Controversial advertising

UK supermarket Iceland’s 2018 Christmas advertisment was banned from British television for breaching relevant clearance regulations and being considered ‘too political’. The advertisement, exploring the devastating effects on orangutans in sourcing palm oil for human products, gained significant traction despite the ban, receiving over 5.5 million views on the company’s YouTube channel in under a month.1 It has led to an outpour of support with some consumers even saying they will now choose Iceland over competitors for the festive season.

Why was this advertisement so successful?

Controversy. In a world where consumers are exposed to on average more than four thousand advertisements per day,2 controversial advertising is an age-old technique used to help stimuli be noticed. Controversial advertising captivates people’s attention by exposing them to shocking content that prompts them to physically engage with the advertisement.3 The nature of the content leads the consumer to take the time to comprehend the message, enhancing message retention and positively influencing purchase behaviour.

In today’s modern world, societal values have changed. Being controversial has expanded to taking a public stand in support or opposition to social and or political views. Studies show that US consumers are 8.1% more inclined to purchase from a brand that shares their opinions,4 highlighting that it is about more than just what a company sells, it is also about what their brand represents. Further evidence from the ACRS Omnibus behavioural tracking data confirms that consumers place high importance on the alignment of a brand’s core values with the consumer’s personal values.

Who else is seeing success from being controversial?

In September, Nike took a similar approach in their “Dream Crazy” advertising campaign featuring the highly controversial NFL star, Colin Kaepernick, who was promoted as an inspirational athlete. Kaepernick chose to kneel during the American National Anthem, sung before multiple NFL games in 2016 to protest against police brutality, which lead to a backlash from US society, particularly from nationalists. Despite an initial dip, Nike’s stock price reached an all-time high and a 30% increase in sales following the advertisment’s release as it was well received by socially conscientious consumer groups, including millennials and Gen Z’s.5

Does the reward always outweigh the risk?

Pepsi released an advertisement in 2017 showing a protest and used a bottle of Pepsi to unite both parties, however, it suffered extreme criticism over their glorification of protests, as well as the presence of multiple other political issues. Pepsi was forced to make a formal apology and cull the ad from screens. While taking a controversial standpoint can be highly successful, it can backfire if not properly thought through.

  1. Iceland Foods. (2018, November 8). Source.
  2. Sanders, B. (2017, September 1). Source.
  3. Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 268-280.
  4. Data Freaks. (2015, March 12). Source.
  5. Jansson-Boyd, C. (2018, November 12). Source.