When campaigns go all out

We're going to discuss two very distinct examples that ultimately show the same thing. Now associations don't hesitate to "go all out" to get their message across, or to get people talking about them.
These are different strategies that are ultimately bothersome for us because we face a dilemma: what should we think? Should we support these videos (advertisements/campaigns) or should we criticize them?

First on the chopping block and truly criticized is the English 10:10 campaign

Well, the entire eco-blogosphere talked about it (Mickaël from the Eco Blog, or Anne-Sophie from Ecolo-Info), and you've probably seen the video... so before I really make or break it, I'll show you the second video against fast food which shows that it's really crap which fights obesity

What struck me, however, is that it's no longer a laughing matter; these are associations, and the message is really very serious. After that, we interpret it as we wish; some feel disturbed because they are shocked, others are stunned.

For my part, I'm really torn, full of ambivalence as usual, because at the same time I'm in favor of shock campaigns, those that get people talking, those that you see once and can't forget (cf. Greenpeace's latest campaign against palm oil). However, I find, especially for the 10:10 campaign, that it mostly created a buzz instead of getting people to talk about the initial message (reducing greenhouse gas by 10%) by omitting the human dimension, precisely...
Conversely, the campaign against childhood obesity is amazing, it's stunning... but again, is guilt the solution to get the message across? Should we play on the emotions of every citizen to make them act?
A vast topic...