Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [164]
TV advertising for well-known beers meets the conditions for using humor. Consider the “whassup” campaign. In 2001, Budweiser, while available in the United Kingdom, was typically out of sight in pubs and did not spring to mind when people were considering which beer to order. The “whassup” campaign targeted young males, and led people use the “whassup” term. Sales started to rise in 2001 after a downward trend during the three years prior to the campaign. Based on its demonstrated effectiveness, “whassup” was an IPA award-winning campaign (Rimini 2003).
People differ about what is humorous, particularly when they come from different cultures. For multinational advertising, then, it is wise to avoid humor.
8.8.1. Consider using humor for well-known, low-involvement products
In addition to the above conditions, humorous advertisements for low-involvement goods are most effective when the humor is related to the selling point. For example, an ad for hiking maps included a well-known side-effect that supported the benefits: “Warning. This product can cause blisters, aching, and shortness of breath.”
Humor is more effective in fast-exposure media (such as TV) and when viewed in the presence of others. This is consistent with the beliefs of advertising executives. Most U.S. advertising executives in Madden and Weinberger’s (1984) survey replied that radio and TV were best suited for humor.
It is commonly believed that humor is good at gaining attention to ads. In a survey of research and creative directors in U.S. advertising agencies, 94 percent replied that humor was effective at gaining attention (Madden and Weinberger 1984). UK agency executives agreed (Weinberger and Spotts 1989b; Toncar 2001). However, the executives also believed that the gain in attention often came at a loss in comprehension; viewers remembered the joke and forgot the product.
An analysis of data on TV commercials in the late 1980s and early 1990s found that over 72 percent of humorous U.S. commercials tied the humor to the product, compared with 85 percent of British commercials. Also, during this time, across both countries, humor was used nearly half the time for low-involvement hedonic products, but in only one in seven instances for high-involvement hedonic products. With respect to utilitarian products, the usage was about one in four for both high and low-involvement products (Toncar 2001).
One study showed that humor was used in over 20 percent of TV ads, about 30 percent of radio ads, and 10 percent of magazine ads (Weinberger et al. 1995). Another study found that 26 percent of TV commercials contained humor compared with 5 percent of magazine ads (Catanescu and Tom 2001).
Evidence on the effects of humor
A meta-analysis of 43 studies on humor, involving non-experimental and experimental studies, led to the conclusion, as had earlier reviews, that humor enhances attention and improves the attitude toward the brand (Eisend 2009).
The following field experiments show that the persuasiveness of humor depends upon the situation:
Humorous ads increased attendance at social events, but harmed it at serious events. Scott, Klein, and Bryant (1990) conducted a study in which households received flyers for a social event, some with a humorous visual, some with a non-humorous visual, and some with no visual. The following table shows the percentage of people who responded to each treatment. (Within each of the three treatments—humorous, non-humorous, and no visual—the number of households was the kept the same.)
Humor helped for social events:
The researchers recruited judges who could identify local residents who attended the social events and asked them to evaluate the attendees’ pleasure by observing their facial expressions. People who had received humorous ads were judged to enjoy the social events more than those who received non-humorous