Once again, "shock advertising" is a hot topic of debate in the industry. We are confronted with the faces of death row prisoners by Benetton, a heroin-injecting baby by Barnardo's, and the F-word, or a version of it, by French Connection. Are these all similar examples or are there important differences between them? I remember when I first saw that great white billboard with those four letters, fcuk, in the middle. There were a few complaints and an Advertising Standards Authority investigation and it is heartily disliked by some older advertising luminaries. But what matters to me is that my eight-year-old daughter doesn't understand it because she doesn't think in anagrams. She knows the word, but she doesn't "see" the word on those posters. People who have expressed outrage and who think that this advertising pollutes the nation's morals clearly spend too much of their time doing crosswords.
I believe fcuk is a stunning piece of brand communication. French Connection's Stephen Marks has attributed the bulk of his 84% increase in profits in the first half of last year to the fcuk advertising campaign. Consumers voted by buying 120,000 T-shirts bearing the slogan. French Connection has been transformed from a run-of-the-mill name to being a youth icon right up there with Sony, Nike and Tango. It deserved its accolade as Campaign of the Year.
Benetton is a different matter. People who call for a ban on its ads play right into their hands by ensuring acres of coverage. You'd think it was spending £50m when in reality it is not a major advertiser.
I was a great supporter of Benetton's original campaigns, but I think they're unpopular with most people in the advertising industry now. This may be because they don't use an advertising agency, relying instead on the photographer, Oliviero Toscani.
The first United Colours campaign was a brilliant portrayal of Benetton's brand proposition - that it is the leading provider of the key colours for each fashion season. But Benetton was also an early proponent of the view (which I share) that advertising has a role to play in social awareness. As consumers become more sophisti cated, they look behind the products, first of all for signs of the company's reliability, then deeper to establish its ethics and behaviour. But with Benetton this appears to have got out of hand.
My experience has proved to me that if you give complete freedom to a film director or a photographer you're in danger of losing the commercial imperative. If advertising agencies are about anything they are about marrying commerce and creativity. This is a real skill, a classic combining of left and right brain capabilities. If Toscani had been prepared to work with an advertising agency he would have been able to do the social commentary but keep it more grounded in the brand. That way lies greater commercial success and greater understanding of the social cause you are supporting.
So, does drawing attention to prisoners on death row - even if it is reminding us that these people waiting to be executed are individual human beings - really have a place in advertising? Probably not.
Trevor Beattie of TBWA says that the role of a creative person is to push communication to the edge of acceptability. The great creative people - like the great tennis players when they serve an ace - hit that line and create chalk dust. I suspect that Benetton has double-faulted.
Benetton and fcuk are selling things; Barnardo's is not. Their depiction of a heroin-injecting baby is a shocking image used for a charitable purpose with which no one could disagree. BBH's campaign is designed to shock us into comprehension.
The value of shock swings like a pendulum. Too much or unjustified, and it's counter-productive: too little, and you don't cut through. Clever advertising correctly judges moods and messages, timing and phasing. Last year's award-winning campaign about the dangers of drug-taking from the Health Education Authority had some shocking visual images. But they were not gratuitous. They were backed up by solid evidence. Barnardo's ads are too. To me, this ad is right on the chalk line. Just.
Advertising in this country has a 75% approval rating, the highest in the world. I believe this is for three reasons. First, our high level of creativity. Secondly, you can escape it by watching BBC. And, thirdly, people know that advertising is properly self-regulated.
By and large the Advertising Standards Authority makes very sensible judgments. Consumer confidence is an important part of advertising's ability to be effective. That's why shock tactics will always be a hot topic. Advertising agencies must ensure their campaigns are legal, honest, decent and truthful. "Decent" is always going to be the hardest to judge.
