horror
movies.
Sometimes
the
most
frightening
moments
happen
as
a
result
of
 the
things
you
don’t
see
—
when
it’s
left
up
to
the
imagination
to
fill
in
the
blanks.”
 
 Many
of
the
shocking
ads
shown
in
Chapter
6
of
your
textbook
and
the
 accompanying
slides
(see
Module
4
Resources,
Chapter
6
Slides)
and
in
the
AIGA
 Journal
Article
“Shockvertising:
A
Poke
in
the
Brain”
are
examples
of
campaigns
 where
the
agencies
allowed
adrenaline‐charged
young
creatives
unrestrained
 leeway
to
push
the
bounds
of
taste
and
appropriateness,
utilizing
shock
imagery
as
 a
replacement
for
smart
and
sophisticated
creativity.
 
 It
is
my
contention
that
shocking
communications
repel
more
people
than
they
 attract.
They
grab
attention
by
presenting
the
worst
side
of
human
nature.
They
may
 be
used
successfully
to
bring
attention
to
a
subject
that
people
have
become
numb
 to—such
as
drug
abuse
or
the
AIDS
crisis—but
they
do
so
ham‐handedly.
Shocking
 imagery
is
a
lazy
excuse
for
not
coming
up
with
a
creative
idea.
Visual
 communicators
should
take
a
hint
from
Benjamin
and
Voehringer’s
ASPCA
 campaign
and
treat
shocking
subjects
tactfully,
calling
viewers’
attentions
and
 engaging
them
on
an
emotional
level,
but
without
being
offensive
or
repulsive.