PLEASE read before you accept to do this assignment!!!

Discuss any or all of the following: LinkedIn Learning: “Developing Ideas and Advertising Concepts” with Craig Smallish (Links to an external site.); Claudia Cortés’ site, Color in Motion;

and/or

lecture notes, “Color Psychology.” 

You must post one original thread in order to enter the forum. Write: (1) what you already knew, which was reinforced in this module’s presentations, (2) what you learned for the first time during this module’s presentations, and (3) what parts of this module are you most unclear about. Minimum word length for initial posts: 300 words.

Afterward, read at least three classmates’ postings and reply to at least two of them, trying to answer your classmates’ questions about what was unclear to them. Minimum word length for replies: 100 words.

In other words, observe the 3-2-1 rule: read at least 3, reply to at least 2, and contribute at least 1 initial post (but more are encouraged). No partial credit—all or nothing points.

Resources: You can chose to do one or all to discus!

https://www.linkedin.com/learning/developing-ideas-and-advertising-concepts/welcome?u=42567804

and/or 

https://youtu.be/k_4bF24RoAk

and/or

Prof.
Elio
L.
Arteaga

VIC3002—Visual
Design
for
Media

Module
5
Lecture
Notes

Shock
Advertising



The
ASPCA’s
animal‐cruelty
prevention
campaign
incorporates
a
new
logo,
as
well

as
new
print,
outdoor
and
online
elements.
Saatchi
&
Saatchi
Copywriter
Jake

Benjamin
and
Art
Director
Mark
Voehringer
were
faced
with
a
challenge:
how
to

portray
animal
cruelty
without
showing
suffering
animals?
A
literal
representation

of
animal
cruelty,
although
accurate,
might
repel
some
visitors,
but
avoiding
graphic

details
means
a
weaker
message.
Their
solution
was
to
let
the
viewers’
imaginations

fill
in
the
blanks.
The
result
is
a
strong
message,
without
relying
on
the
kinds
of

images
that
nauseate
readers.








Visit
the
ASPCA
website
at
http://www.aspcaspeak.org



“The
reality
of
animal
abuse
is
worse
than
anything
that
could
ever
be
shown
in
an

ad,”
says
Benjamin
and
Voehringer.
“But
that’s
exactly
what
we
realized
needed
to

be
communicated.
Anything
less
would
be
candy‐coating
the
issue.”



What
about
giving
ideas
to
lunatics?
“We
were
never
worried
that
these
ads
might

give
someone
twisted
ideas.
The
truth
is
that
these
horrific
things
are
happening

every
day
—
the
ideas
were
given
to
us.
And,
disturbingly
enough,
the
examples
we

chose
to
feature
weren’t
even
the
worst
scenarios
we
encountered.
There
were


times
when
we
became
physically
nauseated
from
researching
case
files
for
this

campaign.
But
the
client
realizes
that
people
are
numb
to
many
of
the
traditional

approaches
of
raising
awareness
of
animal
abuse,
so
we
decided
to
steal
a
little
trick

from
horror
movies.
Sometimes
the
most
frightening
moments
happen
as
a
result
of

the
things
you
don’t
see
—
when
it’s
left
up
to
the
imagination
to
fill
in
the
blanks.”



Many
of
the
shocking
ads
shown
in
Chapter
6
of
your
textbook
and
the

accompanying
slides
(see
Module
4
Resources,
Chapter
6
Slides)
and
in
the
AIGA

Journal
Article
“Shockvertising:
A
Poke
in
the
Brain”
are
examples
of
campaigns

where
the
agencies
allowed
adrenaline‐charged
young
creatives
unrestrained

leeway
to
push
the
bounds
of
taste
and
appropriateness,
utilizing
shock
imagery
as

a
replacement
for
smart
and
sophisticated
creativity.



It
is
my
contention
that
shocking
communications
repel
more
people
than
they

attract.
They
grab
attention
by
presenting
the
worst
side
of
human
nature.
They
may

be
used
successfully
to
bring
attention
to
a
subject
that
people
have
become
numb

to—such
as
drug
abuse
or
the
AIDS
crisis—but
they
do
so
ham‐handedly.
Shocking

imagery
is
a
lazy
excuse
for
not
coming
up
with
a
creative
idea.
Visual

communicators
should
take
a
hint
from
Benjamin
and
Voehringer’s
ASPCA

campaign
and
treat
shocking
subjects
tactfully,
calling
viewers’
attentions
and

engaging
them
on
an
emotional
level,
but
without
being
offensive
or
repulsive.