Humor in Advertising: A Comprehensive Analysis

Citation

Wolburg, J.M. (2007), "Humor in Advertising: A Comprehensive Analysis", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 251-251. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710756039

Humor in Advertising offers an insightful, scholarly look at the use of humor as an execution strategy in advertising from its early beginnings to the present day. To begin with, we learn that humor in advertising has had a troubled past. Claude Hopkins, who is regarded by many as the most influential copywriter of the early 1900s, took a dim view of humor as a persuasive tactic and has been widely quoted in a 1923 statement: “People do not buy from clowns” (p. 10). In many ways, we learn that Hopkins was correct, but the authors show us that there is much more to the story. To begin with, new uses of technology have changed the media environment from what existed during Hopkins' era, making humor an appealing strategy for breaking through the clutter. Furthermore, certain product categories can make better use of humor than others. Essentially, Hopkins was right about avoiding humor for advertising certain high‐risk product categories such as sports cars and expensive jewelry but was wrong about products referred to as “little treats of life,” such as beer, snack food, soft drinks, etc. (p. 197). Gulas and Weinberger offer insights into why humorous advertisements for these products have usually performed better than humorous advertisements for other products as well as some exceptions to the rule.

They also point to other considerations in the various chapters, which explain why sweeping generalizations about the effectiveness of humor fall flat. We learn why the medium matters (e.g., television and radio usually lend themselves better to use of humor than the print media) and why humor exists within a context (e.g., humorous advertisements usually work better with non‐humorous media content). Furthermore, we learn why humor is dependent upon timing. What was funny on September 10 was no longer funny on September 11, 2001 – just as advertising during the 1930s depression era required a more serious approach than in earlier or later decades.

One of the puzzling aspects of humor is why it works for some audience members and not for others. The authors tackle this issue head on with a theoretical explanation of various mechanisms for how humor works, along with a discussion of audience factors that influence the likelihood of a humorous advertisement being perceived as funny. Such factors include gender, age, educational level, culture, and ethnicity, plus a host of individual traits such as need for cognition. For example, Gulas and Weinberger acknowledge a widespread belief that humorous advertisements are more appropriate for younger audiences; however, they caution that other variables may come into play. They suggest that older audience members may be less responsive to humorous advertisements because they hold a different frame of reference than the creators of the advertisements, rather than due to any fundamental differences based on age. This point will surely be well‐received by baby boomers who often fail to find the humor in current advertisements, especially those that are created by 20‐somethings.

Gulas and Weinberger also point out that the level of commonality among the agent, the audience members, and the target affect the perception of humor. They give the example that “a Jewish comedian who is telling jokes that disparage Jews to a Jewish audience is more likely to elicit a humorous response than a non‐Jew telling the same jokes to the same audience” (p. 195). Similarly, if an advertiser disparages someone disliked by the audience, the audience is more likely to find the advertisement humorous and to perceive a shared point of view with the advertiser than if the disparaged person is liked by the audience.

We learn that even an advertisement with a successful use of humor carries no guarantees for enhancing the brand or selling the product; however, an advertisement with a failed attempt at humor carries a particularly significant price for advertisers. At a minimum, Gulas and Weinberger suggest it is a lost opportunity to connect with consumers, but in the worst‐case scenario it may offend consumers and drive them away. They illustrate this risk with a 1999 Super Bowl advertisement for Just for Feet, which showed a group of white men tracking a barefoot, black Kenyan runner who was later drugged and forced against his will to wear a pair of running shoes (p. 174). It came as no surprise that the advertisement was met with outrage.

Finally, Gulas and Weinberger confront the very difficult problem of analyzing humor without destroying it. They note that the goal of humor research – not only their research, but also that of dissertations and journal articles – is not to be humorous per se but instead to be illuminating. It is safe to conclude that the authors attained their goal because readers will surely find this book illuminating.