UNETHICAL MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES 563Th e use of models in marketing communications oft en supports the stereotype that
happiness depends on physical attractiveness, for instance by showing ‘before–aft er’ pictures
for slimming and beauty products. Advertising to men oft en appeals to worries about virility
(Viagra, hair transplants, hair colouring products). Idealised advertising and media images
have been shown to aff ect how individuals think about themselves.^31 In previous studies,
images of thin women and buff men negatively impacted on mood and bodily perceptions
of respectively women and men, through the process of social comparison.^32 Models
being Photoshopped to make them look more ‘ideal’ than they are is a common practice in
advertising (see, for instance, the Dove ad at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4y5b7INvqE ).
According to Spurgin, advertisers are ethically obliged to avoid certain aesthetic results that
are produced by computer-generated images of perfection because this is misleading. Most
people are not aware of the fact that the picture only exists virtually. Th e author claims that
this type of advertising is deceptive and violates the autonomy of those subjected to it.^33Controversial messages
Controversial or ‘shock advertising’ can be defi ned as advertising that deliberately rather
than inadvertently startles and off ends its audience, by means of deliberate norm violation- transgression of law or custom (obscenity) or moral/social code (vulgarity) – or by showing
things that outrage the moral or physical senses (e.g. provocative or disgusting images).^34
Controversial advertising appeals, appeals that evoke negative emotions, or shock tactics are
widely used as a creative technique to grab the attention of the public or to bring shock values
to the brand.^35 Th e whole point of using controversial ads is to break through the clutter,
facilitate recall and have a positive (or at least not a negative) impact on advertising and brand
attitudes. Controversial advertising can be divided into two broad categories: advertising
for off ensive products or ideas (e.g. politics, female hygiene products and alcohol; some
may even say professional services like dentists, lawyers and doctors),^36 and controversial
advertising executions (e.g. sexual appeals). Several authors defi ned various categories of
controversial ads, in terms of ads for both controversial products and controversial imagery:
unmentionables, socially sensitive or indecent, unethical advertising and unacceptable adver-
tising (causing off ence).^37 Waller found six reasons for advertising to be seen as off ensive:
racist, anti-social behaviour, sexist, too personal a subject, indecent language and nudity.^38
Shimp and Stuart used a panel of 25 college students to establish six categories of disgusting
advertising: gross depiction, indecent, sexually oriented, gross animal and human waste
scenes, associational disgust presentation, disgusting political ads and miscellaneous.^39 Several
well-known brands are known to have used controversial appeals, the most frequently cited
being Benetton, but also Calvin Klein, Citroën, Moschino, Esprit, Gucci, Sony PlayStation
and Reebok.^40 Disgust appeals are sometimes used in public service announcements, for
instance AIDS awareness campaigns, in which case they can generate a lot of attention to
and memory of the message.^41 However, using disgust in a less congruent commercial setting
does not necessarily lead to increased brand recall, but has been shown to have a negative
eff ect on ad and brand attitudes, especially with high-aff ect intense and high-involvement
consumers.^42
(5%) than women, though. While 89% of women in the ads were judged to be underweight (versus 27% of men),
men were most likely to be shown in a ‘normal’ weight class (66%, versus 9% of women). Overweight men (5%)
and women (2%) were rare.
In comparison with the first period (2002–3), gender portrayal did not fundamentally change in the second
period (2009–10). The study demonstrates that advertising on Belgian TV today is permeated by gender stereo-
types. Notwithstanding societal and regulatory changes, advertisers still use stereotypical gender roles to convey
their messages, and we see little decrease from the 2002 situation.M16_PELS3221_05_SE_C16.indd 563M16_PELS3221_05_SE_C16.indd 563 6/6/13 8:59 AM6/6/13 8:59 AM