Advertising 7

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 54

SHOULD ADVERTISING SHOCK?

David J. Hagenbuch.

Messiah College

ABSTRACT: Shock advertising is a tactic of choice for some organizations despite its disputed efficacy

and dubious ethicality. Through a focused biblical analysis, this paper identifies numerous examples of

divinely-initiated shocking communication, which in light of Imago Dei might lead people to believe that

they also have considerable liberty to use shock. Closer examination of biblical cases, however, suggests

that organizations should only create shocking ads for very compelling reasons.

Key words: Advertising, Shock, Imago Dei, Marketing, Ethics

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Dr. Hagenbuch would like to acknowledge the helpful feedback of the JBIB reviewers as well as the input

of several faculty members of Messiah College’s Department of Biblical & Religious Studies: Dr. Meg

Ramey, Dr. Eric Seibert, and Dr. Brian Smith. Also, special thanks go to Dr. Michael Cosby for offering

considerable editorial and hermeneutical insights.

INTRODUCTION

An ad aimed at combatting anorexia includes a

full-body shot of a severely emaciated and nearly

nude woman. An anti-smoking campaign depicts

individuals “hooked” on the vice through pictures

of actors with large, bloody fishhooks piercing

their lips. An ad intended to draw attention to the

plight of children born into poverty shows an

infant with a cockroach climbing out of its mouth.

The advertising industry appears increasingly

eager to employ words and images that startle

audiences through their unexpected and graphic

violation of social norms (Morrison, 2014; Singla

& Sundrani, 2012). Meanwhile, these

communication methods and content can

substantively influence individuals’ interpretations

of the real situations the media portray

(Chouliaraki, 2006; Curtis, 2012). Shock tactics

can be effective at breaking through the

commercial clutter and motivating target market

members to take action they otherwise might not

consider (Korieth, 2014). Research has often

investigated shock in advertising, sometimes

supporting its efficacy (Dahl & Frankenberger, &

Manchanda, 2003) and sometimes not (Urwin &

Venter, 2014); however, little attention has been

given to the arguably more important normative

question: Regardless of its effectiveness, should

shock be used? This paper explores this significant

ethical issue conceptually, from a Christian

worldview, by examining biblical examples of

shocking communication. Although there are

numerous cases of divinely-ordered shock

throughout scripture, and despite our creation in

the image of God (Imago Dei), this biblical

analysis suggests that people should only use

shocking communication for very compelling

reasons and following the guidance of three key

scriptural principles.

WHAT IS SHOCK?

The aim of most advertising is to capture

attention and gain interest, so what allows some

advertising to accomplish these objectives in the

extreme, that is, to be shocking? As the

aforementioned examples suggest, shock

advertising contains deliberate surprise, in those

three cases, images that the viewer was not

expecting to see (Javed & Zeb, 2011). However,

many ads contain twists, or surprises, that

generally would not be considered shocking. For

instance, a recent Super Bowl ad for electronics

retailer Radio Shack featured a litany of famous

personalities from the 1980s pilfering the store. It

was surprising and funny to see all of these former

celebrities, together in one place, acting in such a

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 55

way; however, most people probably would not

call this commercial shocking. One reason likely

has to do with positive versus negative affect.

Seeing their favorite stars from a decade-gone-by

acting in a humorous way likely brought back fond

memories and generated positive affect for most

viewers. The surprise that shock generates,

however, generally is not pleasant; rather it is

undesirable (Parry et al., 2013). For instance,

imagine that you are in a store shopping and

suddenly you meet a friend whom you have not

seen in years. You would probably say you were

surprised to see him/her. Now imagine that you

are sleeping at night and you awake to find the

same friend standing at the foot of your bed. Now

you are shocked. Shock is not good surprise; it is

surprise that startles and unsettles (Parry et al.,

2013). Just like an electric shock, advertising

shock is at a minimum uncomfortable and quite

often painful.

What turns a pleasant surprise into a shocking

surprise is the violation of some significant social

norm (Dahl, Frankenberger, Manchanda, 2003).

Words or behavior that breach important societal

conventions or values tend to shock people. For

instance, using one’s dessert fork instead of the

salad fork during the first course of a formal

dinner, or wearing white after Labor Day, may be

considered breaches of etiquette, but few people

would call these lapses shocking. On the other

hand, a couple of years ago, a Super Bowl ad for a

web hosting company showed a very beautiful

young female model engaging in a long and

sensuous kiss with a less attractive young man.

This ad shocked many viewers because it violated

norms for public display of affection and the

pairing of individuals with similar levels of

attractiveness.

A final criterion for shock involves its realism

or believability (Castillo-Manzano, Castro-Nuño,

& Pedregal, 2012; Viljoen, Terblanche-Smit, &

Terblanche, 2009). For instance, if the

aforementioned commercial had used cartoon

characters instead of real people, viewers probably

would not have perceived it as shocking.

Similarly, individuals tend to interpret as less

shocking ads that involve humor or that otherwise

appear to be fabrications of reality. For instance,

Animal Planet produced an ad for its annual Shark

Week that involved a pretend live newscast in

which rescuers prepared to release “Snuffy the

Seal,” who had “washed up on shore injured and

dehydrated,” back into the ocean amid great

fanfare. As a crane lowered Snuffy toward the

water inside a large sling, a great white shark

suddenly breached the surface by about 15 feet and

made a quick meal of Snuffy. This turn of events

certainly represented an unsettling surprise and one

that violated a social norm: Americans are not used

to seeing acts of predation. The shock value was

relatively minor, however, as most viewers quickly

realized that what they saw didn’t actually happen;

rather, it was the work of some talented special

effect artists. Furthermore, the spot’s tagline, “It’s

a bad week to be a seal,” reinforced the ad’s goal

of humor over realism.

So, what is shock? To synthesize the preceding

discussion, shock is deliberate and unsettling

surprise that violates a significant social norm

through words and/or images that appear real.

This definition resembles that of Dahl,

Frankenberger, and Manchanda’s oft-cited study

(2003), which described advertising shock as

intentionally startling and offending due to the

violation of social norms. The current study’s

definition, however, also incorporates the concept

of realism, which appears to impact people’s

overall perception of shock; that is, individuals are

more likely to interpret communication as

shocking if it is believable, or seems realistic

(Viljoen, Terblanche-Smit, & Terblanche, 2009).

It also is important to note that what makes

communication shocking can be either the message

content or the method of communication, or both.

Three biblical examples serve to illustrate:

 Nathan uses a story of a poor man's lamb to confront David about his adultery and

murder (2 Samuel 11; 12:1-14). [shocking

message content; not shocking

communication method]

 God makes Moses’ face radiant in order to show the Israelites a small reflection of

God's glory and majesty (Exodus 34:29-

35). [shocking communication method;

not shocking message content]

 God uses a body-less hand to write a cryptic message on the wall of a banquet hall in

order to foretell the fall of King Belshazzar

and Babylon (Daniel 5). [shocking

message content and shocking

communication method]

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 56

Most importantly, the current, expanded

definition and description of shock should prove

useful in analyzing the ethicality of shock. First,

however, this paper will establish an important

broader context for shock advertising by

highlighting the findings of key studies, beginning

with shock’s disputed efficacy.

IS SHOCK EFFECTIVE?

As the preceding examples suggest, shock is an

increasingly common advertising tactic (Parry,

Jones, Stern, & Robinson, 2013). Among other

reasons, easy access to digital media (e.g.,

YouTube) will likely spur even more growth in

shock advertising. Almost anyone can create an ad

and upload it onto a social media sharing site;

meanwhile, regulation of such content seems to be

loose at best (Barbagallo & Baschuk, 2013; “The

open Internet,” 2014). Consequently, considerable

latitude exists for everyone from individuals to

large corporations to create and utilize advertising

shock.

Of course, the use of any promotional tactic

tends to correlate with its efficacy. When

something works, many organizations naturally

want to take advantage of it, and shock advertising

is no exception. The effectiveness of shock is not,

however, a forgone conclusion, as the outcomes of

actual campaigns and other research results are

mixed (Parry et al., 2013). Given the nature of

shock, it is not surprising that it walks a fine line

between motivating people to act and alienating

them (Klara, 2012). The one way in which shock

appears to be most reliable is in breaking through

the commercial clutter and grabbing attention, an

outcome that Parry et al. (2013) found for both for-

profit and non-profit organizations. Similarly,

Dahl, Frankenberger, and Manchanda (2003)

discovered a significant increase in attention

associated with shocking ad content.

However, advertisers are unlikely to consider

an ad effective if it only attracts attention. It is in

the latter stages of behavioral modification

(creating desire and spurring action) where the

results of shock advertising have been particularly

mixed. Some shock has been effective at changing

behavior. For instance GoDaddy’s shocking 2005

Super Bowl commercial reportedly encouraged

over 2.6 million people to visit GoDaddy.com,

which led sales to increase from $102 million in

2004 to $200 million in 2005 (Draper, 2005).

Thanks to its shock advertising aimed at the

industrial rearing of farm animals, PETA saw

measurable increases in its credibility paired with

similar declines in that of the livestock industry

(Scudder & Mills, 2009). Similarly, Spain

witnessed fewer automobile-related fatalities after

its use of shock ads aimed at irresponsible driving

behavior; although it was uncertain whether these

ads were any more persuasive than less-threatening

ones (Castillo-Manzano, Castro-Nuño, & Pedregal,

2012). In addition to these real cases, experimental

research has found shocking ad content to be

associated with increased memory and positive

behavior (Dahl, Frankenberger, & Manchanda,

2003), as well as greater cognitive elaboration

(Huhmann & Mott-Stenerson, 2008).

As suggested above, however, shock

advertising also has not worked in many cases.

For instance, shock appears relatively ineffective

in persuading individuals to have their cancer

symptoms examined (Bacon, 2013; “Do charity

ads overuse,” 2014). Likewise, ad campaigns such

as that of Barnardo’s mentioned at the onset of this

paper, which featured cockroaches crawling out of

infants’ mouths, often seem counterproductive:

only 11.9 % of respondents said that such ads led

them to donate to the focal cause, 18.2% said the

ads turned them off, 67.6% claimed that the ads

did not make a difference, and 2.3% did not know

(Bainbridge, 2003). Certain other research results

also have cast doubt on the efficacy of shock. For

instance, rather than creating buzz, some shock

simply makes people uncomfortable (Berger &

Chen, 2014), and that distaste may be especially

strong among certain target market demographics,

like women, who tend to be less appreciative of

shock that combines humor and violence (Swani,

Weinberger, & Gulas (2013). Similarly,

individuals’ ability to comprehend shock

advertising messages may decline in cases of low

product involvement (Huhmann & Mott –

Stenerson, 2008).

IS IT RIGHT TO SHOCK?

Whether or not it is actually effective, a wide

variety of entities still use shock advertising. From

large global corporations to small nonprofits, many

organizations believe shock will move members of

their target markets from awareness to action,

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 57

which as the preceding discussion has described, it

sometimes does. While considerable research has

addressed the efficacy of shock advertising, the

literature says relatively little in terms of whether

advertisers should use this promotional tactic. In

other words, is it right to shock? A few have,

however, raised this normative question.

For instance, Hyman and Tansey (1990) warned

that “psychoactive ads” can arouse significant

negative emotions, such as extreme anxiety and

hostility, among certain vulnerable people groups.

As a result, the study offered three prescriptions: 1)

Carefully target the medium as well as the market;

2) Clearly label the ads in order to allow viewers to

avoid them; 3) Do not use trick endings (pp. 110-

113). LaTour, Nataraajan, and Henthorne (1993)

suggested that advertisers should adhere to

practical ethical guidelines related to their use of

fear appeals but did not offer specific standards or

examples.

Parry, Jones, Stern, & Robinson (2013) found

that people generally accepted nonprofit

organizations’ shock more readily than that of for-

profit companies; however, individuals considered

it unacceptable for any organization to employ

religious taboos and certain images deemed

morally offensive. Neil Henderson, Chief

Executive of St. Luke’s, a London-based ad

agency, argued that nonprofit organizations have a

duty to use shock advertising, given that these

organizations need to make a large impact with

limited budgets (“Do shock tactics have a place,”

2007). Jones (2002) and Dzamic (2003)

questioned the use of unrelated, gratuitous shock

advertising but supported the legitimacy of shock

used responsibly and genuinely tied to a

meaningful issue. Burgoyne (2008), however,

questioned the motivation of even this latter

category, suggesting that some non-profit shock

campaigns are more concerned with winning

creative awards than about advancing a cause.

Schenck (2006) proposed the idea of “Creative

No-Fly Zones” in response to the belief that there

is some shock that advertisers should never make

because it is too extreme, or is otherwise

unjustified; for instance, an Irish gambling

company made an ad parody of the Last Supper

that featured Jesus and the apostles playing poker.

Likewise, a Volkswagen Polo ad featured a

Middle-Eastern-looking actor who appeared to

commit a suicide bombing. Just as there is

disparate opinion about the effectiveness of shock

advertising, there is little consensus as to its

ethicality. Furthermore, if certain shock is

justifiable, as some suggest (Jones, 2002; Dzamic,

2003; “Do shock tactics have a place,” 2007), what

makes it so?

SHOCKING COMMUNICATION IN

SCRIPTURE

Given that much advertising throughout the

world, including in the United States, occurs in

societies that are predominantly Christian, it is

appropriate to consider the morality of shock

advertising through the lens of a Christian

worldview. For most Christians, such an analysis

would involve some degree of scriptural exegesis.

Of course, the biblical record predates mass media

and, therefore, advertising. Still, that difference

does not preclude an investigation of shock in

other communication contexts, from which one can

make inferences to advertising. As the following

paragraphs reveal, the use of shock in the Bible is

not uncommon. For instance, when Absalom, son

of David, sought to usurp his father’s throne, he

intentionally committed an extremely shocking act:

At the recommendation of his advisor Ahithophel,

they pitched a tent atop the palace roof and

Absalom “lay with his father's concubines in the

sight of all Israel” (2 Samuel 16:15-23).

Since the purpose of this inquiry is not just to

determine if shock was used, but whether it is

moral, this analysis will focus on shock that

appears to have been divinely appointed; that is,

that God or Jesus directed in either the Old or New

Testament. One might also note that this analysis

is consistent with at least one specific approach

from Chewning’s (2001) Twelve Styles of Biblical

Integration, namely the ninth one, “Answered

Questions Assimilated/Integrated.” In describing

this particular approach Chewning says: “One of

the incredible realities about the Scripture is that

while it was written, and the cannon closed,

hundreds of years ago, it possesses to this day all

of the principles necessary to address the most

complicated, modern ethical issues” (p. 21).

Advertising shock appears to be one of those

contemporary moral issues.

Since creation, God’s infinite power often has

manifested itself in ways that human beings have

considered shocking. Given the purpose of this

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 58

paper, however, it is important to distinguish

shocking divine action intended for a specific

physical outcome from similar action intended to

communicate a specific message. For instance,

God’s directive to Noah to build a huge boat on

dry land and the subsequent flood were shocking,

but their purpose extended beyond capturing

attention and changing beliefs; their express

consequence was the physical purging of a sinful

world (Genesis 6). In contrast, shock according to

this paper’s description does not produce an

immediate physical outcome; rather, such

consequences occur indirectly only after

individuals decide to heed the shocking

communication and take related action.

Research Method

The methodology for identifying examples of

shock in the Bible followed a two-phase process.

First, the primary researcher conducted an

independent survey of scripture, identifying

examples of shock that God appeared to initiate,

which were more purely about communicating a

specific message than precipitating an immediate

physical outcome. This examination benefited

from the researcher having read the Bible from

beginning to end about ten times over the course of

approximately 15 years.

For the second phase, the researcher obtained

professional input from four Bible scholars who

worked at a Christian college in the northeast

United States and who had the following

credentials:

 Professor of New Testament and Greek, Ph.D.

 Professor of Hebrew Bible, Ph.D.

 Professor of Old Testament, Ph.D.

 Assistant Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Ph.D.

The primary researcher shared with these four

Bible scholars the nature of the study as well as the

13 examples of shock he had already identified.

He then asked them to offer feedback by way of

critiquing the existing cases and/or recommending

new examples, including the reasons for the shock.

Over the course of about three weeks, the Bible

scholars provided helpful input that involved

thought-provoking on-line discussion among all

parties and ultimately resulted in the identification

of thirteen new cases of divinely-ordained shock,

culminating with a total of 26 cases: fifteen from

the Old Testament and eleven from the New

Testament. Table 1 summarizes each of these

examples, while the following paragraphs elucidate

several specific cases from both the Old and New

Testaments respectively.

Old Testament Shock

There are many Old Testament examples that

fit the stricter definition of communication shock.

One of the most stunning involved the prophet

Hosea, whom God commanded to take an

adulterous wife. Hosea complied by marrying

lascivious Gomer, and in doing so they became a

powerful metaphor for Israel’s spiritual adultery

(Hosea 1:2-3). Hosea’s actions as a prophet and

man of God would have been completely shocking,

particularly in light of the seventh Commandment

(“You shall not commit adultery,” Exodus 20:14)

and various laws from Leviticus demanding sexual

purity (e.g., Leviticus 18). Perhaps even more

shocking, after bearing two children for Hosea,

Gomer resumed her unfaithfulness and God

commanded Hosea to buy her back, which he did

to serve as a symbol of God’s reconciliation with

unfaithful Israel (Hosea 3:1-4).

Another notable example of what seems to be

God-directed shock involved the prophet Nathan

and King David (2 Samuel 12:1-14). Someone

needed to confront David about the sordid chain of

events that began with him sleeping with

Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, whom David then

had killed in battle (2 Samuel 11). In order to help

David realize his heinous sins, Nathan told David a

shocking story about a rich man who provided a

lamb as a meal for traveler. Rather than taking a

lamb from his own abundant flocks, however, the

rich man took the only lamb of a poor man, which

was like a child to him. David’s reaction to the

story was one of shock: “David burned with anger

against the [rich] man and said to Nathan, "As

surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this

deserves to die!” (2 Samuel 12:5).

Moses witnessed firsthand God’s shocking

actions as much as any Old Testament person. For

instance, the ten plagues that God levied on Egypt

certainly were shocking (Exodus 7:14-11:9);

however, like the flood of Noah’s time, the plagues

were intended to do more than just communicate a

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 59

message. One of God’s direct goals was to break

the Egyptians physically, financially, and

emotionally so Pharaoh would let the Hebrews

leave Egypt. As such, one should not consider the

plagues as strictly shocking communication. What

may fit with this paper’s focus, however, are

several other shocking actions that Moses

experienced, which Exodus describes thusly: God

spoke to Moses through a burning bush (3:1-10),

God changed Moses’ staff into a snake (4:1-4), and

God made Moses’ face radiant (34:29-35).

The Old Testament describes dozens of other

miraculous and shocking acts of God. Like the

flood and plagues, most triggered a direct physical

outcome, for instance, the parting of the Red Sea

(Exodus 14) and a great fish swallowing Jonah

(Jonah 1 & 2). One more action to consider more

purely as shocking communication, however,

involved King Belshazzar of Babylon and Daniel.

Belshazzar was holding a great banquet for his

nobles when a body-less human hand appeared and

began to write on the wall inside the banquet

room—a sight that made the King’s face turn pale

and his legs weaken. After none of the King’s

wise men could interpret the cryptic message, the

King summoned Daniel to reveal its meaning,

which he adeptly did, providing further

confirmation that God had executed the shocking

communication (Daniel 5).

New Testament Shock

Although considerably shorter than the Old

Testament, the New Testament also contains many

cases of divinely-ordered shock. In fact, its

“shock-per-page ratio” might exceed that of the

Old Testament. Again, this paper distinguishes

shocking actions that precipitated a direct physical

outcome from those that represented just shocking

communication. For instance, the deaths of

Ananias and Sapphira, who sold some property and

then lied about the money they received and gave

to the Apostles, represented more than just a

shocking message to other believers; their demise

appeared to be direct punishment for their

dishonesty (Acts 5:1-10). As above, therefore, the

following examples focus on cases that represent

more exclusively shocking communication.

One of the most memorable stories in the New

Testament involves Paul’s conversion from an

aggressive persecutor of the Church to one of its

leading apostles (Acts 9:1-9). On the road to

Damascus, Jesus himself appeared to Paul in a

bright light and asked him “Saul, Saul, why do you

persecute me?” (Verse 4). This shocking

communication knocked Paul to the ground and

left his traveling companions speechless. Another

leading apostle, Peter, also received some of God’s

shocking communication. The message to Peter

came in the form of a vision in which he saw a

sheet that contained various animals that devout

Jews considered unclean for many hundreds of

years. As Peter watched the sheet descend to earth

three times, he heard God speak: “Get up, Peter.

Kill and eat,” and “Do not call anything impure

that God has made clean” (Acts 10:13, 15). At first

Peter resisted the directive, but he later realized the

Lord’s desire to extend His grace to everyone—

Jews and Gentiles (Acts 10:9-38).

When Jesus was on earth, he performed

miracles that ranged from turning water into wine

(John 2:1-11), to calming a storm (Luke 8:22-25),

to casting out demons (Luke 4:31-36), to healing

the blind (Matthew 20:29-34). This analysis does

not include most of these miracles, however,

because the vast majority did more than just

communicate a message. An exception, though, is

the miracle Jesus performed when he and his

disciples were returning from Bethany to

Jerusalem and they came across a fig tree that had

no fruit. Jesus cursed the fig tree and caused it to

wither immediately. The apparent reason for this

shocking act was to teach the disciples to have

faith and believe in what they ask for in prayer

(Matthew 21:18-22).

The New Testament records other acts of Jesus

that also were shocking, though not miraculous.

One of the most incredible of those actions

occurred at the start of the Last Supper, when Jesus

got a basin of water and a towel and proceeded to

wash his disciples’ feet (John 13:1-17). Such a

dirty and lowly job was typically the work of a

servant, certainly not of a group’s Lord and

Teacher, as evidenced by Peter’s shocked

response: “you shall never wash my feet” (Verse

8). Jesus continued the washing, however, and

explained to the disciplines the purpose of his

shocking act—to teach them humility and service.

Besides his actions, Jesus also often shocked

others by what he said. People know Jesus, of

course, for teaching his followers to love others

(Mathew 22:39), including their enemies (Luke

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 60

6:27), and to forgive without limits (Matthew

18:21-22). These compassionate directives make it

even more shocking, therefore, when Jesus said:

Do not suppose that I have come

to bring peace to the earth. I did

not come to bring peace, but a

sword. For I have come to turn 'a

man against his father, a daughter

against her mother, a daughter-in-

law against her mother-in-law—a

man's enemies will be the

members of his own household.'

(Matthew 10:34-36)

If anyone comes to me and does

not hate his father and mother, his

wife and children, his brothers and

sisters—yes, even his own life—

he cannot be my disciple. And

anyone who does not carry his

cross and follow me cannot be my

disciple. (Luke 14:26-27)

Did Jesus really want family members to hate each

other? No. He did, however, want everyone to

understand that love for God was paramount,

greater even than love for family members, and his

use of hyperbole helped to drive home that point.

As the master teacher, one of Jesus’s favorite

pedagogies involved parables. In these short

illustrative stories Jesus always chose subject

matter that was relevant for his audiences. Many

of the parables also included a shocking twist—

something that the listeners did not expect and that

probably made them uncomfortable or even angry.

One such example was the Parable of the Good

Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). To the Jewish

listeners, the idea of passersby failing to stop and

help a fallen traveler was unsettling. The notion

that a priest and a Levite were among those who

ignored the victim was even more disturbing. The

fact that a Samaritan, a member of a race that Jews

detested, was the only one to offer assistance was

outrageous.

Speaking of outrage, Jesus sometimes

expressed his own in even more direct ways. In

order to call attention to the hypocrisy of the

Pharisees, Sadducees, and other teachers of the

law, Jesus often used shocking language: “Woe to

you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you

hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs,

which look beautiful on the outside but on the

inside are full of dead men's bones and everything

unclean” (Matthew 23:27); “You snakes! You

brood of vipers! How will you escape being

condemned to hell?” (Matthew 23:33); “You blind

guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel”

(Matthew 23:24). The fact that the words for gnat

(galma) and camel (gamla) sound so similar in

Aramaic added even more punch to the accusation

(M. Cosby, personal communication, July 1,

2015).

A final set of Jesus’s words symbolizes an

important ritual that contemporary Christians

sometimes take for granted but likely was very

shocking when Jesus first gave the directive to his

disciples:

While they were eating, Jesus took

bread, gave thanks and broke it,

and gave it to his disciples, saying,

‘Take and eat; this is my body.’

Then he took the cup, gave thanks

and offered it to them, saying,

‘Drink from it, all of you. This is

my blood of the covenant, which

is poured out for many for the

forgiveness of sins.’ (Matthew

26:26-28)

The allusion to cannibalism would repulse most

people (e.g., see the shock and disgust expressed in

John 6:50-66). To Jews whom the Law prohibited

from even touching a dead body (Numbers 19:11-

13), as well as from eating meat that contained

blood (Leviticus 7:26), Jesus’s description of the

sacraments must have truly shocked.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

What can one conclude from the preceding

investigation that set out to identify and

differentiate instances of God-ordained shock

found in the Bible? God shocks! Both the Old and

New Testaments are replete with examples of

shocking words and actions, divinely sanctioned.

Many of those cases of shock served a purpose

beyond communication of a message. For

instance, Jesus’s bringing Lazarus back to life

certainly communicated God’s power over death,

but the miracle was also about meeting the needs

of Lazarus’ family at that point in time (John 11:1-

44). Likewise, Jesus’s clearing of the Temple

communicated a very important message in a

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 61

shocking way, but that message is difficult to

separate from the immediate purpose of physically

sanctifying God’s house (Mark 11:12-17).

Similarly, probably the most shocking act ever

involved God sending his Son to die on a cross

(Luke 23, 24). The purpose of Jesus’ death and

resurrection, however, was not simply to

communicate a message; it was the necessary

divine action for human redemption and

reconciliation.

In contrast, this study’s 26 biblical examples

represent shock that God seemed to intend more

exclusively for communication. These cases are

the ones most critical for determining the ethicality

of contemporary shock advertising because

advertising is communication. As Table 1 shows

and in light of this paper’s definition of shock, the

researchers identified the specific reason why each

case represents shocking communication (column

4). Similarly, the researchers ascertained for each

example the shock’s specific motive (column 5).

Although these interpretations are subjective, the

four Bible scholars’ input affirmed the judgments.

Also, while other examples of shocking

communication likely exist in both the Old and

New Testaments, this study provides a large

representative sample of such cases.

On one level, the reasons for using shock

appear to be very different and to defy comparison.

Further analysis, however, reveals at least one

common thread—God’s use of shock in scripture

was never gratuitous. That is, when God decided

to use shocking communication, the reasons were

always compelling ones, for instance: individuals’

relationships with Him, persons’ moral

development, and the fate of entire people groups.

In contrast, the contemporary examples of shock

advertising that this paper has cited tend to involve

much less significant purposes. Likewise, other

anecdotal evidence shows advertisers using shock

for reasons such as selling website hosting services

and snack foods.

Just as this paper’s main scriptural analysis

produced numerous examples of divinely-ordered

shocking communication, the Bible also provides

principles that suggest limitations to our use of

advertising shock. The most relevant of these

principles are personal purity, edification of others,

and social safeguarding. One should note that

these three principles reflect those that the

Pontifical Council for Social Communications

identified nearly two decades ago in its treatise on

advertising ethics: truthfulness, the dignity of the

human person, and social responsibility (Foley &

Pastore, 1997). What follows is an explication of

these principles as well as a description of how

shock advertising may violate each of the three in

terms of self, others, and society as a whole.

Impure Communication

The Bible calls for purity in every area of

people’s lives including communication, which

includes truthfulness and freedom from deception,

for example:

 “The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools

is deception” (Proverbs 14:8).

 “The Lord detests the thoughts of the wicked, but those of the pure are pleasing

to him” (Proverbs 15:26).

 “May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your

sight, O Lord, my Rock and my

Redeemer” (Psalm 19:14).

 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8).

 “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6).

 “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right,

whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,

whatever is admirable—if anything is

excellent or praiseworthy—think about

such things” (Philippians 4:8).

These verses and others suggest that purity in

actions, words, and even thoughts is critical for

Christians. As several of the examples near the

beginning of this paper illustrated, however, shock

advertising tends to employ words and images that

are violent, sexually explicit, vulgar, or otherwise

impure. Therefore, one should consider immoral

any advertising that violates purity in

communication.

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 62

Table 1: Analysis of Biblical Shock No. Shocking Communication Reference Why Represents Shock Reason for Using Shock

1 God speaks to Moses through a burning bush Exodus 3:1-10 bushes don't continually burn; fright of

hearing God's audible voice to persuade Moses to lead the Hebrews out

of Egypt

2 God turns Moses' staff into a snake and turns

his hand leprous Exodus 4:1-9 fear of snakes; fear of leprosy

to give Moses signs to show others so they

will believe that God has sent him

3 God makes Moses’ face radiant Exodus 34:29-

35 fear of the Divine

to show the Israelites a small reflection of

God's glory and majesty

4 Nathan uses a story of a poor man's lamb to confront David about his adultery and murder

2 Samuel 11;

12:1-14 a very distressing and abhorrent story to move David to repentance

5 Isaiah walks naked in public for three years to

illustrate Assyria's conquering of Egypt and Ethiopia and the exiling of their people

Isaiah 20:1-6 the shame of public nakedness in a culture

that valued physical modesty to warn Israel about relying on foreign

powers

6 God instructs Jeremiah to not marry or have

children Jeremiah 6:1-4

very abnormal behavior for a man in ancient

Israel to warn Judah of the destruction that will

befall it because of its sinful behavior

7 Jeremiah buys clay from a potter, makes it into a jar, than smashes the jar in front of the

elders and priests

Jeremiah 19:1-

14 a loud and startling action

to foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and

Judah by their enemies

8 Jeremiah predicts that God will destroy the

Temple in Jerusalem Jeremiah 26:1-

9 an extremely sacrilegious statement

to warn Judah of the destruction that will come upon it because of its sinful behavior

9 Jeremiah wears a yoke to symbolize Babylon's

oppression of Judah Jeremiah 28:1-

17 troubling to see a person wear a device

intended for beasts of burden to foretell the suffering that Judah will

experience at the hands of Babylon

10 Ezekiel lies on his left side for 390 consecutive days and his right side for 40

days, while bound with ropes Ezekiel 4:1-8

a disturbing public spectacle that lasted for

an extraordinarily long time to illustrate the sin of Israel and Judah and

symbolize the siege of Jerusalem

11 Ezekiel prepares his meals in public, cooking

the food over burning dung Ezekiel 4:9-15 a repugnant action to symbolize the siege of Jerusalem

12 Ezekiel tells an allegory of Jerusalem's unfaithfulness filled with very graphic images

Ezekiel 16;1-63 some might call the imagery pornographic to describe Jerusalem's spiritual

unfaithfulness

13 Ezekiel tells a graphic metaphor of two adulterous sisters Ohohah and Oholibah

Ezekiel 23:1-49 an obscene story to illustrate the spiritual infidelity of Israel

and Judah and warn of Judah's fall

14 A body-less hand writes a cryptic message on

the wall of a banquet hall Daniel 5 a supernatural and frightening sight

to foretell the fall of King Belshazzar and

Babylon

15 God tells Hosea to marry an adulterous

woman Hosea 1:2-3;

3:1-4

a very unholy act given Old Testament laws

about adultery to communicate God's displeasure with Israel's adulterous relationships with others

16 Jesus says that he did not come to bring peace

but a sword and suggests that family members hate each other

Matthew 10:34-

36 a violent statement and unbelievable

command--to hate one's own family to emphasize that one should love God

above anyone else

17 Jesus curses a fig tree and it withers Matthew 21:18-

22 disturbing to kill a mature, heathy fruit tree

and incredible to do so just with words to teach the disciples to have faith and

believe in what they ask for in prayer

18 Jesus lashes out at the Jewish religious

leaders Matthew

23:24, 27, 33 extremely harsh and critical language

to point out that their religious hypocrisy is

hurting others

19 Jesus compares the communion sacraments

to eating his body and drinking his blood Matthew 26:26-

28 seemed to be commanding cannibalism;

even touching a dead body was unclean to establish a ritual that will serve as a lasting reminder of his sacrificial death

20 Jesus refers to Elijah, who God sent to a widow in the region of Sidon, rather than to

one in Israel (I Kings 17:7-24) Luke 4:23-30

an especially offensive public reference in light of Jewish views of being God's chosen

people

to teach that God is far more inclusive than the beliefs of many of the Jews would allow

21 Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37 very insulting for a despised Samaritan to

show-up Jewish religious leaders to show that everyone is your neighbor

22 Jesus states that if "this temple" is destroyed,

he will raise it again in three days John 2:18-22

upsetting to talk of the Temple's destruction and outrageous to suggest that a single person could rebuild it in three days

to answer the Jews’ request for a miraculous

sign

23 Jesus washes his disciples’ feet John 13:1-17 disturbing and humiliating for a rabbi to

wash the feet of his followers to teach the disciples humility and service

24 Jesus appears to Paul in a bright light and

speaks to him on the road to Damascus Acts 9:1-9

a frightening supernatural act with an extreme physical consequence--blindness

to convert Paul to faith in Christ

25 Peter sees a vision of a sheet with unclean

animals and is told to "kill and eat" Acts 10:9-38

inconceivable for a devout Jew to eat even

one type of unclean food to help Peter and others realize that God's

grace is for Jews and Gentiles

26 Paul suggests that those stirring up dissent

about circumcision castrate themselves Galatians 5:11-

12 a brutally graphic suggestion

to help the Galatian Church understand

freedom from the law through Christ

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 63

Causing Others to Sin

Given that one of the greatest influences on

people is other people, the Bible directs believers

to encourage and build up one another, which

affirms the dignity of others while avoiding the

opposite—causing them to stumble, or sin:

 “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are

doing” (1 Thessalonians 5:11).

 “But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called today, so that none of you may

be hardened by sin's deceitfulness”

(Hebrews 3:13).

 “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do

not cause anyone to stumble, whether

Jews, Greeks or the church of God—even

as I try to please everybody in every way”

(1 Corinthians 10:31-33).

 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be

better for him to have a large millstone

hung around his neck and to be drowned in

the depths of the sea. Woe to the world

because of the things that cause people to

sin!” (Matthew 18:6-7)

Certainly these scriptural mandates suggest

consistency with the previous ones regarding

purity. These latter passages, however, press the

requirements one step further. It is not good

enough just to maintain one’s own freedom from

sin. Christians also must refrain from

communication that might lead others to sin in

thought, word, or deed. Shock advertising

generally falls short of this standard; for instance,

ads that contain sexually explicit images diminish

human dignity and encourage people to think, or

perhaps even behave, in ways that are inconsistent

with a biblical sexual ethic.

Societal Desensitization

Beyond the influence that any one ad may have

on an individual or certain others, there should be

concern about the cumulative impact that

advertising has on society (Foley & Pastore, 1997).

This concern holds particular relevance in the

context of shock advertising. More specifically,

one might question whether shock in advertising

and other media sacrifice social responsibility and

instead desensitize society to illicit

communication. As can be expected, the Bible

denounces societal acclimation to sinful cultural

mores:

 But when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than

those of their fathers, following other gods

and serving and worshiping them. They

refused to give up their evil practices and

stubborn ways. Therefore the Lord was

very angry with Israel and said, ‘Because

this nation has violated the covenant that I

laid down for their forefathers and has not

listened to me, I will no longer drive out

before them any of the nations Joshua left

when he died.’ (Judges 2:19-21)

 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the

warnings he had given them. They

followed worthless idols and themselves

became worthless. They imitated the

nations around them although the Lord had

ordered them, ‘Do not do as they do,’ and

they did the things the Lord had forbidden

them to do. They forsook all the

commands of the Lord their God and made

for themselves two idols cast in the shape

of calves, and an Asherah pole. They

bowed down to all the starry hosts, and

they worshiped Baal. They sacrificed their

sons and daughters in the fire. They

practiced divination and sorcery and sold

themselves to do evil in the eyes of the

Lord, provoking him to anger. (2 Kings

17:15-17)

Again, the Pontifical Council for Social

Communications’ essay on advertising ethics with

its three principles of truthfulness, the dignity of

the human person, and social responsibility (Foley

& Pastore, 1997) reinforces this paper’s suggestion

that all advertising should edify self, others, and

society. Although these standards are well within

the reach of most advertising, they present a

particular challenge for shock advertising, given its

inherent tendency to employ offensive content and

objectionable methods of communication.

Given the moral constraints that scripture

suggests for its use, perhaps, shock should be the

unique domain of the divine. However, a rational

argument built from the analysis so far might

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 64

suggest that if God uses shock, it must be moral;

therefore, it is acceptable for humans to use shock,

possibly including shock advertising. A key

supposition of this argument is the notion that

humankind is created in the image of God. There

certainly is strong biblical support for this belief,

for instance:

Then God said, ‘Let us make man

in our image, in our likeness, and

let them rule over the fish of the

sea and the birds of the air, over

the livestock, over all the earth,

and over all the creatures that

move along the ground.’ So God

created man in his own image, in

the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

(Genesis 1:26-27)

The JBIB often has given thought-provoking

treatment to Imago Dei, particularly in its most

recent issue. For instance, Brown (2014) argued

that part of being God’s image-bearers meant

pursuing spontaneous order—a trait not typically

associated with the character of God; yet, Brown

suggested: “I submit that such orderly and efficient

spontaneity actually reflects the image of a

Creator, and His nature stamped upon mankind”

(p. 76). Moreover, looking beyond any single

article or issue of the JBIB, the idea that humans

are created in God’s image represents a “basic

assumption” of the JBIB (Smith, 2014, p. 5).

But to what extent does Imago Dei allow

human beings to emulate divine action? Following

God’s lead seems to work well for negative

injunctions. For instance, God does not lie (Titus

1:2), so Christians, created in God’s image, should

not lie. Similarly, Jesus never murdered (Isaiah

53:9), so Christians made in the likeness of Christ,

should not murder. However does the inverse of

this idea also hold? That is, should Christians

really do everything that God does, or that Jesus

did? Even though God created us in His image,

some behaviors seem to reside uniquely in the

realm of the Divine. Of course, God alone is

worthy of worship (Exodus 20:3-6), so no human

being should seek such adulation. Also, for

example, the Bible repeatedly reminds us that God

judges humankind (e.g., Job 21:22; Psalm 75:7; 1

Peter 4:5; Revelation 6:10). Likewise, Jesus has

authority to judge (John 5:27, 30; Romans 2:16; 2

Timothy 4:1). God, however, specifically tells

humans not to judge others (Matthew 7:1; Luke

6:37; Romans 14:10; James 4:12). If there are

other actions reserved exclusively for God, could

shocking communication be one of them?

Given this study’s analysis of biblical shock

and its consideration of the scriptural guidelines

related to edification of self, others, and society, it

is difficult to conclude that human beings should

never employ shock. This biblical exposition,

however, suggests that if people do use shock it

should be for very compelling reasons, as well as

with serious consideration of the communication’s

impact. To that end, the following decision-

making model may be helpful:

Q1: Are there other promotional tactics that could

be equally effective or more effective than

shock?

- If yes, consider using one of those

alternatives.

- If no, continue to the second question.

Q2: Are there reasons for using shock that rise to

the level of upholding a moral imperative or

safeguarding an entire people group?

- If no, consider taking an alternate

promotional approach.

- If yes, continue to the third question.

Q3: Does the shock uphold personal purity,

edification of others, and societal well-being.

- If no, consider using another

promotional strategy, or provide

compelling support along the lines of

Q2 to justify shock.

- If yes, still use shock judiciously.

CONCLUSION

This paper purposed to move beyond the

practical question of whether shock advertising is

effective in order to contemplate the arguably more

important normative question: Regardless of its

efficacy, should advertisers use shock? Biblical

analysis suggests that if human beings do create

shocking ads, they only should do so for reasons of

great magnitude, such as upholding a moral

imperative or safeguarding an entire people group.

Consequently, this judgment does not close the

door on advertising shock. It does, however,

significantly narrow the range of what advertisers

and others should consider acceptable practice,

while also inviting further analysis and discussion

of this morally important issue.

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 65

REFERENCES

Bacon, J. (2013, January 23). Are shock tactics back?

Marketing Week, 12-16. Retrieved from

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/analysis/essential

-reads/are-shock-tactics-back/

Bainbridge, J. (2003, December 4). 'Shock' charity ads

fail to move public to donate. Marketing, 5.

Barbagallo, P. & Baschuk, B. (2013, November 12).

Can the FTC really regulate broadband? Bloomberg

BNA. Retrieved from http://www.bna.com/ftc-

really-regulate-n17179880064/

Berger, J. & Chen, Z. (2014). When controversy sparks

buzz--and when it doesn't. Harvard Business

Review, 92, 28.

Brown, K. (2014). Spontaneous order and the Imago

Dei. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 17,

73-76.

Burgoyne, P. (2008, December 1). Charity Ads: A more

mature approach? Creative Review. Retrieved from

http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-

blog/2008/december/charity-ads-a-more-mature-

approach

Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., & Pedregal,

D. J. (2012). How many lives can bloody and

shocking road safety advertising save? The case of

Spain. Transportation Research, 15, 174-187.

Chewning, R. C. (2001). A dozen styles of biblical

integration: Assimilating the mind of Christ.

Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, Fall,

114-151.

Chouliaraki, L. (2006). The aestheticization of suffering

on television. Visual Communication, 5, 261-285.

Curtis, H. D. (2012). Depicting distant suffering:

Evangelicals and the politics of pictorial

humanitarianism in the age of American empire.

Material Religion, 8, 154-183.

Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D.,& Manchanda, R. V.

(2003). Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking

and non-shocking advertising content among

university students. Journal of Advertising

Research, 43, 268-280.

Do charity ads overuse shock tactics? (2014, January

21). Campaign. Retrieved from

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1281252

Do shock tactics have a place in charity marketing

campaigns? (2007, July 4). Marketing. Retrieved

from

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/66877

5/opinion-marketing-society-forum---shock-tactics-

a-place-charity-marketing-campaigns

Draper, J. (2005, July 31). Shock value. Entrepreneur.

Retrieved from http://www.entrepreneur.com/

article/78920.

Dzamic, L. (2003). Shockvertising. Communication

Arts, 45, 198-204.

Foley, J. P. & Pastore, P. (1997, February 24). Ethics in

advertising. Pontifical Council for Social

Communications. Retrieved from

http://www.pccs.va/index.php/en/documents/docum

ents-du-pccs/item/324-1997-ethics-in-advertising

Huhmann, B. A. & Mott-Stenerson, B. (2008).

Controversial advertisement executions and

involvement on elaborative processing and

comprehension. Journal of Marketing

Communications, 14, 293-313.

Hyman, M. R. & Tansey, R. (1990). The ethics of

psychoactive ads. Journal of Business Ethics, 9,

105-114.

Javed, M. B. & Zeb (2011). Good shock or bad shock:

What impact advertisements are creating on the

mind of viewers. The Center for Innovations in

Business and Management Practice. Paper

presented at the Annual Conference on Innovations

in Business & Management, London, UK.

Retrieved from

http://www.cibmp.org/Papers/Paper553.pdf

Jones, M. C. (2002, July). Shaken by ad aftershock.

Brand Strategy, 9.

Klara, R. (2012, February 20). Advertising's shock

troops. Adweek, 53, 26-27.

Korieth, K. (2014, September 29). Cutting edge

advertising can ‘break through the clutter’ for

successful patient recruitment. CW Weekly.

Retrieved from

http://www.bbkworldwide.com/newsroom/_articles

/CWW_BBKWorldwide_Advertising.pdf

LaTour, M. S., Nataraajan, R., & Henthorne, T. L.

(1993). To shock or energize through fear arousal

in print advertising. American Business Review, 11,

1-5.

JBIB • Volume 18, #2 • Fall 2015 66

Morrison, K. (2014, September 19). ‘Shockvertising’:

The ugly side of viral marketing. Social Times.

Retrieved from

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/shockvertising

-ugly-side-viral-marketing/204883

Parry, S., Jones, R., Stern, P., & Robinson, M. (2013).

'Shockvertising': An exploratory investigation into

attitudinal variations and emotional reactions to

shock advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,

12, 112-121.

Schenck, E. (2006, May/June). Do we need creative no-

fly zones? Communication Arts, 48, 122-124.

Scudder, J. N. & Mills, C. B. (2009, June). The

credibility of shock advocacy: Animal rights attack

messages. Public Relations Review, 35, 162-164.

Singla, N. & Sundrani, R. (2012, November 25).

Shockvertising: An emerging advertising media.

MBASkool.com. Retrieved from

http://www.mbaskool.com/business-

articles/marketing/5415-shockvertising-an-

emerging-advertising-media.html

Smith, Y. S. (2014). Editor’s perspective: Reflections of

the Imago Dei. Journal of Biblical Integration in

Business, 17, 5-6.

Swani, K., Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (2013).

The impact of violent humor on advertising

success: A gender perspective. Journal of

Advertising, 42, 308-319.

The open Internet. (2014). Federal Communications

Commission. Retrieved from

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet

Urwin, B. & Venter, M. (2014). Shock advertising: Not

so shocking anymore. An investigation among

Generation Y. Mediterranean Journal of Social

Sciences, 15, 203-214.

Viljoen, E. N., Terblanche-Smit, M., & Terblanche, N.

S. (2009). Good idea, bad idea: A study of young

adults' opinions on anti-drunken driving campaigns.

South African Journal for Communication Theory

& Research, 35, 119-137.

Dr. David Hagenbuch is a

Professor of Marketing at

Messiah College and the

founder of

www.MindfulMarketing.org,

which aims to encourage

ethical marketing. Before

entering higher education,

he worked as a corporate

sales analyst for a national

Christian broadcasting company and as a partner in

a specialty advertising firm.

Copyright of Journal of Biblical Integration in Business is the property of Christian Business Faculty Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.