What was meant to trigger drivers into reconsidering their habits, quickly turned into defamatory attacks on Mabena and prompted the hashtag “#RoastNomuzi”. The campaign has been met with mixed reactions on social media, with the majority labelling the publicity stunt as “distasteful”. This then prompts a question around shock ads, or as marketers say, “shockvertising”. How far is too far? Are shock ads effective in changing consumer behaviour or, is shocking people simply off-putting?
I partnered with @Volkswagen and @DriveDry to make a change in 2019. We don’t want to see another year where thousands of lives are lost on our roads because of drinking & driving.
— #MoozlieVictory�� (@NoMoozlie) January 11, 2019
Take the pledge and make the change to #VWDriveDry in 2019. #Nomuzihttps://t.co/HsxMlIBjQr
Some have shared their outrage. Some have shared their support. But who will share their pledge? 300 000 people saw these posts but only 4 people commented on reckless driving. Take the pledge #VWDriveDry pic.twitter.com/NOHvNy9Rij
— Drive Dry (@DriveDry) January 14, 2019
There is really no need #RoastNomuzi . Texting and driving is never a good idea. Many lives have been lost through texting and driving. #DriveDry
— Pat Mahlangu (@iam_thokozani1) January 11, 2019
Read the article to get the depth of this campaign #VWDriveDry https://t.co/iUCWpM2qtR
However people have become increasingly desensitised to ads that try to vilify them for their behaviour, there are limitations when it comes to implementing the shock factor. Rather than road safety ads showing a gruesome car crash, or anti-smoking campaigns plastered with grotesque images of lung cancer, marketers have adopted a different approach, highlighting the emotional consequences of bad habits on ourselves and our loved ones. This is what #VWDriveDry aimed to achieve with its campaign. The question is, did it work?
People just don't want to face the truth that texting or using your phone while driving is dangerous not only for them but also for other innocent people in the road who comply with rules of the road. People will always shun the truth! I support Drive Dry Campaign @NoMoozlie https://t.co/qPlGpAsZe6
— Black Twittezen II (@DaRealNkosana) January 14, 2019
#VWDriveDry #Nomuzi all I can say is that Am impressed and alerted at once,. I must say; someone had to do this, And im glad you overcame your "fear" and stand in the gab.. Drinking and texting while driving is a serious issue, and you just took a good care of it �� https://t.co/7iQ1Azsg6T
— nhlamulo_nhlaks (@NhlaksNhlamulo) January 12, 2019
The irony of people saying "you can't play around with death" THAT'S THE POINT, STOP DRINKING AND DRIVING #VWDriveDry
— Hashirama Senju88 (@RUdebOyrEd) January 11, 2019
Although Nike was heading into dangerous territory, given the public outrage that someone like Kaepernick faced for his political stance against police brutality in the US, and given Nike’s own history regarding unethical labour practices, it generated talkability. Talkability is certainly one of the most important elements of campaigns our agency, BrandTruth Integrated Content Practice, practice every day.
One thing is for sure, Volkswagen and its Drive Dry campaign could not have predicted that the narrative would shift from awareness around driving drunk, to a character and career assassination of Nomuzi Mabena. But this is a high-risk factor that comes with using shock tactics.
Sheila Afari 22 Jan 2019
With the devastating road fatalities in South Africa – many caused by drunk drivers – one cannot deny the importance of such a campaign. However, the outcome became more about the tactics rather than the actual call to action: to stop irresponsible driving.
So why did Nomuzi Mabena and #VWDriveDry garner such public criticism? Firstly, consumers should never feel misled, regardless of how strong and necessary the messaging is. Taking 14 hours to notify the public that the video was, in fact, an awareness campaign, was perhaps too long. Its intentions should have been made clear. Although the use of “shockvertising” in this campaign did achieve traditional PR goals of AVE and social media hits, did it encourage people to reconsider their driving habits?
Only time will tell when annual road accident statistics are released. But the fact remains, brands cannot afford to underestimate the intelligence of its audience. This is where “commodity activism” comes in. Notable brands such as Nike, Gillette, Nando’s and Castle Lager, are popularly known for social commentary in their campaigns. The simple difference between these brands and the #VWDriveDry campaign is that the latter’s intentions were not clear.
“Shockvertising” does indeed bring the issues that people don’t want to talk about directly into the public domain. However, how brands relay the message is important now more than ever, particularly when consumer behaviour merges with social responsibility. Individual consumers purchase brands that share similar interests and values. Not all activism can be commodified.
