Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [165]
Scott et al. also used this design to examine business events. Here, humor was detrimental:
In a lab experiment using a branded writing pen, humorous ads were more persuasive when customers already had a favorable attitude toward a brand. But when the prior attitude was not favorable, a non-humorous version was more persuasive. In addition, humor was best suited to situations in which there were no strong selling points (Chattopadhyay and Basu 1990).
An analysis of non-experimental data by Stanton and Burke (1998) found that humor is better suited to fast-exposure media. Humor was 20 percent more persuasive than average for 15-second commercials, but 13 percent less persuasive for 30-second commercials.
8.8.2. Consider humor for high-involvement products only if relevant to a simple argument.
For high-involvement products, the key is to have humor that is obviously relevant to a simple argument for the product. Even then, the humor should not overwhelm the message, so keep it gentle. Gentleness seems to be especially important when advertising new or improved high-involvement products.
Bernbach often used a gentle sophisticated humor to demonstrate the benefits of high-involvement products. This led people to think about the claim. One of his TV commercials in the 1960s showed two identical houses. The voice-over said:
Mr. Jones and Mr. Krempler were neighbors. They each had $3,000. With his money, Mr. Jones bought himself a $3,000 car. With his money, Mr. Krempler bought a new washer … a new dryer … a record player … two more television sets … and a brand new Volkswagen. Now Mr. Jones is faced with that age-old problem—keeping up with the Kremplers.
To test whether humor is relevant to the product, remove the product from the ad. If the ad is still humorous, it fails this test. For example, in a CLIO award-winning TV ad, IKEA advertised the durability of its furniture by showing three comical looking “scientists” as they tested various products, such as a kitchen cabinet. One tester opened and closed a cabinet door while saying, “Mom, can I have a cookie?” Another tester hit a gong each time the door closed, while the third recorded each event on a clipboard. If you removed the product from this ad, there would be no humor, so it passed the test.
Joe Sedelmaier’s “Where’s the beef™” campaign for Wendy’s hamburgers also passed the test. In contrast, in Sedelmaier’s 1985 “Russian fashion show” TV commercial for Wendy’s, a husky Russian woman with a heavy accent modeled “day vear,” then “evening vear,” then “beach vear” (all of the clothes were the same) to demonstrate the lack of choice at other hamburger chains. That ad would be funny even without the product, so it failed the test.
Here is an exception. If there is a strong argument, yet people are resistant (e.g., stop smoking, get exercise, avoid excessive drinking), humor might be used as a distracter to reduce counter-arguing. This might help customers—and also build good relationships.
As part of being gentle, do not make fun of others. Nike violated this principle in a 1999 TV commercial in which a San Antonio Spurs basketball player made fun of Mr. Rogers of U.S. children’s TV fame with, “Can you say, ‘Kick some butt?’” Another Nike ad referred to people with disabilities as “drooling and misshapen.” In both cases, Nike pulled the ads after receiving complaints (Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2000). These commercials violated long-standing guidelines. Fowler (1897), in his encyclopedia for advertisers, stated that “Perhaps the safest rule to follow is not to be funny unless there is a certainty that the fun of the advertiser will be appreciated by the buyer.”
In 1987, Jerry Della Femina’s TV commercials for Isuzu automobiles featured Joe Isuzu, a pathological liar. For example, in one ad he said, “This car, which costs $9, gets 94 miles per gallon, city; 112 highway.” As he spoke, printed words appeared on the screen saying “HE’S LYING.” Joe’s signature phrase was, “You have my word on it.” The ads became