Shocked and Appalled

One of the reasons Marilyn Manson was so successful was not only for his appearance or theatricality, but for his physical transformation from ordinary to excessive. He found a niche where he could disseminate his mythos and manifest a cult following of shock-rock worshippers. Shock-vertising employs a similar strategy by using graphic images to sell a product or describe a societal problem or need. This is effective because it compels the viewer to further investigate the ad to discover its message, while leaving an impression that persists after its initial consideration. However, the primary significance of using this method of advertising is that few people are doing this so it
stands out.

Manson emerged in the early 90's when the Punk and Metal scenes were already in full-force, if not on the downturn, but he was able to push the theatrical aspect of these genres in a more eccentric way and he even created rumours about himself to perpetuate the image. Ad campaigns parallel this "affront" to humanity by linking the grotesque with the consumer's desire for things. This gothic principal has had recurrences throughout history in mediums such as painting, architecture, music, literature, and subsequently marketing as well. We as humans are the only species on the planet that will over-indulge and it has taken a dramatic toll on our environment. Our insatiable appetite for materials and experiences has grown to a massive summit from which there is no sign of the earth below, with technology reinforcing such "heavenly" temptations.

Of course, no matter how effective shock-vertising is, it does have a time and place and should be used sparingly. If every ad we saw in our daily lives was some shocking image, eventually we would adapt and even these ads would be ignored, becoming a blur of blood and guts. Also, policy-makers do not take too kindly to graphic depictions and will more than likely point fingers when children commit acts of violence, just as they did with Manson after Columbine. As it is now, abjection is a very attractive marketing tool as it reminds us of our own bodies in their fragility and ephemerality, while our minds become dependant on immediacy and transience. Time will reveal the future recessive affects.

Brand Loyalty

Infidelity is unanimously agreed to be morally wrong by the majority of people, but can such a violation be attributed to brand loyalty? Can someone strictly be a Mac or a PC, or only drink Coke over Pepsi while using their Nikon DSLR to photograph fragments of a shattered Canon Rebel? The short answer is "NO!" for the simple fact that each of these brands offer similar norms and expectations, with a unique approach rivalling its competition. One can easily choose one brand over another based on personal preferences but they're choice may be irreversible down the road.

The USP for a brand determines its identity, but being unfaithful to a brand is more of a hindrance than it is a violation. For example, if I am a PC user and I decide to move to Mac, I now have to repurchase all of the accessories and adapters for Mac exclusive products. This can be a heavy commitment to make, especially with Camera equipment, where lenses cost upwards of thousands of dollars. With this in mind, we can assume that although we have the freedom to choose to switch brands, it would cost an arm and a leg to do so and hence is not worth doing as the various prominent brands offer practically the same product, with small variations.

It comes down to personal preference when choosing brands, however, it also comes down to availability. If I am an avid Coca Cola drinker and I got to a restaurant that only serves Pepsi, I might be inclined to go for the alternative because my immediate association with soft drinks is their overall characteristics, a  dark sugary drink with bite. Cheating on food products is more often committed because they do not require too much investment and one's mood or social atmosphere can alter their buying psychology. I may want to buy Absolut vodka when going to a party, but I might revert to Smirnoff if I want to enjoy a domestic screwdriver. The image that each purveyor creates for its user can be a significant buying motive, and can easily sway our choices.

In conclusion, brand infidelity is possible to the cultists dismay, however some companies purposely make their brand exclusive and fly their banner in the form of a USP, locking customers into a commitment that makes cheating on the brand unfavourable. Exclusivity is the chastity belt for brands allowing them to sink their claws into the consumer.