I’M surprised the FCUK (French Connection UK) promotion hasn’t attracted much advertising comment considering it’s loaded with issues, such as:
• Is it ethical to cynically shock and offend the majority of the population in order to appeal to the minority?
• What kinds of signals does it send to the public about advertising and those who practise it?
• Does it portray the ad industry as just a bunch of adolescent school losers sniggering behind the toilet block as they come up with ‘creative’ ideas? Pathetic.
Curiously, the FCUK merchandise looks similar to what you can buy almost anywhere, so where’s the anti-establishment product to match the contrived, anti-establishment name?
Where’s the big deal appeal?
The brand boasts it has had a successful launch in Australia, which is a feeble rationale for offending and trashing the values of the majority.
It has been said by wise and talented advertising men and women of decades past that advertising does have a social responsibility.
It should be respectful of people and enrich their lives, not demean them or exploit their insecurities.
Sure, social mores are constantly moving and advertising should reflect those if it’s to be contemporary.
The art is all in the judgement of how to achieve a provocative edge without being offensive. It may disappoint some to realise advertising does not create trends, it reflects them.
I read FCUK has also launched a line of perfumes in the US called FCUK Him and FCUK Her. A number of major US department stores have refused to stock it because of widespread public complaint.
The major flaw in such a ‘shock’ strategy is that it’s like a drug: you have to increase the dose of shock to remain visible but there’s a limit to how much of that the public will cop.
It’s a brand strategy that’s not for the long haul; it can’t grow, it will just consume itself.
The FCUK promotion is a juvenile, one-act play and the sooner it sinks to the bottom of advertising’s septic tank the better.
Another different but contentious issue is the use of gory, graphic rationality in anti-smoking ads. After decades of anti-smoking campaigns and stark warnings on cigarette packs and display materials, there is no one alive in the western world who will disagree smoking is bad for you and it can kill you.
Brand new health horror stories appear regularly—such as this one: it is now revealed there has been high levels of pesticide residues, including DDT, in tobacco for decades.
Lung cancer, heart disease, strokes and emphysema; take your pick, one or all can be yours.
The horrifying statistics keep coming in. In 2001, 2326 Australians died of lung cancer, a similar number to those killed in the New York twin towers the in same year.
A similar number to those killed at Pearl Harbour.
Another comparison would be Australia losing more than two battalions of infantry every year.
Looking deeper into the figures, twice as many women die of lung cancer compared with men, yet it is young women who are taking up smoking with enthusiasm—and remaining smokers.
Why do they do it in spite of what they know about the damage caused by smoking and passive smoking?
A large part of the reason is distressingly simple.
Many young women are vulnerable and they take up smoking for emotional reasons such as wanting to look mature, as an aid to weight reduction and wanting to be part of the ‘in’ crowd.
So we’re dealing with insecurity, fashion and peer pressure.
Unfortunately, encouraging young women not to smoke is not helped by Nicole Kidman and Sarah O’Hare, as role models, who are shown smoking even though they are both at the forefront of Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns.
As we understand why young women take up smoking, perhaps if we were to focus on bringing out the attractive emotional positives of not smoking it would be more relevant to them than trying to shock them away from smoking by showing even more diseased organs.
Showing blood on the factory floor and blood on the roads are not recognised as effective ways to educate the public about workplace and road safety.
Showing horrific scenes gets your attention but not your involvement.
People won’t put themselves into those scenarios because they don’t want to be part of a horror story.
They see them as ads directed at other people about other people, not them, so their involvement goes out the window.
Ironically, horror can be greater if it’s suggested, not shown.
Advertising is really education wrapped in different packages.
Its size, shape and colours are infinite and can be changed to suit any communication task.
Overt education can be the creative kiss of death, but when it’s done in a highly creative, fun, dramatic, involving and empathetic way, it can be brilliantly effective.
In-your-face shock and horror may make for a good movie but has doubtful value for good communication, particularly over the long term.
Albert Einstein said: “You conduct an experiment and it fails. If you continue to conduct that same experiment it will continue to fail.”
You don’t have to be an advertising Einstein to see the connection.
Ray Black is the creative director at Sydney agency John Bevins
