Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [166]
Wieden & Kennedy’s “Lack of pretense” ads for Subaru also failed to reinforce an argument. Instead, they made fun of selling cars. Its dealers reacted in a huff: “Funny? That’s not funny! … You never talked about the deal! … We gotta sell cars today!” (Rothenberg, 1994, p. 315).
Parodies—mocking imitations of a style or of a work that is well known—carry risks. If they ridicule the original work, it is unlikely that the owner will grant use of the work. Johnson and Spilger (2000) suggest that to avoid legal difficulties, the changes from the original work should be obvious.
One reason to avoid parodies is that many viewers will not understand them. Messaris (1997) reported on unpublished studies showing that many college students failed to recognize ads that parodied the painting “Whistler’s mother,” Saul Steinberg’s New Yorker cover showing a Manhattanite’s view of the rest of the country, and the Iwo Jima flag-raising. This problem is especially likely in multinational advertising campaigns.
To avoid being sued, nasty parodies are not advised for commercial advertising. Lawsuits are common even when the copyright owners have a weak case (Johnson and Spilger 2000).
Gentle and favorable parodies, ones that are done in good spirit, might work. A Bernbach ad was successful for Ohrbach’s bargain department store. It was a take-off on a well-known ad for a medicine called Serutan: “That’s Nature spelled backwards,” said the original ad. The Ohrbach ad said, “Do you feel dull and uninteresting? … you need SNIAGRAB.” In another example, a Quaker Oats ad for dog food did a parody of the famous World War I “Uncle Sam” ad. A bulldog looked right at the viewer and said, “I want you to buy Kibbles.”
It is permissible to harm demand for the work that is the subject of the parody if the advertiser does not profit from it. Thus, parodies could be used in not-for-profit or political advertising.
Evidence on humor for high-involvement products
In a small-scale study, four humorous B&W print ads for a camera were shown to 140 Singaporean subjects. The humor was relevant to the product and was reinforced in the caption and headline. In two versions, the humor was subtle, while in the other two, it was not. Each subject received one of the four ads. As hypothesized, purchase intentions were substantially higher for ads with subtle than for those with extreme humor (Pornpitakpan and Tan 2000).
In a small-scale lab experiment, alternative versions of a bubble gum ad were shown to 122 subjects. When humor was absent from the ad, a strong argument led to a more favorable attitude toward the brand than did a weak argument. When humor was present, the effect was reversed; the ad with the weaker argument was more persuasive than the ad with the stronger argument (Cline and Kellaris 1999).
In another small-scale lab experiment using print ads for unknown coffee brands, strong humor that was directly related to the selling point had much better recall than a control ad with no humor. Furthermore, irrelevant humor harmed recall, especially when the humor was strong (Cline and Kellaris 2007).
In a non-experimental analysis of 21 print ads for oil-field equipment, 315 oil industry experts rated the ads on various features, one being how humorous it was. They also reported on their intentions to purchase. Humorous ads had lower purchase intentions (Zinkhan 1984).
8.9. Sex
A sexual association with an advertised product might promote positive associations with that product among some people—but negative associations for others. It would seem prudent to also consider non-sexual options.
Certainly, sex attracts attention. In empirical studies, even monkeys will “pay” to see female rears (Deaner, Khera, and Platt 2005). However, sex might attract