I was just reading on Media Bistro how Good Morning America canceled Adam Lambert’s appearance originally scheduled for tomorrow morning after receiving over 1500 complaints due to Lambert’s racy performance on the American Music Awards last weekend. Sometimes celebrities go a little too far in their attempts to add shock value to a performance. Sure, they get the desired publicity, but is that always a good thing? It occurs to me many writers can use this as a learning experience. Shocking people is fun. Shocking people incites a reaction. There’s no denying people we’re going to talk about Adam Lambert for days, but is that a good thing? If you’re thinking of going for shock value in your writing, consider the following:
1. You have to live with your decision for a long time.
Scandals are almost always short lived but people remember. Almost six years after Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, we’re still reading about it or hearing about it news reports. Thanks to constantly pushing the envelope no one thinks of Madonna as a role model. People remember Michael Richards’ racial slurs and inappropriate remarks and many aren’t so forgiving. Before you plan on going for shock, consider how your readers will react. People like to drag up the past. Years after you publishing your shocking bit of writing people will still remember. If you’re going to go for negativity, obscenity, or vulgarity ask yourself if you’re prepared to continue defending your decision years down the line.
2. Traffic and sales are short lived.
That shocking tell all expose on the cover of the magazine? Sales may have been up for that issue, but they probably went down again a week later. Ditto website and blog traffic. Linkbait and shock may be good for a two or three day spike, but eventually life returns to normal. Going for timeless content will continue to bring in and build traffic over time, instead of having to rely on sporadic spikes in traffic due to scandalous content.
3. Your readers might not trust you anymore.
Your readers might feel betrayed if you were someone who is always positive but then went for an element of shock or surprise. In fact it could lead to confusion and outrage. It’s not fun having to defend yourself all the time. Before going for shock think of how your loyal community of readers will feel – as they’re the ones who should always come first.
Granted, shock isn’t always negative, but most of the time it’s not positive. If you’re going to do something out of character or constantly go for the shock element, be prepared to back up your decision – often. People tend to put the negative over all the good things we accomplish. Always remember that when going for something that is sure to stir up emotion.
I get what you’re saying, and agree. On a different note, I watched a reporter interview Adam Lambert after his performance. He said that female celebrities (Madonna and Britney Spears kiss, anyone?) have been doing this type of thing for years, and that backlash from the public or the network’s decision to censor the performance would show that society still discriminates against gay people. I have to say, he’s got a point…
Well except that Janet Jackson’s performance also yielded many angry phone calls and the next year’s superbowl half time was more family friendly. Not saying he’s wrong, but not sure he’s right either. I think any time anyone goes for shock he or she has to consider the repercussions.
Right, but Adam Lambert didn’t actually expose his “privates.” (I know that’s a juvenile term, but didn’t know if you’d approve of more explicit words on your site
)He kissed someone else, and his actions and movements were suggestive, something we see in almost every music video. I guess the point I took away from his interview was, “would we be reacting if these acts were between a man and a woman, or do we still have a double standard?” It made me think.
And remember, what happened to Janet was a wardrobe malfunction
If this is the same dude that was jammed on the other TV show, I hardly think it will affect his fan base at all. Probably make them even more rabid.
I read an interesting article/interview with Mariah Carey a while back. She’s not exactly “top o the pops” anymore, but she has an extremely loyal base of fans that she maintains very close communication with. Even if she gets no further MSM exposure, she’s in fine shape. There’s a lesson there. Somewhere.
“If you’re going to go for negativity, obscenity, or vulgarity ask yourself if you’re prepared to continue defending your decision years down the line.”
Guess I’m going to have to find a different theme for 2010…
Great post!
“There’s no denying people we’re going to talk about Adam Lambert for days, but is that a good thing?”
Perhaps ‘were’ would be better than we’re…. wrong word.
Cut comment here….
——
In any case, not that I listen to Howard Stern, but some folks make a living by doing this.
Way to go Adam Lambert. That man has some courage, gay or not. I hope one day that there will be a culture that does not discriminate. And when will a breast on TV be just a breast and not considered indecent? If these are the envelopes that these people are pushing, then I applaud them. I can also recall Elvis’ hip thrusts getting an awful lot of attention back in the day for its suggestiveness. I don’t think that those hip thrusts are what we remember him for in particular.
Sorry, about the first part of my post; I thought I was still on your watch list. I wouldn’t have made a public post about a silly thing like a wrong word.
The discrimination thing really isn’t the point of this post. It’s more about what you want to be remembered for – and if you still want to be defending your decision to shock five years down the line? It’s not always easy to change an image.
Well, the basis of shock is often what people find shocking. That is to say, Elvis and his hip thrusting in his day was really shocking to the folks who espoused moral sensibilities. Yet, we remember him better for his songs.
This Lambert guy I’d never heard of until this article came up. I then went to look for the video to see what was so disgraceful. The only thing I found was him rocking out with Freddy Mercury’s old band, Queen. He did alright, though he’s no Freddy.
Looking at him kiss that guy might be shocking to many who are homophobic. To those of us who are not, it’s not shocking. The kiss between Madonna and Britney was titillating for the general public. It garnered discussion, but it did not harm either of them in their careers. Clearly it was not more shocking than anything else those two had done. And, let’s face it, lesbianism is a little shocking and enough for Ellen Degeneres to lose her job, but it’s not reviled to the same extent that male homosexuality is. It’s because it’s reviled that it’s shocking to see on TV. If he, Adam I mean, had kissed Madonna, it would have titillated a bit, but I doubt if it would have made your blog post or had gotten him ousted from the talk show.
Now, as to the talk show ousting him – maybe they should have thought about it first a bit. There are still a considerable number of people in America who believe that sexual preference is a choice and a right. Not a majority, but a significant minority. How many of that minority are going to be offended by the talk show’s reaction to Adam’s kiss, which was somewhat innocuous and not really worth talking about or getting into a twist over. I get more in a twist over someone like Tiger Woods making 10 million or so off of Nike while the children who work in the sweat shops in the Philippines make about a dollar a day. Yet, no one talks about how he makes money off of the sweat of young children. I guess that’s not shocking to folks. Two men kissing = shocking. Making money off of child labour = OK. I guess what I’m saying is that what’s shocking to some isn’t shocking to others.