When shock tactics backfire: Lessons from Poonam Pandey hoax case for ad industry

In the film ‘Sarkar’, Amitabh Bachchan’s character Subhash Nagre warns, “Paas ka faida dekhne se pehle door ke nuksaan ke bare mein socho (Before looking at the short-term gains, look out for the long-term loss)”. Guess Poonam Pandey and Schbang forgot this message before unleashing the elaborate death hoax.

In a world saturated with marketing messages, standing out can feel like an insurmountable feat. Shockvertising, the audacious advertising technique that throws subtlety and propriety out the window, opting for jarring visuals, controversial themes, and raw emotional impact, is the marketing equivalent of a slap in the face – attention-grabbing, for better or worse. But does it work? And at what cost?

Like a tightrope walker crossing a bottomless pit, brands employing shock value must meticulously navigate a gossamer-thin line. Well, one misstep could lead to ethical and reputational disaster!

The world of advertising is not devoid of such jaw-dropping missteps. The recent Poonam Pandey death hoax has rekindled the debate on the same.

Condemning the death stunt, Jyostna Govil, Chairperson, Indian Cancer Society, Delhi Chapter, said, “The tamasha surrounding this woman’s stunt is tragic to say the least. One should fathom the fear, pain and stigma that patients endure during cancer. Her stunt only trivialises their status. To use a tragic situation for personal publicity is despicable.”

The means and the end

Attention-grabbing tactics in advertising, often called “shockvertising”, have long sparked debate. While they can undeniably grab attention, concerns about exploiting sensitive topics, manipulating emotions, and damaging brand trust remain. But in the digital age, where noise competes for every click, is shockvertising a necessary evil, or a dangerous game? In shockvertising, does the end justify the means? How should advertisers balance the impact on target consumers with the potential negative consequences of building a false narrative?

In this two-part series, Adgully delves into the ethical minefield of shockvertising, exploring the diverse viewpoints of industry experts. From the emphasis on authenticity and long-term brand value to caution against sacrificing truth for attention, the voices converge on one point: the potential cost of shock can outweigh the benefit. Is there a space for impactful yet ethical shock in advertising, or should we focus on building trust and authentic connections instead? Let the conversation begin.

“While shockvertising and attention-grabbing tactics can be tempting, it is important to consider that the loudest noise isn’t always the most impactful, said Viren Vesuwala, Lead, Corporate Communications, White Rivers Media. Firstly, Vesuwala adds, if not executed sensitively, it trivialises serious issues and offends those involved; moreover, it causes a breach of trust between brands and consumers.

Vesuwala believes that consumers value authenticity, and manipulating emotions for clicks creates skepticism, tarnishing the image of the entire industry. In addition, he points out, it rarely delivers ROI. Sure, it might generate buzz, but genuine engagement is built over time and not overnight.

“One must focus on creating genuine long-term value for brands and not one-off spikes. We strongly believe in the concept of creative effectiveness for long-term wins. Let’s move past the quick wins and build brands that connect on a deeper level,” he adds.

‘Distasteful!’ exclaimed Rohan Bhansali, Chairman & Co-founder, GOZOOP Group. He is scathing in his remarks as he said, “This is nothing but laziness and complacency in the garb of creativity. Shockvertising is not new to this industry; however, the context of the campaign decides the ethicality. In the realm of advertising, creativity should ideally be a force for positive change. It is heartbreaking to see raising concerns on the ethical grounds for creative minds. Faking one’s death, even for a cause as noble as cervical cancer awareness, is a misguided approach. It does not only hurt the sentiments but also ‘Desensitizes Humanity’. Misusing a celebrity’s influence and a brand’s power to instantly grab attention, faking death is not only a disservice to the cause but also reflects a lack of innovation in spreading awareness. There are countless more ethical and innovative ways to engage the public, educate them about cervical cancer and encourage preventive measures without resorting to tactics that horrify and disturb.”

While shockvertising may yield attention, it is imperative for advertisers to consider the ethical ramifications, pointed out Heta Desai Baandal, Managing Director, Sociomark.

However much tempting it is to believe that the end justifies the means, sacrificing truth for attention is a dangerous game, maintained Baandal. She felt that advertisers must weigh the short-term impact on consumers against the long-term consequences of perpetuating false narratives.

“Authenticity should never be sacrificed for shock value. The real impact lies in building trust, not in exploiting sensationalism. With instances like Poonam Pandey’s fake death raising awareness about cervical cancer, do you think shock advertising is a necessary tool for drawing attention to important issues, or does it risk undermining the credibility of both brands and the causes they support?,” she asked.

Shockvertising has always been there, remarked Dr Tripti Dhote, Assistant Professor (Marketing), Head - Corporate Communication, Symbiosis Institute of Digital and Telecom Management. She cited the case of United Colors of Benetton, which has been very effectively leveraging shock as a strategy with a “sit up and take notice” kind of approach gaining tremendous brand recognition. 

“But in the digital and social context, it has become more visible and an easy approach to garner immediate attention and instant curiosity. The debate should not be about being right or wrong. Brands should be more conscious about the gravity of the issue. How can you stoop so low and go to such a desperate level for something as sensitive as cervical cancer? Was the objective to create controversy and fear or was it reaching out for creating awareness and education? Poonam Pandey’s selection, in fact, raises a lot of questions. Will people really take her seriously? The agency which handled this had earlier done a very poignant campaign for CIPLA on Asthma featuring Priyanka Chopra. Is this a case of sheer creative bankruptcy? It definitely boils down to the trust, authenticity and credibility of a brand getting into shockvertising just for sending shockwaves and grabbing eyeballs. Brands need to put their thinking caps on and get more sensitive. A collaboration with an authentic body or a more credible source or testimonials can still work,” Dhote said.

In today’s era of shockvertising, it is crucial to recognise that the end doesn’t always justify the means, said Gaurav Arora, Co-Founder, Social Panga. “Just as you can’t coerce a consumer at gunpoint to purchase a product for short-lived and distasteful gains, any form of advertising must leave a positive impression. The manner in which we communicate our message is as significant as the outcome itself. Therefore, maintaining honesty and integrity in our narrative is essential, especially when aiming for a lasting impact. Will this campaign still be worthy of sharing and spreading awareness even a decade from now?”

In light of the marketing tactic used by Poonam Pandey to spread awareness about cervical cancer, it is hard to ignore the repercussions of ‘influence,’ said Sangya Lakhanpal, Head - Influencer Marketing, Pitchfork Partners. “Although some might say that this has ignited serious discussions around this form of cancer, it’s hard to ignore the distasteful way of toying with human emotions. ‘Anything to grab attention,’ might be the current trend, but brands shouldn’t become insensitive to real emotions like death in the aim for attention. As the influence of digital continues to impact our decisions, influencers and brands must endeavour to strengthen the human moral compass and not weaken it,” she added.

The trend of faking death announcements, whether by brands like Fever FM or individuals like Poonam Pandey, is indeed disheartening, observed Shashwat Das, Founder-Director, Almond Branding. “It’s like a dark cloud hovering over the already murky waters of fake news. Death is no laughing matter, and using it as a publicity stunt is downright distasteful. It is high time we draw a line. Let’s remember that there are far better ways to raise awareness and spark meaningful conversations without resorting to such insensitive stunts,” maintained Das.

He further said, “Brands unleash such shenanigans to grab attention, create a buzz, and make sure they’re the talk of the town. It’s like impressing your crush with a perfectly timed joke; it shows you’ve got charm, wit, and a knack for making people smile. A well-executed gimmick can turn a brand into the life of the party, leaving customers laughing, sharing, and coming back for more.”

But beware, like a poorly-timed joke at a funeral, gimmicks can backfire, he warned.

“If not executed with finesse, they risk leaving audiences cringing rather than laughing. From tasteless humour to misguided attempts at relevance, brands must tread carefully to avoid becoming the butt of the joke themselves – one wrong move, and you'll be dealing with a fiery mess. The objective of such gimmicks is typically to gain visibility, achieve virality, and spark conversations, often resembling clickbait in nature. From this perspective, such campaigns can be deemed successful. However, an equally crucial aspect of marketing is conveying the right message. Any shortcomings in its execution can significantly damage the brand’s credibility. Moreover, if an advertisement is perceived to impact a company’s securities, it could be considered an unfair and fraudulent trade practice,” opined Shashwat Das.

Srikant Rajasekharuni, CEO and Co-founder, RMT (Red Matter Technologies), stressed on the need to exercise caution and ethical considerations while using shockvertising in public services. He added, “Advertisers may utilise frightening features to get attention due to competition, but it is important to balance effect with accountability. In this situation, ethical shockvertising should put the public interest before sensationalism. Sincere discussions of societal issues should be included in the message, avoiding dire scenarios that can turn off the audience. Being thoughtful means being aware of the possible psychological and emotional effects, making sure the shock factor has a purpose in bringing attention to the issue, and offering remedies.”

According to him, it is imperative to refrain from eliciting negative feelings as these may impede efficacy or provoke retaliation.

“Shockvertising in public services ought to be consistent with the sincere objective of benefiting the community, encouraging constructive involvement, and motivating group action for the advancement of society. Integrating feedback from a controlled group of relevant audience members guarantees that shockvertising in public services is not only attention-grabbing but also ethically sound, aligning with the values and sensitivities of the community it seeks to engage,” observed Rajasekharuni.

The debate around whether the end justifies the means is forever, stated Laeeq Ali, Co-founder and Director, Origami Creative. “Surely a complex one, especially in the context of the topic today. Keeping the creative spirit and courage, we push our boundaries and sometimes we may forget our ethical responsibility. But as responsible storytellers, we should learn to find the balance and not swing too much to the false narrative. This is an age of authenticity, and it is important for brands and practitioners to understand the boundaries and keep in mind that losing trust is a very easy affair, but building trust is an extremely difficult one. Remember, consumers are smarter than you think. They can see through you,” says Ali.

Risky advertising can lead to misconceptions about the brand and the company, which impacts your reputation and credibility as a company, pointed out Shouger Merchant Doshi, Founder, Rainmaker Consults.

“You want to build a certain legitimate reputation as a company so when you continue to scale, people continue to be loyal to you and trust you and the process you employ in building your products or services. When you as a company falter and use an “ends justifies the means” process, your customers can question everything about you and this will definitely impact your target consumers who may now approach everything you do with potential distrust. Instead of building a false narrative for short term recognition, always look to the long term build up,” opined Doshi.

(Tomorrow – Part 2 of the report will cover alternative strategies brands can deploy, and the legal implications of ‘Shockvertising’.)