Virginia Valenine, director of advertising's foremost cultural analyisis company, Semiotic Solutions, argues that brands can no longer expect consumers to take sales messages at face value. Consumers challenge everything they are told, she believes, and will prefer brands that give them something back, rather than the old-style here's our product ain't it great philosophy which has dominated advertising since its inception. Thus ads can deal with social issues and refer to the news agenda these days. Inevitably, though, it can go horribly wrong. The risk is, and I think this is trie in the case of Volkswagen, that if you use images of faith and prostitute them, people will take offence. It's all very well if you give them something back, but it is clear that Jesus could not have benefited from that poster campaign.
The ad agency, however, may well have done. The VW campaign might look like a marketing disaster, but increasingly ad agencies are selling to clients not simply their ability to write ads but their ability to write ads that generate PR. Some clients ask all agencies pitching for their business to demonstrate their ability to garner extra publicity.
A deliberately shocking ad is the simplest way to get additional media coverage, and even if the media coverage is negative, it can still help to sell the product as advertisers like Benetton have already proved.
One supporter of Benetton's work is Leon Jaume, Deputy Creative Director of ad agency Ogilvy & Mather, who believes its success lies in knowing its target. In marketing terms the only real taboo is upsetting the people you want to buy your product, he says. As long as it's legal and the clients is OK with it, you can offend anyone else and in many ways you should. I'd normally see outrageous advertising as a youth proposition though, and I think VW's mistake may have been in selling a product that isn't a youth product with this kind of style. Young people are receptive to taboo-breaking as they are more open-minded than older people. I think they positively welcome advertising that annoys their parents. Some agency creatives argue that young people today are fundamentally different from previous generations in their internationalism, and young consumers in Tel Aviv are closer to their counterparts in Paris. New York and Sydney than they are to their parents.
As this generation grows up the argument goes, they will continue to be more broad-minded than their parents and will see the shattering of taboos as the norm. So outrageous advertising will no longer be limited to those products which target youth.
Perhaps Volkswagen was just ahead of its time, advertising to a market that wasn't broad-minded enough in a country that still gets nervous when Church and State are challenged. Or perhaps VW's collision with Catholics shows that for all their claimed acumen ad agencies are less in touch with the public mood than they claim.