Do PR shock tactics deliver targeted results?

Is it possible to shock an audience into taking notice of brand or cause? After the initial shock has passed, does the message stay with the audience or is it the PR equivalent of click bait, driving a ton of traffic with the promise of little beneficial engagement?

I wonder how easy it is to actually shock an audience into action these days. For example, a car crash might slow traffic down temporarily. The shock of seeing something as familiar as a car twisted beyond recognition has an immediate reaction in many drivers, but how miles down the road does the average driver travel before they start pushing down on the accelerator and putting distance between them and the accident?

Similarly, health professionals have tried to shock people into giving up smoking (it will kill you) for years but I wonder if the decline in smoking rates in the UK has more to do with the inconvenience of smoking bans in public places than any threat.

Shock tactics might spark interest in an audience already tuned into your message but I’m not convinced that it has much appeal outside of your existing audience.

Perhaps more worryingly, could attempting to shock your audience actually turn potential target groups off your message? We all know that driving too fast or smoking cigarettes is dangerous – but nobody likes being preached to either.

Both sides of the current EU referendum debate seems to be focusing on shock tactics (immigration, unelected officials dictating laws, job losses, war) and it might just be turning the general public off voting. Nobody wants a poor turnout dictating such an important issue.

Instead of attempting to shock your audience into a reaction, wouldn’t it be better to focus on a positive engagement which they can fully embrace?