See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241161860

WHAT FACTORS MAKE CONTROVERSIAL ADVERTISING OFFENSIVE?: A

PRELIMINARY STUDY

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

26 33,270

1 author:

David S Waller
University of Technology Sydney
109 PUBLICATIONS   2,643 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David S Waller on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 1

WHAT FACTORS MAKE CONTROVERSIAL ADVERTISING OFFENSIVE?:

A PRELIMINARY STUDY

David S. Waller
School of Marketing
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT
While some advertisers have undertaken controversial advertising campaigns that have been
very successful, some have been damaging to the company. This is particularly important for
companies that have a controversial product, like condoms, feminine hygiene products and
underwear. This paper presents some preliminary results of a survey of 150 people to determine
whether they perceive particular sex/gender-related products as offensive, what are the reasons
to find advertisements offensive and discover correlations to ascertain why certain products are
perceived as offensive. The results, while preliminary, indicate some important issues for
advertisers.

INTRODUCTION

As the amount of advertising increases, it would appear that there has been an increase in the
amount of controversial advertising shown in various media. Some of reasons for this include
that society has become more complex, increased awareness of the harmful effects of some
products and as agencies try to become more creative to "cut through the clutter" to gain
attention and brand awareness (Waller 1999). For advertisers the problem can be that a
controversial advertising campaign can be very successful or very damaging, depending on what
ultimately happens in the marketplace. For example, the clothing company Benetton has long
been criticized for its advertising which uses controversial images to send a message of "social
concern" (Evans and Sumandeep 1993), until the death-row campaign was felt o have gone too
far (Curtis 2002). Similar problems occurred to Calvin Klein who had been criticized for running
campaigns with explicit sexual images, but had to publicly apologize after the outrage caused by
a campaign that was alleged to use images of child pornography (Anon 1995; Irvine 2000). The
result of a controversial advertising campaign can, therefore, be offence that can lead to a number
of actions like negative publicity, attracting complaints to advertising regulatory bodies, falling
sales, and product boycotts Advertisers wanting to undertake a controversial campaign must,
therefore, then tread the fine line between successfully communicating to the marketplace and
offending some people.

The issue for some advertisers and their agencies is to determine who may be offended by their
controversial campaign and what are the reasons for offence, particularly when the product itself
may be controversial, eg condoms and feminine hygiene products. To some extent the
advertisers, particularly those with controversial products, have a social responsibility not to
offend people by their advertising images, yet in a free market they should be able to

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 2

communicate a message to their customers. This paper presents some preliminary finding on a
study of controversial advertising and what are the underlying reasons for offence towards the
advertising of particular products. The objective is to determine types of people who are
offended and the areas of offence to assist advertisers in making better managerial decisions
when is comes to deciding on a controversial advertising strategy.

ADVERTISING OF CONTROVERSIAL PRODUCTS

Some advertisers, by the nature of the product, may be perceived as controversial and any
promotion of their product may generate negative responses, for example cigarettes, alcohol,
condoms or feminine hygiene products (Schuster and Powell 1987; Wilson and West 1995).
Previous studies in this area have mainly looked at these products in terms of the products being
"unmentionables" (Wilson and West 1981; Alter 1982; Katsanis 1994; Wilson and West 1995;
Spain 1997), "decent products" (Shao 1993) "socially sensitive products" (Shao and Hill 1994a;
Shao and Hill 1994b; Fahy, Smart, Pride and Ferrell 1995), and "controversial products"
(Rehman and Brooks 1987). Wilson and West (1981) defined "unmentionables" 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"
(p92). This definition has since been supported by Triff, Benningfield and Murphy (1987),
Fahy, Smart, Pride and Ferrell (1995) and Waller (1999). Katsanis (1994) also added that
“unmentionables” were “offensive, embarrassing, harmful, socially unacceptable or
controversial to some significant segment of the population”.

Waller (2003) noted that most of the research has observed “controversial advertising” as a
negative concept, and if controversial advertising resulted in only negative responses
advertisers would shy away from this type of campaign. However, advertisers are not shying
away but using it in increasing numbers. The use of controversial images has been successful
for a number of organizations in the past (for example, Evans and Sumandeep 1993; Hornery
1996; Waller 1999; Irvine 2000; McIntyre 2000; Phau and Prendergast 2001). This is
particularly important when the reason for controversy is based on the nature of the product.

Various types of products, both goods and services, have been suggested by past studies as
being controversial when advertised, including cigarettes, alcohol, contraceptives, underwear,
and political advertising. Fam, Waller and Erdogan (2002) used factor analysis to generate four
groups:
(1) Gender/Sex Related Products (eg. condoms, female contraceptives, male/female
underwear, and feminine hygiene products);
(2) Social/Political Groups (eg. political parties, religious denominations, funeral
services, racially extreme groups, and guns and armaments);
(3) Addictive Products (eg. alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling); and
(4) Health and Care Products (eg. Charities, sexual diseases (AIDS, STD prevention),
and weight loss programs).

Previous studies have also used these products as examples of controversial products. Wilson
and West (1981), in their study of "unmentionables", included "products" such as personal
hygiene and birth control. Feminine Hygiene Products was the main focus of Rehman and

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 3

Brooks (1987), but also 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. Feminine Hygiene Products has also been mentioned in industry articles as having
advertisements that are in “poor taste”, “irritating” and “most hated” (Alter 1982; Aaker and
Bruzzone 1985; Hume 1988; Rickard 1994).

Shao (1993) and Shao and Hill (1994a) analyzed advertising agency attitudes regarding various
issues, including the legal restrictions of advertising of "sensitive" products, which can be
controversial for the agency that handles the account. The products/services discussed in these
studies were cigarettes, alcohol, condoms, female hygiene products, female undergarments, male
undergarments, sexual diseases (eg STD's, AIDS), and pharmaceutical goods.

Barnes and Dotson (1990) discussed offensive television advertising and identified two different
dimensions: offensive products and offensive execution. The products which were in their list
included condoms, female hygiene products, female undergarments, and male undergarments.
Phau and Prendergast (2001) found that products like cigarettes, alcohol, condoms, female
contraceptives, and feminie hygiene products, were perceived as controversial products that
could offend when being advertised, but included in their study sexual connotations, subject too
personal, evoking unnecessary fear, cultural sensitivity, indecent language, sexist images and
nudity. Waller (1999) presented a list of 15 controversial product that aimed to range from
extremely offensive to not very offensive: Alcohol, Cigarettes, Condoms, Female
Contraceptives, Female Hygiene Products, Female Underwear, Funeral Services, Gambling,
Male Underwear, Pharmaceuticals, Political Parties, Racially Extremist Groups, Religious
Denominations, Sexual Diseases (AIDS, STD Prevention), and Weight Loss Programs. He also
included six reasons for offence: Indecent Language, Nudity, Sexist, Racist, Subject Too Personal
and Anti-social Behavior.

In relation to who is offended, Fahy, Smart, Pride and Ferrell (1995) while researching
advertising of "sensitive products", asked a sample of over 2000 people their attitudes towards
the advertising on certain products on television. The products were grouped into three main
categories: 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. Waller (1999) compared gender and found females were significantly more
offended than males by the reasons for offence than the controversial products.

The products to be used in the analysis for this study are gender/sex-related products:
Condoms, Female Hygiene Products, Female Underwear, and Male Underwear. These were
chosen as it was felt that these products may generate a stronger response of “offensiveness”
with respondents. A larger number of reasons were given to give the respondents more choice
and determine more specifically reasons for offence.

METHODOLOGY

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 4

To obtain a measure of attitudes towards advertising of controversial products, a questionnaire

was distributed to a convenience sample of students at a large urban university. The rationale for
using university students as subjects has been a research method practiced overseas for many
years, mainly for their accessibility to the researcher and homogeneity as a group (Calder,
Phillips and Tybout 1981). Student samples have already been used in controversial
advertising studies by Rehman and Brooks (1987), Tinkham and Weaver-Lariscy (1994) and
Waller (1999). The use of students in a potential cross-cultural comparison of attitudes has
other advantages as it is accepted that purposive samples, such as with students, are superior
than random samples for establishing equivalence, and it controls a source of variation, thus is
more likely to isolate any cultural differences if they exist (Dant and Barnes 1988; Ramaprasad
and Hasegawa 1992).

A total of 150 students studying were sampled (73 male and 77 female). The average age of the
total sample was 21.87 years old (21.68 male and 22.05 female) with ages ranging from 18 to 40
years old. For ease of analysis the respondents were categorized grouped into two age groups:
21 or less and 22+. The sample is made up of primarily second and third year students and the
questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to complete and was administered in a classroom
environment. The main two sections of the questionnaire comprised of a five point Likert type
format from which respondents were given (i) a list of products/services and (ii) a list of reasons
for offensive advertising. The respondents were asked to indicate their level of personal
"offence" on a five point scale, where 1 means "Not At All" offensive and 5 means "Extremely"
offensive. The list of reasons expands Waller (1999) to include 11 items: Anti-social Behaviour,
Concern for Children, Hard Sell, Health & Safety Issues, Indecent Language, Nudity, Racist
Image, Sexist Image, Stereotyping of People, Subject Too Personal, and Violence

RESULTS
Offensiveness of Products
Firstly the respondents were presented with the list of products for which they indicated their
level of offence. With a midpoint of 3 on the Likert scale, none of the products were perceived to
be offensive, which may be due to the sample being primarily young people in a cosmopolitan
western city. It also confirms Waller (1999) results. Condoms were perceived to be most
offensive when advertised, followed by Feminine Hygiene Products, Men’s Underwear and
Women’s Underwear (Table 1). Comparing gender the females were more offended by Condoms
and Women’s Underwear advertisements than the males at the .10 level. There were no
significant differences between the two age groups f 21 or less and 22+.

TABLE 1: OFFENSIVENESS OF ADVERTISEMENTS FOR

CONTROVERSIAL PRODUCTS

PRODUCT TOTAL Males Females 21 or less 22+

Condoms 2.52 2.32 2.71 * 2.57 2.45
(1.27) (1.18) (1.32) (1.28) (1.22)
Feminine Hygiene Products 2.36 2.48 2.24 2.35 2.33

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 5
(1.27) (1.27) (1.26) (1.32) (1.20)
Men’s Underwear 2.13 2.19 2.07 2.02 2.23
(1.18) (1.25) (1.11) (1.18) (1.18)
Women’s Underwear 2.04 1.86 2.21 * 1.97 2.12
(1.21) (1.12) (1.28) (1.18) (1.28)

Mean (Standard Deviation)

*p<.100

Reasons for Offensiveness

Next the respondents were presented with the list of reasons for advertising offensiveness for
which they indicated their level of offence. With a midpoint of 3 on the Likert scale, the total
sample indicated offence to all of reasons except Anti-social Behavior (Table 2). Although a few
reasons were claimed to be not offensive by males and the younger age group, but these were
generally just under the midpoint and so indicating more of an indifference. Comparing gender,
females were significantly more offended than males for Sexist Image, Violence, Stereotyping of
People, Subject Too Personal, Indecent Language and Nudity. This can be due to the fact that
women are often the objects of the sexism, stereotyping and nudity. Looking at age, the older
group was significantly more offended by advertisements with Violence, Hard sell, Concern for
Children, and Anti-social Behavior. This would indicate the older group being more conservative
and more concerned with things like child welfare and anti-violence.

TABLE 2: REASONS FOR OFFENSIVENESS

PRODUCT TOTAL Males Females 21 or 22+

less
Racist Image 4.32 4.51 4.14 4.37 4.24
(2.59) (3.52) (1.16) (3.28) (.94)
Sexist Image 3.60 3.16 4.01 ** 3.64 3.53
(1.28) (1.36) (1.04) (1.35) (1.20)
Violence 3.55 3.16 3.91 ** 3.28 3.97 **
(1.33) (1.37) (1.19) (1.37) (1.18)
Stereotyping of People 3.38 3.14 3.60 ** 3.34 3.42
(1.12) (1.18) (1.03) (1.14) (1.13)
Hard Sell 3.24 3.37 3.11 2.99 3.59 **
(1.21) (1.26) (1.14) (1.20) (1.12)
Concern for Children 3.21 3.10 3.32 2.97 3.50 **
(1.41) (1.42) (1.40) (1.42) (1.35)
Subject Too Personal 3.13 2.84 3.42 ** 3.09 3.19
(1.21) (1.20) (1.15) (1.15) (1.32)
Indecent Language 3.11 2.77 3.43 ** 2.96 3.28
(1.23) (1.24) (1.14) (1.28) (1.14)
Nudity 3.06 2.64 3.45 ** 3.00 3.10
(1.31) (1.38) (1.12) (1.29) (1.36)

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 6
Health & Safety Issues 3.02 2.85 3.19 2.97 3.11
(1.35) (1.34) (1.34) (1.32) (1.40)
Anti-social Behaviour 2.94 2.92 2.96 2.71 3.30 **
(1.27) (1.22) (1.32) (1.29) (1.19)

*p<.020

Correlating Products and Reasons for Offence

To help determine what makes controversial advertising offensive, a correlation of the results
between the four controversial products and reasons for the offence was made using a
Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient (Table 3). Strong relationships (greater than 0.30) were
found between Condoms with Indecent Language, Nudity, Sexist Images and Subject Too
Personal; as well as Women’s Underwear and Nudity. Other significant relationships (p<.01)
were found with Feminine Hygiene Products and Hard Sell; Men’s Underwear with Anti-
social Behavior and Subject Too Personal; and Women’s Underwear with Indecent Language,
Sexist Image, Stereotyping of People and Subject Too Personal.

TABLE 3: CORRELATION OF RODUCTS AND REASONS FOR OFFENSIVENESS

PRODUCT Condoms Feminine Men’s Women’s

Hygiene Underwear Underwear
Products
Anti-social Behaviour .107 .117 .231 ** .113
(.199) (.156) (.005) (.171)
Concern for Children .194 * .065 .035 -.005
(.018) (.428) (.668) (.948)
Hard Sell .083 .242 ** .120 .156
(.327) (.004) (.155) (.063)
Health & Safety Issues .107 .111 .108 .111
(.200) (.181) (.192) (.179)
Indecent Language .399 ** .011 .093 .289 **
(.000) (.890) (.260) (.000)
Nudity .418 ** .097 .157 .421 **
(.000) (.243) (.057) (.000)
Racist Image .168 * .073 .016 .113
(.042) (.374) (.844) (.171)
Sexist Image .307 ** .148 .075 .271 **
(.000) (.071) (.360) (.001)
Stereotyping of People .171 * .071 .151 .219 **
(.038) (.391) (.067) (.008)
Subject Too Personal .434 ** .207 * .266 ** .240 **
(.000) (.011) (.001) (.003)
Violence .170 * -.007 .119 .098

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 7
(.040) (.928) (.150) (.233)

Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient

(Sig. – 2-tailed)
* p<.05
** p<.01

CONCLUSION
Overall, it appears this study has shown that while those sampled indicated that they did not
feel particular controversial products were offensive when advertised, but they did find
particular reasons for advertisements being offensive. Therefore, the respondents perceive the
reasons given as more of an indication of why an advertisement is personally offensive than the
controversial products, which supports Waller (1999). Also there were significant differences in
the responses with gender being more of a determinant of offensiveness than age for indicating
offence, with women being more offended compared to the men’s responses.

To determine what makes controversial advertising offensive a correlation of the results

between the four controversial products and reasons for the offence was made using a
Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient with a number of relationships being indicated. In
particular strong relationships were found between Condoms with Indecent Language,
Nudity, Sexist Images and Subject Too Personal; as well as Women’s Underwear and Nudity.

For those involved with controversial products 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, or have violent
images, particularly when targeting the female market. Offending the public can result in a drop
in sales or,
at an extreme, a boycotting of the product, which can then reflect poorly on the brand, the
company and the agency behind the campaign. Those companies with controversial products
should also be aware of what issues are the ones that offend their customers, and be socially
responsible enough to refrain from openly being offensive. For example, Condom manufacturers
should run advertisements that refrain from having indecent language, nudity, sexist images
and talking about the product too personally. However, it is still up to the advertiser to decide
on the right strategy for their controversial product.

Further research should be undertaken into attitudes towards controversial products and
offensive advertising. This could take the form of 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 view hold
across different countries/cultures. From an advertiser’s view it is important to develop an
understanding of the relationship between their advertising messages and their customers, and
undertake some social responsibility for the messages being resented. The last thing an advertiser
would want to do is to offend its customers and cause a negative reaction in the marketplace.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 8

Aaker, David A. and Donald E. Bruzzone (1985) “Causes of Irritation in Advertising”,

Journal of Advertising, 49 (Spring): 47-57.

Alter, J. (1982) "A Delicate Balance: Not Everything Goes in the Marketing of
`Unmentionables'", Advertising Age, 12 July, M3-M8.

Anonymous (1995) "US Pressure Group Forces Calvin Klein to Drop 'Porn'Ads", Campaign,
1 September, 2.

Barnes, J.H. and M.J. Dotson (1990) "An Exploratory Investigation into the Nature of
Offensive Television Advertising", Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 61-69.

Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W. & Tybout, A. M. (1981) "Designing Research for Applications",
Journal of Consumer Research, 8, September: 197-207.

Curtis, Maree (2002) “Blood Sweaters and Tears”, Sunday Magazine – The Sunday
Telegraph, 21 July: 22-26.

Dant, R. P., & Barnes, J. H. (1988) "Methodological Concerns in Cross-Cultural Research:

Implications for Economic Development", in Erdogan Kumcu & A. Fuat Firat (eds),
Marketing and Development: Towards Broader Dimensions, Greenwich CT: Jai Press Inc.

Evans, I.G. and R Sumandeep (1993) "Is The Message Being Received? Benetton Analysed",
International Journal of Advertising, 12 (4), 291-301.

Fahy, John, Denise Smart, William Pride and O.C. Ferrell (1995) "Advertising Sensitive
Products", International Journal of Advertising, 14, pp231-243.

Fam, Kim Shyan, David S. Waller and B. Zafer Erdogan (2002) “A Cross-Cultural
Comparison of Attitudes Towards the Advertising of Controversial Products”, paper
presented at International Advertising Association (IAA) Regional Educational Conference,
Sydney, September.

Hornery, Andrew (1996) "But Wait, Why's There More Outrage Than Laughter?", The
Sydney Morning Herald, 20 January, 4.

Hume, S. (1988), “Most Hated Ads: Feminine Hygiene”, Advertising Age, 18 July: 1.

Irvine, Susan (2000) “The Black Prince”, Good Weekend, 8 April: 54-55, 57, 58.

Katsanis, L.P. (1994) "Do Unmentionable Products Still Exist? An Empirical Investigation",
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 3 (4), 5-14.

McIntyre, Paul (2000) "Buy Sexual", The Australian Magazine 27-28 May, 26-29.

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 9

Phau, Ian and Prendergast, Gerard (2001) “Offensive Advertising: A View from Singapore”,
Journal of Promotion Management, 7(1/2), 71-90.

Ramaprasad, Jyotika & Kazumi Hasegawa (1992) "The Youth Market: A Study of American
and Japanese Students as Consumers", paper presented at the Conference of the American
Academy of Advertising, San Antonio, Texas.

Rehman, S.N. and J.R. Brooks (1987) "Attitudes Towards Television Advertising for
Controversial Products", Journal of Healthcare Marketing, 7, 78-83.

Rickard, L. (1994) “Consumers Would Rather Skip Feminine Hygiene Ads”, Advertising Age,
65 (11), March 14, 29.

Schuster, Camille P. and Christine Pacelli Powell (1987) “Comparison of Cigarette and
Alcohol Advertising Controversies”, Journal of Advertising, 16 (2), 26-33.

Shao, Alan T. (1993) "Restrictions on Advertising Items That May Not Be Considered
`Decent': A European Viewpoint", Journal of Euromarketing, 2 (3), 23-43.

Shao, Alan T. and John S. Hill (1994a) "Global Television Advertising restrictions: The Case
of Socially Sensitive Products", International Journal of Advertising, 13, 347-366.

Shao, Alan T. and John S. Hill (1994b) "Advertising Sensitive Products in Magazines: Legal
and Social Restrictions", Multinational Business Review, Fall, 16-24.

Spain, W. (1997) "Unmentionables' Ads Making Their Way Onto Cable", Advertising Age,
14 April, s6.

Tinkham, Spencer F. & Ruth Ann Weaver-Lariscy (1994) "Ethical Judgements of Political
Television Commercials as Predictors of Attitude Toward the Ad", Journal of Advertising, 23
(3), September, 43-57.

Triff, M., D. Benningfield and J.H. Murphy (1987) "Advertising Ethics: A Study of Public
Attitudes and Perceptions", The Proceedings of the 1987 Conference of the American
Academy of Advertising, Columbia, South Carolina.

Waller, David S. (2003) “A Proposed Response Model For Controversial Advertising”,

Journal of Promotion Management, Vol 10 No1, forthcoming.

Waller, David S. (1999) "Attitudes Towards Offensive Advertising: An Australian Study",

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16 (3), 288-294.

Wilson, Aubrey and Christopher West (1981) "The Marketing of `Unmentionables'",

Harvard Business Review, January/February, 91-102.

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

 ANZCA04 Conference, Sydney, July 2004 10

Wilson, Aubrey and Christopher West (1995) “Commentary: Permissive Marketing - The
Effects of the AIDS Crisis on Marketing Practices and Messages”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 4:5, 34-48.

ANZCA04: Making a Difference

View publication stats