Attitudes towards offensive advertising: an Australian study

David S. Waller
Lecturer in Marketing, Department of Management, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, New South Wales, Australia Keywords Advertising, Consumer attitudes, Consumer marketing, Ethics, Social responsibility Abstract As society becomes more complex, as we become more aware of the harmful effects of some products and as agencies try to become more creative to ``cut through the clutter'' to gain awareness, there will be more advertisements which the general public perceive as ``offensive''. Analyses the responses to a survey of attitudes towards the advertising of particular products and reasons for being offensive. The attitudes are examined by means of a survey which presents a series of potentially controversial/ offensive products. The study can be used by advertising agencies to develop an understanding of which advertising is perceived by some people as offensive, and a list of potentially controversial clients.

... to create cut-through advertising, you are going to end up offending some people (Janet Hogan, Creative Director, Oddfellows Advertising (Hornery, 1996)).

``Lost causes''

Introduction In recent times there has been discussion of the ethical responsibility of marketers and agencies (Matthews, 1997). As society becomes more complex, as we become more aware of the harmful effects of some products and as agencies try to become more creative to ``cut through the clutter'' to gain awareness, there are some hard questions for agencies to ask themselves before undertaking a controversial campaign. Matthews (1997) wrote about products he called ``lost causes'' for agencies, such as cigarettes, gambling and alcohol. These products have a cost to the community from which some advertising agencies usually dissociate themselves. However, apart from the ethical stance taken by some agencies, there is also a pragmatic stance which the agency may take to determine whether, overall, a potential controversial client is a positive inclusion into the agency's list of clients. It is, therefore, important to determine what causes people to be offended by a particular advertisement. This can assist agencies in choosing new clients and the appeal to use to the public. This paper observes a preliminary study of attitudes towards the advertising of particular products and reasons for being offensive. The attitudes are examined by means of a survey which presented a series of potentially controversial/offensive products, as indicated by previous literature. A study of attitudes of people towards offensive advertising can be used to help advertising agencies develop an understanding of which advertising is perceived by some people as offensive, and a list of potentially controversial clients. Controversial advertising Academic research which lays the foundation of ``controversial advertising'' is found in studies of ``unmentionables'', ``socially sensitive products'', ``decent products'', ``acceptable advertising'' and ``advertising ethics'' (Wilson and West, 1981; Rehman and Brooks, 1987; Triff et al., 1987; Shao and Hill, 1994a; Fahy et al., 1995). These studies have primarily focused on attitudes towards the advertising of various controversial products, legal restrictions on advertising and possible strategies for marketing sensitive

288

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 3 1999, pp. 288-294 # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0736-3761

products. According to the academic and industry literature, there are numerous types of controversial products/services/ideas, clients, and advertisements. Wilson and West (1981, p. 92) discussed ``unmentionables'', which they described as: ``... products, services, or concepts that for reasons of delicacy, decency, morality, or even fear tend to elicit reactions of distaste, disgust, offence, or outrage when mentioned or when openly presented''. The examples they presented of unmentionables were: ``products'' (for personal hygiene, birth control, warfare, and drugs for terminal illness), ``services'' (for abortion, sterilisation, VD, mental illness, funeral directors, and artificial insemination), and ``concepts'' (for political ideas, palliative care, unconventional sexual practices, racial/religious prejudice and terrorism). Acceptability of products Feminine hygiene products were the main focus of Rehman and Brooks (1987), but included undergarments, alcohol, pregnancy tests, contraceptives, medications, and VD services, as examples of controversial products. When asked about the acceptability of various products being advertised on television, only two products were seen as unacceptable by a sample of college students, contraceptives for men and contraceptives for women. Triff et al. (1987) presented an overview of the area of ``advertising ethics'', and surveyed 100 people regarding various aspects of advertising. The three types of advertising chosen in this study were advertising directed towards: (1) (2) (3) children; alcoholic beverage advertising; and political advertising.

Alan Shao undertook a large global study of advertising agency attitudes regarding various issues, including the legal restrictions of advertising of ``sensitive'' products, which can be controversial for the agency which handles the account (Shao, 1993; Shao and Hill, 1994a, 1994b). The products/services discussed in these studies were cigarettes, alcohol, condoms, female hygiene products, female undergarments, male undergarments, sexual diseases (e.g. STDs, AIDS), and pharmaceutical goods. Political advertising Tinkham and Weaver-Larisey (1994) began their study on ethical judgements of political advertising by discussing its ``controversial status'', pointing out that political advertising is ``one of the least regulated form of marketing communication'' as it is excluded from the rigorous surveillance undertaken on commercial advertising. The main ethical criticisms they found focused on deceptive or misleading statements and unfairness as some practices would be illegal if in a commercial context, the use of emotional persuasion and negative messages and the potential detrimental effects resulting from electing the ``wrong'' candidate. In a study that focused on advertising ``sensitive products'', Fahy et al. (1995) asked a sample of more than 2,000 people their attitudes towards the advertising on certain products on television. The products were grouped into three main categories: (1) (2) (3) alcoholic beverages; products directed at children; and health/sex-related products.

Comparing the attitudes according to sex, age, income, region, education and race, they found that women, particularly aged 50 and over, had much higher disapproval levels for such commercials.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 3 1999 289

It has been claimed that as the amount of advertising and competition between companies increase, so will the amount of controversial advertisements, as companies try to gain the audience's attention and cut through the ``clutter'' (Lyons, 1996). In recent years there has been a growing interest in industry and press publications about controversial advertising and the advertising of controversial products (Hornery, 1996; Lyons, 1996; Petty, 1997; Matthews, 1997; Waller, 1997). The topics of interest focus on advertising regulation, the various industry bodies and examples of controversial advertising. Aware of causing offence It must be remembered, however, that any client can become controversial because of either the nature of the industry, an activity undertaken by the company, or even as a result of some change in the marketing environment. However, agencies should be aware of the possibility of causing offence by taking on a particular client or by the advertising appeal being used. Recently, there have been a growing number of examples of controversial advertising, including multinational companies, which indicate an up-andcoming area of continuing research. In this study, a sample of student consumers were surveyed to gain an insight into attitudes towards the advertising of particular products and reasons for advertisements being offensive. Methodology To obtain a preliminary measure of attitudes towards offensive advertising, a questionnaire was distributed to business students of a large, regionallybased multi-campus university. The rationale for using university students as subjects has been a research method practised overseas for many years, mainly for their accessibility to the researcher and homogeneity as a group (Calder et al., 1981). Student samples have already been used in the studies mentioned previously by Rehman and Brooks (1987) and Tinkham and Weaver-Larisey (1994). A total of 125 students was sampled (70 male and 55 female). The average age of the total sample was 21.62 years old (21.41 male and 21.89 female), with ages ranging from 19 to 43 years. The sample is made up of primarily second- and third-year students and the questionnaire took approximately ten minutes to complete and was administered in a classroom environment. The main two sections of the questionnaire comprised a five-point Likert-type format from which respondents were given: (1) (2) a list of products/services; and a list of reasons for offensive advertising.

Questionnaire distributed

The respondents were asked to indicate their level of personal ``offence'' on a five-point scale, 1 = ``not at all'' offensive and 5 = ``extremely'' offensive. The list of products/services presented were based on past literature (Wilson and West, 1981; Triff et al., 1987; Shao, 1993; Fahy et al., 1995; Matthews, 1997) and resulted in 15 examples: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
290

alcohol; cigarettes; condoms; female contraceptives; female hygiene products; female underwear; funeral services; gambling;
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 3 1999

(9)

male underwear;

(10) pharmaceuticals; (11) political parties; (12) racially extremist groups; (13) religious denominations; (14) sexual diseases (AIDS, STD prevention); and (15) weight loss programmes. Results Advertising for products/services found offensive The first main section of the questionnaire presented 15 products and the respondents were asked to indicate the level to which they are offended by such advertising. The instructions for this question was:
Below is a list of products/services/ideas whose advertisements have been known to offend people. To what extent do advertisements for the following products offend you. Where 1 means you find them not offensive at all and 5 means you find it extremely offensive.

The results, including mean scores and standard deviations, for the whole sample as well as male and female respondents are found in Table I. Racism issue Overall, the questionnaire found similar results among the male and female respondents. It found that advertisements for ``racially extremist groups'' were perceived to be the most offensive type of advertising, being the only product/service with a mean score above the mid-point of three in the total sample (3.44), the males (3.39) and females (3.52). At a time when racism is an issue of social concern and debate, it appears to be a positive outcome that ``racially extremist groups'' are seen as being offensive to the student sample. Six products/services followed which had a mean score of between two and three. Surprisingly, the respondents found advertisements for ``religious denominations'' were the second highest mean score, although it did score less than the mid-point (2.67). In the questionnaire, the respondents were
Product 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Total Mean SD Male Mean SD (1.51) (1.39) (1.22) (1.29) (1.38) (1.17) (1.23) (1.10) (1.13) (1.01) (0.93) (0.98) (1.09) (0.93) (0.71) Female Mean SD 3.52 2.69 2.51 2.73 2.31 2.33 1.98 1.98 1.89 1.76 1.76 1.98 1.51 1.71 1.51 (1.37) (1.45) (1.25) (1.33) (1.31) (1.22) (1.16) (1.14) (0.95) (0.93) (0.76) (1.06) (0.76) (1.06) (0.74)

Racially extremist groups 3.44 (1.45) 3.39 Religious denominations 2.67 (1.42) 2.66 Female hygiene products 2.49 (1.24) 2.48 Cigarettes 2.47 (1.32) 2.27 Political parties 2.35 (1.35) 2.39 Gambling 2.14 (1.21) 1.99 Funeral services 2.04 (1.20) 2.09 Female contraceptives 1.98 (1.11) 1.97 Weight loss programmes 1.88 (1.06) 1.87 Sexual diseases (AIDS, STD, prevention) 1.83 (0.92) 1.89 Condoms 1.77 (0.859) 1.77 Alcohol* 1.73 (1.04) 1.54 Male underwear* 1.70 (0.98) 1.86 Female underwear 1.65 (0.99) 1.60 Pharmaceuticals 1.51 (0.72) 1.51

Note: *p 5 0.05

Table I. Products with offensive advertising

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 3 1999 291

asked to state their religion in the demographic section. A cross-tabulation was made of those who had stated a religion and those who indicated ``no religion''. This found that the group stating ``no religion'' indicated that they were offended by the advertising of ``religious denominations'' with the mean score of 3.29. After comparing groups by gender, age and religion, this was the only product/service, apart from ``racially extremist groups'', that obtained a mean score above three, and helps explain why ``religious denominations'' received such a high score. The other products/services which had a mean score of between two and three were female hygiene products (2.49), cigarettes (2.47), political parties (2.35), gambling (2.14), and funeral services (2.04). Advertising for products/services which were not perceived as being personally offensive included those for male underwear (1.70), female underwear (1.65) and pharmaceuticals (1.51). Two respondents suggested that a further category be created, being ``charitable organisations'' and more specifically ``advertisements with starving kids''. Females offended by alcohol advertisements In this study, t-tests were used to compare the males' and females' attitudes to determine whether they differed from one another. Of the 15 products/ services given, only two were significantly different at the 0.05 level. Females tended to be more offended than males by alcohol advertisements, while males were more offended than females by advertisements about male underwear. Reasons for offensive advertisements The second main section of the questionnaire presented six reasons for an advertisement being seen as offensive and the respondents were asked to indicate the level to which they are offended for those reasons. The instructions for this question was:
Below is a list of reasons why advertisements for various products/services/ideas have been known to offend people. To what extent are the following the reasons why the advertisements offend you; where 1 means you find them not offensive at all and 5 means you find it extremely offensive?

The results, including mean scores and standard deviations, for the whole sample as well as male and female respondents, are found in Table II. Once more the questionnaire found similar results among the respondents, although female respondents tended to be more offended by the reasons given than their male counterparts. Following on from the earlier results regarding advertisements for ``racially extremist groups'', the main reason the respondents were personally offended by an advertisement was if it was ``racist'' with a mean score above the mid-point of three in the total sample (3.69), the males (3.37) and females (4.09). The second main reason was if the advertisement contained anti-social behaviour (3.01).
Reason 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Racist* Anti-social behaviour* Sexist* Subject too personal Indecent language* Nudity* Total Mean (SD) 3.69 3.01 2.89 2.55 2.51 1.94 (1.40) (1.25) (1.43) (1.16) (1.28) (0.98) Male Mean (SD) 3.37 2.70 2.11 2.37 2.11 1.63 (1.57) (1.21) (1.17) (1.17) (1.12) (0.90) Female Mean (SD) 4.09 3.41 3.89 2.77 3.02 2.34 (1.01) (1.19) (1.07) (1.09) (1.30) (0.93)

Note: *p 5 0.05

Table II. Reasons for offensive advertising

292 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 3 1999

Female respondents also indicated two other reasons with a mean score above the mid-point of three; they were sexist advertisements (3.89) and advertisements with indecent language (3.02). It is assumed that females would be more offended by sexist advertisements than males as females are usually the targets of sexist comments, images, etc. Of the six potential reasons for offensive advertising, nudity was perceived to be the least reason for personal offence (1.94). However, there was a difference in the scores between the males (1.63) and females (2.34), and testosterone levels of the young sample could be an explanation. In this section two males suggested an extra category dealing with homosexual behaviour/characters in advertisements. Too personal Once more t-tests were used to compare the males' and females' attitudes to determine whether they differed from one another. Of the six reasons given, only one, subject too personal, was not significantly different at the 0.05 level. Females, therefore, tended to be more offended than males by advertisements with indecent language, nudity, sexist, racist and anti-social behaviour. Conclusion Overall, it appears that those sampled hold similar views in their perception of the advertising of particular controversial products/services/ideas. Their responses indicate that they perceive that the advertising of certain products/ services/ideas can be offensive, and that some are more offensive than others. In particular they feel that advertising for ``racially extremist groups'' is offensive. After undertaking cross-tabulations by gender, age and religion, the only other product/service perceived as offensive was ``religious denominations'' by those who indicated they had ``no religion''. In this study the five products/services/ideas that had the highest mean scores indicating a perceived level of offensiveness were: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) Sexist advertisements racially extremist groups; religious denominations; female hygiene products; cigarettes; and political parties. alcohol; and male underwear.

Only two had a result significantly different between the sexes:

As for the reasons why the advertisements personally offend the respondents, there were similar results among the respondents, although female respondents tended to be significantly more offended by the reasons given than the males. The main reasons for being personally offended by an advertisement was if it was ``racist'' or it contained ``anti-social behaviour''. Female respondents also indicated two other reasons; they were sexist advertisements and advertisements with indecent language. The females also indicated that they were more offended than males by the reasons given. Comparing the two sections, it appears that the respondents perceive the reasons given as more of an indication of why an advertisement is personally offensive than the controversial products/services/ideas. For those agencies involved with controversial clients or controversial campaigns, it appears that they should be aware of the potential to offend the public. Although some campaigns aim to be controversial, care should be made to ensure that they are not racist, sexist, contain anti-social behaviour or indecent language, particularly when targeting the female market. Offending the public can result in a drop in sales or, at an extreme, a

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 3 1999

293

boycotting of the product, which can then reflect poorly on the agency behind the campaign. Controversial clients However, there are agencies which are willing to take on controversial clients/campaigns despite the potential problems. It may be that these ``problems'' are compensated for through other financial or non-financial benefits. Some agencies attempt to position themselves as having expertise in developing controversial campaigns, or encourage controversy as part of a campaign as a way to attract public attention and obtain extra publicity. Controversy can, therefore, result in a very successful overall campaign. However, the agency should keep track on whether the strategy may be going too far for the target market's tastes/values, or if there is any possible negative reaction from members of the agency's staff or other clients. Finally, it must be remembered that any client can become controversial. It is not just due to a product which is a ``lost cause'', but because of a controversial advertisement or campaign, an activity undertaken by the company, or even as a result of the media chosen for the campaign. Agencies should, therefore, be aware of this possibility and maybe ask themselves some ``hard questions'' before taking on new accounts or setting a plan of action for when a controversy may occur. It is believed that further research should be undertaken into attitudes towards controversial and offensive advertising. From the public point of view, further analysis should be undertaken on measuring levels of offensiveness towards specific advertisements, comparing offensiveness with various demographics, such as age, religion, personality, location, etc., and a cross-cultural comparison to determine if views hold across different countries. From the advertising agency point of view, further research should develop an understanding of the relationship between an advertising agency and its controversial clients. In particular, the importance or otherwise of the agency in the decision-making process and the actual implications on an agency's business of handling a controversial or offensive campaign.
References Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981), ``Designing research for applications'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, September, pp. 197-207. Fahy, J., Smart, D., Pride, W. and Ferrell, O.C. (1995), ``Advertising sensitive products'', International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 14, pp. 231-43. Hornery, A. (1996), ``But wait, why is there more outrage than laughter?'', Sydney Morning Herald, 20 January, p. 4. Lyons, K. (1996), ``Offensive, titillating, outrageous . . .?'', Australian Professional Marketing, August, pp. 8-10. Matthews, T. (1997), ``Lost causes in advertising'', B&T, 11 July, p. 21. Petty, S. (1997), ``Marketing voodoo'', B&T, 15 August, p. 9. Rehman, S.N. and Brooks, J.R. (1987), ``Attitudes toward television advertising for controversial products'', Journal of Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 7, pp. 78-83. Shao, A.T. (1993), ``Restrictions on advertising items that may not be considered `decent': a European viewpoint'', Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 23-43. Shao, A.T. and Hill, J.S. (1994a), ``Global television advertising restrictions: the case of socially sensitive products'', International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 13, pp. 347-66. Shao, A.T. and Hill, J.S. (1994b), ``Advertising sensitive products in magazines: legal and social restrictions'', Multinational Business Review, Fall, pp. 16-24. Tinkham, S.F. and Weaver-Larisey, R.A. (1994), ``Ethical judgements of political television commercials as predictors of attitude towards the ad'', Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 3, September, pp. 43-57. Triff, M., Benningfield, D. and Murphy, J.H. (1987), ``Advertising ethics: a study of public attitudes and perceptions'', The Proceedings of the 1987 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Columbia, SC. Waller, D.S. (1997), ``Controversial accounts: the risk'', B&T, 25 July, pp. 12-13. Wilson, A. and West, C. (1981), ``The marketing of `unmentionables''', Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 91-102.

&
294 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 3 1999