Value in graphic design can possibly be boiled down to some of the following criteria: Is it informative? Is it aesthetic? Is it catchy, clear or interesting? What makes this piece of design good, or maybe bad? Is it valuable for society? Although there is no definitive list… The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation, a British non-profit organization, is known for its shocking and often distasteful advertising campaigns, which are usually very difficult and uncomfortable to watch. In the same vein, Amnesty International, a human rights charity, also produces shocking advertisements to stir emotions and raise awareness among the general public about issues that we ignore or prefer to ignore. In this essay I will explore the social, cultural and moral values ​​of these advertisements and compare them to an advertising campaign that aims to shock but appears to have no real emotional value and is just shocking for the sake of it. I will examine whether shock ads are useful to society and do they have meaning and value, or does their value diminish when shock ads are used for no real purpose other than to sell frivolous products? As a nonprofit activist organization, PETA does not do this. need to worry about negative opinions or harsh criticism; in fact, they often take advantage of it and deliberately go out of their way to offend the audience in order to stir up emotions so that their ad gets noticed and people remember the message. The PETA ad I want to talk about is their “Holocaust on Your Plate.” campaign of 2003, which was banned by the German High Court. The campaign consisted of eight sixty-foot square panels depicting shocking images of people in the middle of paper... and therefore has more aesthetic value than PETA's campaign. There's something quite nice about the colors and layout of the design, although it's not pretty, it's more appealing than PETA's. In conclusion, are shock advertisements useful and worthy for society? I'd say it is, but it's mostly a matter of context. Although shock ads serve their purpose quite well, I believe that the shock tactics used in trivial advertising could devalue shock advertising in the context of campaigns with real moral or ethical reason and value. Once you've been shocked by an ad on a crime channel, it could lessen the shock of larger campaigns and desensitize the public to this approach. The only solution for advertising to regain its value is to take the next step and become even more scandalous and appalling so that the public stands up and takes notice again...