can you help me do assignmt??

taaotrang.le28b3

thesampleofassignmt.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >can you help me do assignmt??

tstc3

Text Box

This copyrighted material has been assessed by Turnitin and further usage will be monitored.

STUDENT No

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements of the

BA (HONS) Business with Economics Programme

of Northumbria University

NAME

DEGREE BA (Hons) Business with Economics

SUPERVISOR

TITLE The use of Humour in Television Advertising within the UK.

DATE April 2012

CAMPUS Newcastle

DECLARATIONS

I declare the following:-

(1) That the material contained in this dissertation is the end result of my

own work and that due acknowledgement has been given in the

bibliography and references to ALL sources be they printed, electronic or

personal.

(2) The Word Count of this Dissertation is ................10,092.....................

(3) That unless this dissertation has been confirmed as confidential, I

agree to an entire electronic copy or sections of the dissertation to being

placed on Blackboard, if deemed appropriate, to allow future students the

opportunity to see examples of past dissertations. I understand that if

displayed on Blackboard it would be made available for no longer than five

years and that students would be able to print off copies or download. The

authorship would remain anonymous.

(4) I agree to my dissertation being submitted to a plagiarism detection

service, where it will be stored in a database and compared against work

submitted from this or any other School or from other institutions using the

service.

In the event of the service detecting a high degree of similarity between

content within the service this will be reported back to my supervisor and

second marker, who may decide to undertake further investigation which

may ultimately lead to disciplinary actions, should instances of plagiarism

be detected.

(5) I have read the University Policy Statement on Ethics in Research and

Consultancy and the Policy for Informed Consent in Research and

Consultancy and I declare that ethical issues have been considered and

taken into account in this research.

(6) I have read the University Policy Statement on Data Protection in

Research and Consultancy and I declare that the data collected for use in

this dissertation has been properly safeguarded and will be destroyed

once the dissertation or subsequent research activity has been concluded.

I acknowledge that it is my responsibility to destroy the information with

due regard to confidentiality.

SIGNED: ..........................................................

DATE: ................................................................

ABSTRACT

Student Name

Degree BA (Hons) Business with Economics

Dissertation Title The use of Humour in Television

Advertising within the UK.

Date 2012

Keywords Humour

UK-Television-Advertising

Advertising-Research

Involvement

The UK advertising industry is worth £3.5 billion (Sweney, 2011). Humour

is a common and popular technique used by marketers and advertisers to

stand out in such a crowded marketplace.

The literature on humour in advertising within the UK looks at how humour

can be categorised into separate devices and how the use of humour

varies amongst different involvement conditions.

Using Kelly and Solomon’s (1975) humorous devices framework, this

study examines how the different devices of humour are used in UK

television advertising. The study evaluates which devices are the most

common and most effective and how they relate to involvement using

Vaughan’s (1986) FCB grid as well as identifying gaps which could be

further explored.

The analysis of the results collected from the quantitative content analysis

and qualitative content analyses reveal that ludicrous and satire are the

most common humorous devices employed in UK television advertising.

Despite this, the humorous device most effective is pun. The majority of

the adverts analysed fell into the low involvement/feeling category, and

unexpectedly, a large percentage of adverts fell into the high

involvement/thinking category. Participants reacted favourably towards

adverts for products in the low involvement/feeling category, yet reacted

negatively towards products in the high involvement/thinking category.

Analysis also showed that Kelly and Solomon’s (1975) humorous devices

framework is in need of modernising.

The findings of this study would suggest that the usage and effectiveness

of certain humorous devices are subject to change over time, although the

low involvement/feeling product category consistently remains the most

popular and effective condition to apply humour within UK television

advertising. There is an emergence of popularity in the high

involvement/thinking product category although the author would

recommend further research to determine how using humour in this

condition can be more effective.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Firstly, I would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, , who

has been very supportive and a calm influence during the entire

dissertation process. I would also like to thank all of the research

participants who provided an illuminating and interesting contribution to my

research. Finally, I would like to thank my parents and grandparents for

their continued support during the good times and the tough times.

A special mention has to go to for regaling me with his dissertation

wisdom during the past 7 months.

, thank you for simply existing.

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................. 6

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................ 10

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 11

1.1 Research Topic ............................................................................... 11

1.2 Background to Study ....................................................................... 11

1.3 Research Objectives ....................................................................... 12

1.4 Dissertation Structure ...................................................................... 13

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 14

2.1 – Introduction .................................................................................. 14

2.2 – The Role of Advertising ................................................................ 14

2.3 – The Effects of Advertising on Consumers .................................... 16

2.4 – Advertising Mediums .................................................................... 17

2.41 – Broadcast Media ..................................................................... 18

2.5 – Appeals in Advertising .................................................................. 19

2.51 – Humour and Involvement in Advertising .................................. 20

2.52 – The Risks of Using Humour .................................................... 21

2.6 – Differences in Cultural Values and their Impact on Advertising .... 21

2.7 – The Use of Humour in Television Advertising in the UK ............... 23

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 25

3.1 – Introduction .................................................................................. 25

3.2 – Research Philosophy ................................................................... 25

3.3 – Secondary Research .................................................................... 25

3.4 – Primary Research ......................................................................... 26

3.5 – Research Objectives .................................................................... 28

3.6 – Research Approach ...................................................................... 29

3.7 – Research Methodology ................................................................ 30

3.8 – Ethical Considerations .................................................................. 34

3.9 – Limitations .................................................................................... 34

3.10 – Conclusion ................................................................................. 34

FINDING AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 35

4.1 – Introduction .................................................................................. 35

4.2 – Findings for Objective 1: To explore the extent to which the Six Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly and Solomon (1975) are employed in UK Television Advertising. ................................................ 36

4.3 – Findings for Objective 2: To identify the differences in the application of humour in relation to High/Low Involvement and Think/Feel products in UK Television Advertising. ................................ 38

4.4 - Findings for Objective 3: To find out which humour device is most effective in advertising Low/Feel products in UK Television. ................. 40

4.5 – Findings for Objective 4: To compare how consumer attitudes are affected towards brands that use humour to advertise Low/Feel products and High/Think products in UK Television. ............................................ 44

4.6 – Findings for Objective 5: To consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly and Solomon (1975) need re-defining. ....... 46

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 49

5.1 - Introduction ................................................................................... 49

5.2 - The extent to which the Six Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly and Solomon (1975) are employed in UK Television Advertising. ......... 49

5.3 – The differences in the application of humour in relation to High/Low Involvement and Think/Feel products in UK Television Advertising. ..... 50

5.4 – The humour device is most effective in advertising Low/Feel products in UK Television. ..................................................................... 51

5.5 – Compare how consumer attitudes are affected towards brands that use humour to advertise Low/Feel products and High/Think products in UK Television. ....................................................................................... 51

5.6 – Consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly and Solomon (1975) need re-defining. .................................................. 52

5.7 – Limitations .................................................................................... 53

5.8 - Further Research .......................................................................... 53

REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 55

APPENDICES .......................................................................................... 64

Appendix A – Statement of Learning ..................................................... 64

Appendix B – Quantitative Content Analysis: Sample Details. .............. 65

Appendix C (i) – A Selection of Qualitative Content Analyses Transcriptions : Participant 1 ................................................................. 66

Appendix C (ii) – A Selection of Qualitative Content Analyses Transcriptions : Participant 5 ................................................................. 71

Appendix C (iii) – A Selection of Qualitative Content Analyses Transcriptions : Participant 9 ................................................................. 76

Appendix D (i) - Screenshot of Advert 1: Oreo – ‘How to Eat an Oreo’ . 81

Appendix D (ii) - Screenshot of Advert 2: Aldi – ‘Red Dress’ ................. 82

Appendix D (iii) - Screenshot of Advert 3: Pomegreat – ‘Oh, What a Beautiful Morning’ ................................................................................. 83

Appendix D (iv) - Screenshot of Advert 4: Aldi – ‘A Fine Pair of Pollock’s’ .............................................................................................................. 84

Appendix D (v) - Screenshot of Advert 5: Snickers – ‘Divas’ ................. 85

Appendix D (vi) - Screenshot of Advert 6: Aviva – ‘Waders’ .................. 86

Appendix D (vii) - Screenshot of Advert 7: Directline – ‘A Bit Rough’ .... 87

Appendix D (viii) - Screenshot of Advert 8: Swiftcover – ‘The Swift Brothers – Lost Documents’ .................................................................. 88

Appendix E - Student Research Ethical Issues Form ............................ 89

Appendix F – Informed Consent Forms for Research Participants ....... 91

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 3.1……………………………………………………………………….32

Table 3.1………………………………………………………………………..32

Table 4.1……………………………………………………………………..…37

Table 4.2……………………………………………………………………..…39

Figure 4.1……………………………………………………………………….41

Figure 4.2……………………………………………………………………….39

Figure 4.3……………………………………………………………………….42

Figure 4.4……………………………………………………………………….42

Figure 4.5……………………………………………………………………….42

Figure 4.6……………………………………………………………………….45

Figure 4.7……………………………………………………………………….45

Figure 4.8……………………………………………………………………….45

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Topic

The research topic for this dissertation is the use humour within

advertising. The dissertation will take a deliberate look at the use of

humour in television advertising within the UK in terms of how humour is

applied to television advertising. This is an important topic because the

global advertising market is worth more than $500billion (GroupM, 2010)

with up to 30% of adverts containing humour (Krishnan and Chakravarti,

2003). This topic will be especially useful to marketers and advertisers

within the UK who wish to better understand the mechanics of humour and

how to apply them to television adverts under a variety of different

conditions. A more knowledgeable approach to applying humour in

television advertising in the UK would make the adverts more effective and

successful.

1.2 Background to Study

Lots of literature exists on the use of humour in advertising and despite it

being one of the most difficult techniques to employ in advertising (Roman

and Maas, 2005) it remains one of the most popular and commonly used.

In terms of advertising, Kelly and Solomon (1975) attempted to categorise

humour into six humorous devices that can be applied to adverts.

Vaughan (1986) created the FCB grid as a means of analysing advertising

messages with regard to their level of involvement and how consumers

can conceptualise such messages either rationally or emotionally through

thinking or feeling. Weinberger and Spotts (1989) and Toncar (2001)

adopted Kelly and Solomon’s (1975) humorous devices framework as well

as Vaughan’s (1986) FCB grid and constructed studies into the

relationship between UK television advertising and humour. These studies

offered some concurrent findings relating to how humour is more effective

under certain involvement conditions. On the other hand, some converse

findings in these studies depict an evolutionary shift with regard to the

humour preferences used in television advertising within the UK.

The purpose if this study is to build upon previous research to identify

which devices of humour are most prevalent in UK television advertising

and to analyse which devices are the most effective. This study also

intends to interpret the relationship between humour and involvement

conditions as well as recognise the implications of how future studies into

humour and advertising need to be aware of the continuous cultural

development in the relationship between humour and advertising in the

UK.

1.3 Research Objectives

The research objectives of this study put forward by the author are as

follows:

To explore the extent to which the Six Humorous Devices proposed

by Kelly and Solomon (1975) are employed in UK Television

Advertising.

To identify the differences in the application of humour in relation to

High/Low Involvement and Think/Feel products in UK Television

Advertising.

To find out which humour device is most effective in advertising

Low/Feel products in UK Television.

To compare how consumer attitudes are affected towards brands

that use humour to advertise Low/Feel products and High/Think

products in UK Television.

To consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly

and Solomon (1975) need re-defining.

1.4 Dissertation Structure

This dissertation follows a regime of chapters. The first chapter broadly

introduces the research topic and explains the reasoning behind humour in

advertising being selected as a research topic as well as describing the

academic research objectives and outlining the proceeding chapters. The

second chapter of the dissertation is the literature review. A detailed

review of the literature is illustrated in relation to the academic research

objectives that have been laid out. Literature founded upon advertising,

humour and involvement will be critically assessed.

The methodology section makes up the third chapter of the dissertation.

This offers a broad scope of the research employed during the dissertation

process. This chapter offers a detailed explanation of the research design

and implementation with the limitations acknowledged to sustain the

validity of the dissertation. This is important as a study of this size will

always be subject to obstacles and restrictions. Furthermore, a list of the

research objectives will be acknowledged. The data findings and analysis

are included in chapter four. This primary research conducted will be of a

quantitative and qualitative nature in the form of content analyses. Data

analysis will seek to strengthen or weaken the theories and frameworks

already analysed in the literature review. Chapter five will be in the form of

a set of conclusions. The findings of the study will be critically evaluated in

the context of the research objectives laid out in chapter three so that

judgements can be made to provide an answer to the dissertation title.

Furthermore, the overall limitations of the study and recommendations for

further research will be addressed.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 – Introduction

This chapter and its subcategories follow the foundation of any literature

review in that it seeks to critically review work that has already been done

in the field that is being researched. This will eliminate the need recite

knowledge that has already been reported (Fisher, 2010). However,

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007) stress the importance of only

reviewing the most appropriate and important literature to identify the

theories and ideas that can be developed into a conceptual framework.

Bryman and Bell (2007) explain the importance of being able to interpret

the theories and opinions involved in this area of research to reinforce

particular viewpoints or arguments. Further to this, Saunders, Lewis and

Thornhill (2007) describe how under the deductive approach of research,

the conceptual framework that has been developed can be tested using

relevant data collected through primary research. From exploring the

existing literature, it will be possible to refine the research questions to

accommodate any inconsistencies or unanswered research questions in

this field of research.

2.2 – The Role of Advertising

In the context of marketing management, Hackley (2010) broadly defines

advertising as a sub-category of the promotional mix, which in turn is one

element of the marketing mix. However, Hackley (2010) also recognises

that the flexibility of advertising as a communication tool, coupled with the

ever expanding array of communication mediums available, makes it

difficult to give advertising a fixed definition.

In the most recent global advertising expenditure report (GroupM, 2010) it

was predicted that global expenditure on advertising would exceed $500

billion for the first time by the end of 2011. This predicted expenditure

represented a 5.9% increase on the 2010 forecast, which indicates that

advertising is a form of marketing that is to be taken very seriously.

Armstrong et al (2009) explain how advertising is used as part of an

integrated marketing communications mix and suggest that advertising is

the best method of marketing communication in order to reach a large

quantity of geographically dispersed consumers. For example, in their

No.1 Sports event fact sheet (FIFA, 2006) FIFA announced that the 2006

World Cup was broadcast in 214 countries. This unique opportunity to

reach such a diverse consumer base saw international advertising firms

spend over $1 billion in just a 5 week period (Sweney, 2006).

Armstrong and Kotler (2009) highlight the importance of the development

of an advertising strategy. The increasing selection of new media outlets

and the need for more focused target market strategies has ‘promoted the

importance of the media-planning function’ (Armstrong and Kotler, 2009,

p.393). Therefore the synergy between message decisions and media

decisions is critical.

In a global sense there is a conflicting pressure for advertising strategies

to be both ‘globally integrated and locally responsive’ (Walters, Whitla and

Davies, 2008, p.237). They noted the common viewpoint that there is no

such existence of a uniform global advertising strategy in that it will always

need to be altered to comply with local consumers understanding. Large

firms are not committed to developing a standardised global approach to

advertising strategy. Instead, firms are looking to use their overseas

networks and resources to be able to ‘readily respond to [the] pressures

for localisation’ (Walters, Whitla and Davies, 2008, p.247).

These findings add to Armstrong and Kotler’s (2009) viewpoint that the

ability for a firm to be able to adapt message selection and media selection

is crucial for success in the advertising decision process.

2.3 – The Effects of Advertising on Consumers

McDonald and Christopher (2003) introduce the dilemma on how to

interpret the effects of advertising. The dilemma relates to perceptions on

how consumers learn about products and services.

Since the 1950’s, the advertising industry had adopted the behaviourist

model of human behaviour to explain the effects of advertising

(Weilbacher, 2003). The behaviourist model was used due to its simplistic

nature in that it provides a rationale for the measurement of the effects of

advertising through the hierarchy of effects model (Palda, 1966) and

hence could predict the success of individual adverts. It was perceived that

in the behaviourist model, ‘unobservable mental processes’ were deemed

‘inaccessible to scientific study’ (Kandel, Schwartz and Jessell, 2000,

p.382). Therefore, the behaviourist model reinforced the concept that

consumers made decisions on brands rationally and consciously and

hence, advertisers could manipulate such rational and conscious

decisions.

On the other hand, Ehrenberg et al (2002, cited in Weilbacher, 2003,

p.231) strongly suggest that consumers do not make conscious and

rational decisions about brands. Alternatively, cognitive psychology has

revolutionised the views of how advertising works and the behaviourist

model has fallen out of favour (Weilbacher, 2003). Advertising has moved

away from the simplicity of behaviourism towards a ‘conceptualisation of

behaviour as a result of complex, on-going mental processes’ (Weilbacher,

2003, p.231). McDonald and Christopher (2003) support this viewpoint as

marketers are now shifting their emphasis towards a cognitive approach

through the manipulation of consumers’ opinions and attitudes to evoke an

emotional effect.

Weilbacher (2003) continues that an advert may not be perceived

consciously by consumers and that if it is, it will be in the context of what a

consumer has already processed about that particular brand from past

experiences. Therefore, advertisers face a difficult task to create a net

addition to what a consumer already perceives about a brand and the

challenge remains to make consumers consciously re-evaluate why a

particular brand is important to them.

2.4 – Advertising Mediums

Psychological advertising research has been carried out to determine how

viewers can notice advertising messages better (MacInnis, Moorman and

Jaworksi, 1991). Vivid stimuli is an example of a technique employed to

attract the attention of consumers involuntarily through the use of

‘emotionally interesting and image-provoking’ stimuli (Nisbett and Ross,

1980, p.45). Salient stimuli can also be used to grab the attention of

consumers in a context dependant setting. For example, an increase in

volume is commonly used in television advertisements (Jansson-Boyd,

2010).

In conjunction with the psychological elements of advertising, it is very

difficult to reach a target audience with just one medium of advertising

(Wells, Moriarty and Burnett, 2006). Therefore, a media mix needs to be

employed to exploit the ‘willingness [of consumers] to engage with

different media’ (Yeshin, 2006, p.322). De Pelsmacker, Geuens and

Anckaert (2002) found that media context is an important situational factor

and the success of an advertisement is conditioned by the exploitation of

advertising medium/consumer relationships.

Broadly speaking, advertising mediums can be categorised into broadcast

media, print media and ambient media. Broadcast media relates to radio

and television advertising which will be explored in more depth. Print

media has a long lifespan in that consumers spend more time with printed

media than broadcast media and can absorb messages more

comprehensively (Wells, Moriarty and Burnett, 2006). Ambient media

relates to the growing trend for advertising campaigns to be supplemented

by outdoor advertising (Wells, Moriarty and Burnett, 2006; Yeshin, 2006).

This medium has a long life and a ‘hard-to-ignore structure’ (Wells,

Moriarty and Burnett, 2006, p.229) and represents an opportunity to

complement existing brand knowledge in unusual places such as petrol

pump nozzles (Yeshin, 2006).

2.41 – Broadcast Media

Radio advertising is a low cost method of advertising (Yeshin, 2006) that

can target specific audiences on an intimate and personal level (Wells,

Moriarty and Burnett, 2006). Radio advertising is not perceived to be an

irritant (Wells, Moriarty and Burnett, 2006) although due its relative

cheapness, frequent repetition can ‘turn off’ listeners (Yeshin, 2006,

p.328).

Television advertising is used because of its large visual impact and its

ability to engage consumers’ emotions (Wells, Moriarty and Burnett, 2006).

The pervasiveness of televisions in most homes (Wells, Moriarty and

Burnett, 2006) provides a major way of communicating to a mass market

(Yeshin, 2006). However, because of this, the associated costs of

television advertising are extremely high and there is a lot of ‘commercial

clutter’ affecting consumers’ attention span (Wells, Moriarty and Burnett,

2006, p.259).

Roman and Maas (2005) explain that the first 10 seconds of a television

commercial are crucial; stressing that the first few seconds will either hold

the audience’s attention or lose it. Jansson-Boyd (2010) adds that there is

an inverted U-relationship between the variables of arousal and attention

and that too much arousal can have an undesired effect on consumer

attention. Roman and Maas (2005, p.81) also emphasise that ‘TV is a

medium that thrives on simplicity’. Tulving and Psotka (1971) introduce the

concept of interference to explain why consumers struggle to pay attention

to information. Burke and Srull (1988) found that the more similar

advertisements are for products in the same category, the more likely

consumers will encounter interference. Interference ceases to happen

when consumers are exposed to highly familiar brand names (Kent and

Allen, 1994). Therefore, an advertisement needs to be original, simple and

emphasise the brand name in order to be successful.

2.5 – Appeals in Advertising

In recent years, a number of studies have been conducted into the role

that emotions play in the formation of attitudes (Allen et al, 2005; Laros

and Steenkamp, 2005; Yoo and MacInnis, 2005) as it is generally

acknowledged that consumers are driven by their emotions and do not

behave rationally (Jansson-Boyd, 2010). Furthermore, ‘emotions can be

used to persuade people to consume certain products and services’

(Jansson-Boyd, 2010, p.78).

Mandler’s theory of emotion (Mandler, 1984) describes how a discrepancy

in people’s immediate attention will lead to an emotional arousal which can

generate positive and negative emotions in consumers. Similarly, Zillman

(1978, cited in Jansson-Boyd, 2010, p.79) proposes his excitation transfer

theory suggesting that ‘emotional excitement can be transferred from one

stimulus to another’. This indicates that in terms of media planning, an

advertisement can be placed during the commercial break of a programme

that is likely to generate a strong emotional response and that the emotion

will be carried over to influence the comprehension of that particular

advert.

Han, Lerner and Keltner (2007) introduce the Appraisal-Tendency

Framework (ATF) as a basis that can predict how specific emotions impact

upon consumers’ judgements and decision making. Using the ATF, Lerner

and Keltner (2001) discovered that inducing a positive emotion in

consumers does not necessarily influence evaluations and choice in a

similar way.

Products can be classified into types according to their characteristics and

emotional advertisements have a greater effect on some product types

than others (Geuens, De Pelsmacker and Faseur, 2011). Rossiter, Percy

and Donovan (1991) suggest that emotional advertising works better for

low involvement products and hedonic products.

2.51 – Humour and Involvement in Advertising

Humour is a very commonly used technique in advertising (Roman and

Maas, 2005) and is a very effective means of communication (Cline,

Altsech and Kellaris, 2003). Although it depends on the medium used,

anywhere between 10% and 30% of advertisements contain humour

(Krishnan and Chakravarti, 2003). Burke and Edell (1986) recognise the

relationship between advertising effectiveness and humour; identifying that

likeable advertisements affect consumers’ information processing through

positive arousal. This creates more favourable judgements on the

advertising message. Humour is a popular method due to its ability to get

consumers to pay attention (Weinberger et al, 1995) as well as improving

advertisement recall (Weinberger and Campbell, 1991).

Krugman (1965) seminally defines involvement as the number of personal

connections and references a viewer experiences between their own life

and an advertisement. In terms of consumer decision making, Percy and

Elliott (2009) identify that there is low involvement when there is little risk

involved in the decision process (e.g. milk) and there is high involvement

when there is a greater risk (e.g. a car). Whilst acknowledging their

relationship, Chung and Zhao (2003) consider product involvement as a

moderating variable between the use of humour and advertising

effectiveness. Chung and Zhao (2003) discovered that the positive

relationships were much stronger between low involvement products than

high involvement products. Additionally, Chung and Zhao (2003) stress

that the use of humour in advertising for high involvement products is risky

and can prove distracting to consumers. These findings support the

viewpoint of Krugman (1965) that it is possible for advertisers to

differentiate between products and appeal choice based on the level of

involvement required from a consumer.

Further research has found that humour works best in advertising under

low involvement conditions (Zhang and Zinkhan, 2006; Yeshin, 2006) and

Rossiter, Percy and Donovan (1991) suggest that an advertisement can

be more or less involving depending on the creative strategy that is

employed. For example, television is considered to be less involving than

print media (Wells, Moriarty and Burnett, 2006). Vaughan (1986) created

the FCB grid to measure advertising messages in relation to their

involvement and whether their involvement is based on consumers’ ability

to think or feel.

2.52 – The Risks of Using Humour

Although humour is undoubtedly entertaining, it is a very difficult technique

to get right (Roman and Maas, 2005). If an advertisement is too funny,

there is a risk that the consumer’s attention will be too focused on the

humour and the message will be lost (Belch and Belch, 1984, cited in

Jansson-Boyd, 2010, p.105). The use of humour is risky even on a local

scale because humour tastes differ from consumer to consumer (Wells,

Moriarty and Burnett, 2006). When using humour, it is important that the

brand and product are visible and relevant to the story so that the objective

of the advert is not lost (Cline and Kellaris, 2007). Humour has a very short

life-span and constantly needs to be reinvented to keep an advert fresh

(Roman and Maas, 2005; Yeshin, 2006) and if the humour is misjudged,

an advert may become so irritating that it dissuades consumers (Yeshin,

2006).

2.6 – Differences in Cultural Values and their Impact on Advertising

Culture is very important and is summarised as ‘the lens through which

people view marketing messages’ (Haugtvedt, Herr and Kardes, 2008,

p.1103). Each culture has a specific set of core values that represents the

culture (Jansson-Boyd, 2010). When targeting a market, it is imperative

that marketers can establish the different cultures’ value systems through

the process of acculturation (Lindridge, Hogg and Shah, 2004).

Furthermore, Kanso and Nelson (2002) explain that the development of a

global promotional theme needs to have flexibility to adapt to local

markets. Yeshin (2006, p.416) summarises this as ‘think global, act local’.

Consumers respond differently to advertising depending on cultural

variations. More specifically, cultural differences are usually categorised as

being either individualistic or collectivist (Jansson-Boyd, 2010). However,

research by Nelson, Brunel, Supphellen and Manchanda (2006) found that

it may be ignorant to just focus on these two broad categories, suggesting

that other concepts such as masculinity and femininity should also be

considered. These arguments supplement Hofestede’s dimensions of

cultural values (Hofstede, 1984) which were originally: power distance,

individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity/femininity

after which a fifth dimension was added; long-term orientation (Hofstede,

1991).

Further to Hofstede’s findings, Hall (1976) identifies two different cultural

approaches to communication; high context and low context. Low context

cultures such as Britain and the USA can be categorised by overt verbal

messages containing facts and data. High context cultures on the other

hand, such as Asian, Arab and Mediterranean countries, rely more heavily

on body language and non-verbal cues.

Studies that have tried matching appeals to cultural differences (Teng and

Laroche, 2006; Readon et al, 2006) conclude the importance of paying

attention to potentially culturally different responses to advertising appeals.

Shao, Bao and Gray (2004) also denote the importance of identifying the

dominant communication style (high context versus low context) in target

cultures.

There are cultural variations as to what is perceived to be funny; meaning

that in a multi-cultural society, the use of humour can become a problem

for advertisers (Francis, 1994). Humour is not understood very well and

culturally speaking it is the ‘riskiest method of selling’ (Yeshin, 2006,

p.416) because the norms of humour are so different internationally.

2.7 – The Use of Humour in Television Advertising in the UK

De Mooij (2010) explains how humour in advertising is found in cultures

that have relatively low scores in terms of Hofstede’s power distance and

uncertainty avoidance dimensions. Britain scores a low 35 in both of these

dimensions (ITIM, 2012) suggesting that the use of humour in advertising

is established in Britain. De Mooij (2010) also expresses that cultures with

weak uncertainty avoidance tend to use more subtle types of humour

because ambiguity can be tolerated within these cultures.

Weinberger and Spotts (1989) discovered that UK executives are very

positive about the value of humorous advertising and 81% of UK

executives express that television is the best suited medium for the use of

humour. In terms of communication objectives, Weinberger and Spotts

(1989) found that 66% of UK executives agreed that the use of humour is

better at gaining attention than non-humour. Similarly, 79% of executives

agreed that the use of humour aids persuasion. In a comparison between

USA and UK television commercials, Weinberger and Spotts (1989)

indicated that 35.5% of UK television commercials had humorous intent.

Weinberger and Spotts (1989) discuss that humour features heavily in UK

advertising and that UK commercials are optimistic about the range of

objectives that humour can achieve regarding recall, comprehension and

persuasion. Nevett (1992) explains that the context in which British adverts

are viewed enhances their favourability because the Independent

Television Authority enforces that only 10% of broadcast time is eligible for

advertising.

Using the FCB matrix (Vaughan, 1986), Weinberger and Spotts (1989)

found for which products the use of humour was most utilised in the UK.

For low involvement/feeling products such as beer and cigarettes,

humorous intent was found 56.2% of the time. Humorous intent for low

involvement/thinking products such as food and toiletries was found 31.8%

of the time. In slight contrast to these findings, for high involvement/feeling

products such as jewellery and perfume, humorous intent was only found

20% of the time. Similarly for high involvement/thinking products such as

home furnishings and appliances, humorous intent was only found 25% of

the time. Weinberger and Spotts (1989) concluded that although

humorous intent is very common for low involvement/feeling products, the

use of humour is an important role across all aspects of television

advertising in the UK.

Weinberger and Spotts (1989) explicitly distinguish the six categories of

humour that are most prevalent in the UK: pun, understatement, joke, the

ludicrous, satire and irony with the ludicrous element of humour being

preferred 59.1% of the time. Uniquely, the UK uses satire 33.3% of the

time and the pun 14% of the time. Toncar (2001) replicated Weinberger

and Spotts’ (1989) study to distinguish how the UK’s approach to humour

in television had changed. Toncar (2001) found that the ludicrous element

of humour had declined slightly to being used only 37% of the time, but

was still the most prevalent form of humour. Also, the use of pun and

satire became less utilised with understatement and joke becoming more

favourable. Bloxham (2008) suggests that people in the UK have a great

tolerance for a wide range of expressions of humour and negative humour,

ranging from teasing to racist and sexist humiliation, which can be

genetically linked to the people of Britain. This can help explain the wide

use of humour in its different forms throughout television advertising in the

UK.

It appears that the UK has a broad view of the different uses of humour

within television advertising and that this technique is well received by

consumers, specifically with regard to low involvement products.

METHODOLOGY

3.1 – Introduction

This chapter will justify and explain the research methods chosen for the

collection and analysis of data involved within this study. The clear

practical details of how primary data has been collected along with its

limitations and ethical considerations will be discussed.

3.2 – Research Philosophy

In contrast to positivism, interpretivism is the epistemological viewpoint

which recognises the difference between natural sciences and people and

their institutions (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Therefore, the logic of the

research procedure needs to reflect the subjectivity of human interaction

whereby the main emphasis is on understanding human behaviour rather

than just explaining it. Consequently, this study adopts an ‘interpretive

understanding of social action’ in order to provide ‘causal explanation’

(Bryman and Bell, 2007, p.18).

3.3 – Secondary Research

The previous chapter has focused on the secondary data gathered and

analysed in relation to the main theories associated with the use of

humour in television advertising within the UK. Secondary data collection

in the form of a literature survey comprised of academic journal articles

and academic text books. These sources were located using Google

Scholar and library facilities such as NORA and the library catalogue

search engine. Analysis of the literature survey enabled the author to gain

an in-depth knowledge of the use and effects of humour within television

advertising and assisted in the process of identifying gaps in the

secondary research to inspire areas for primary research (Collis and

Hussey, 2003).

One advantage of carrying out secondary research is that the literature

surveyed has previously been researched and reviewed by academics

with specialist knowledge relating to humour and television advertising.

Also, the large volume of literature available on this subject means that the

secondary research is easily accessible and pertinent to this study

(Bryman and Bell, 2007). Chung and Zhao (2003) explain how most

academic studies into the effectiveness of humour on advertisements are

of a quantitative nature and often provide inconsistent results. For this

reason, the author decided to adopt a qualitative approach as well as a

quantitative approach when conducting primary research, having

discovered a gap in the secondary research.

3.4 – Primary Research

Broadly speaking, the aim of this research was to analyse the different

ways in which humour is used in television advertising within the UK. The

aim of the researcher was to define the research question through a set of

research objectives in such a way so that primary data could be collected,

analysed and interpreted. Furthermore, the researcher presented an array

of potential viewpoints in order to draw some valid conclusions.

Curran and Blackburn (2001) advocate the use of mixed method research

where both quantitative and qualitative techniques are employed within a

single research study. More specifically, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003)

promote the use of mixed model research whereby quantitative data can

be qualitised or qualitative data can be quantitised, converting data into

codes so that is can be analysed statistically. Smith (1975) supports such

an approach research, explaining that a combination of different

techniques will provide different effects that will cancel out the ‘method

effect’ and lead to greater confidence in the authors conclusions.

For this study, the method of research took place in the form of both

quantitative and qualitative content analyses. Krippendorff (2004, p.18)

defines content analysis as ‘a research technique for making replicable

and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts

of their use’. Berelson (1952) explains how a content analysis as a

research tool provides a useful focus on the content and internal features

of media such as advertising. Kamhawi and Weaver (2003) revealed that

content analyses are the most popular data collection method in major

mass communication journals. In the context of advertising, content

analyses are useful to test deductive research aims of message

characteristics, describe attitudinal responses to advertising

communications and identify the cultural differences in communicational

content (Wimmer and Dominick, 2011).

Traditionally, content analyses are quantitative. However, Mayring (2000)

expresses the possibility of preserving the advantages of the quantitative

method and developing them into qualitative-interpretative steps of

analysis. In the context of this study, a methodological analysis of humour

within television advertising was carried out following ‘content analytical

rules and step by step models’ (Mayring, 2000, p.2).

One of the main advantages of a content analysis Grbich (2007) is its

ability to objectively simplify a large amount of information in order to

reveal its intentions, attitudes and emotions. However, the quantitative

method of content analysis is often criticised for its positivist orientation

when an enumerative approach is adopted Grbich (2007). Also, there is a

tendency for a content analysis to provide little scope for wide

interpretation on the assumption that statistics tell the whole story.

Therefore, the author decided to combine a quantitative approach with a

qualitative approach to content analyses so that a large sample of visual

data could be concentrated into something controllable that could provide

a deeper level of interpretation. Further to this, Collis and Hussey (2003)

observe that content analyses are time-flexible, inexpensive, unobtrusive

and highly acceptable in terms of their reliability and validity.

3.5 – Research Objectives

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007) state that research objectives offer a

clear sense of purpose and lead to observable outcomes as a result of

doing research. The research objectives address the information gaps

identified during the secondary research and are as follows:

To explore the extent to which the Six Humorous Devices proposed

by Kelly and Solomon (1975) are employed in UK Television

Advertising.

To identify the differences in the application of humour in relation to

High/Low Involvement and Think/Feel products in UK Television

Advertising.

To find out which humour device is most effective in advertising

Low/Feel products in UK Television.

To compare how consumer attitudes are affected towards brands

that use humour to advertise Low/Feel products and High/Think

products in UK Television.

To consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly

and Solomon (1975) need re-defining.

3.6 – Research Approach

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007) explain both deductive and inductive

approaches to research. The deductive approach to research is concerned

with the rigorous testing of an existing theory whereas the inductive

approach is concerned with the formulation of a theory through data

analysis. Deductive research is suitable when there is already a lot of

existing literature relevant to the research topic although inductive

research is more suited to instances whereby a topic is relatively new and

has not been explored.

There are several characteristics of deductive research. There is an

emphasis on explaining the causal relationships between variables. In

order to do this, the research must follow a highly structured methodology

that could be replicated in the future. This is imperative to ensure

reliability. Also, it is important to select samples of appropriate size so that

conclusions from the analysis can be generalised. On the other hand,

inductive research is more concerned with how humans interpret certain

social situations as opposed to the cause-effect link between variables.

Inductive research is less concerned with the generalisation of analysis

and because of this, smaller sample sizes are often more appropriate.

However, due to the uncertain nature of inductive research, there is a risk

that no useful theory will emerge.

Due to the large amount of literature that exists on humour in television

advertising, it has been possible to gain a sufficient understanding of the

research topic and formulate a set research objectives. Therefore, the

decision was made to conduct research on a deductive basis. Hsieh and

Shannon (2005) depict the directed approach to content analysis which is

based upon the deductive use of theory. The ambition of such a method is

to substantiate or develop an existing theoretical framework where existing

theory and research can shape the research objectives.

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007) note that although it takes a long

time to arrange the initial data collection prior to the study, deductive

research can be collected relatively quickly and is less risky than the

inductive approach which was appropriate to fit the timescale of the study.

However, due to the tendency of deductive research to adhere to a rigid

methodology, it has to be noted that the research does not provide much

scope to provide alternative explanations of the relationships between

variables.

3.7 – Research Methodology

Collis and Hussey (2003) dictate that the first stage of the content analysis

process is concerned with sampling. The UK television advertising market

is worth £3.5billion (Sweney, 2011) and contains a large volume of

adverts; therefore, a rationale had to be made for extracting a sample.

Krippendorff (2004) explains how the technique of relevance sampling

follows a conceptual hierarchy whereby the number of units considered for

analysis is methodically reduced. Therefore, the only remaining units are

relevant to the study and contribute to answering a set of predetermined

research questions.

The subjectivity of humour is philosophised by McGhee (1979) as he

likens humour to the concept of beauty in that it only exists in our minds;

inferring that what people find humorous differs from person to person.

However, McGhee (1979) concedes that certain stimuli are more likely to

create the perception of humour. Therefore, in order to remain objective in

the sampling process, the author selected a preliminary sample of

television adverts that were viewed as having humorous intent for the

quantitative content analysis. The author selected these television adverts

on the basis that they could be regarded as being humorous rather than

the author personally finding them humorous. Secondly, in order to remain

objectively reliable, the preliminary sample of television adverts was

shown to an independent judge whom applied the objective rationale of

humorous intent. If the independent judge deemed that any of the adverts

from the preliminary sample did not display humorous intent, the adverts in

question were discarded. Therefore, by the end of the sampling process,

the author could be reliably confident that each advert within the sample

had been ruled as displaying humorous intent. In addition to this, the

adverts were unambiguously classified into one of the four FCB cells in

relation to the product/service that each advert was promoting by the same

two independent judges. If the two judges could not agree on which one of

the four FCB cells a television advert fell into, the advert was discarded.

In line with the deductive research approach, it was important to achieve a

sample of appropriate size in order to answer the research questions with

sufficient confidence (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007). On the other

hand, there is no set method for deciding what the appropriate size of a

sample should be. However, Krippendorff (2004) explains how the split-

half technique builds upon the experimental method of testing various

sample sizes to achieve an optimum sample size. The split-half technique

involves randomly dividing a sample into two halves and if both parts of

the sample independently lead to the same conclusions, the whole sample

can be deemed of appropriate size for the generalisation of findings.

Following this technique and removal of ambiguous and non-humorous

adverts, the final sample size used for quantitative content analysis was

34.

The next stage of the process was to determine the coding units for

analysis. Figure 3.1 illustrates how the coding process works in relation to

the deductive application of a qualitative content analysis.

Figure 3.1 - ‘Step model of deductive category application’ (Mayring,

2000, p.5)

Following on from the research question, the main categories and

definitions of humorous devices were derived using Kelly and Solomon’s

(1975) six categories: pun, understatement, joke, ludicrous, satire and

irony. Using the coding frame in Table 3.1, the two independent judges

coded the final sample of television adverts to ensure reliability and valid

interpretation of the results.

Table 3.1 - Humorous devices coding frame (Toncar, 2001, pp.529-

530)

Coding Unit Definition

Pun The humorous use of

a word or phrase in a

way that suggests

two interpretations.

From the final sample of 34 television adverts, a sample of 8 adverts that

varied in terms of their humour device and level of involvement were

selected for further qualitative content analyses. Using the purposive

sampling technique, 10 participants were chosen to take part in the

qualitative content analyses on the basis that they were best suited to

answer the author’s research question (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill,

2007). All of the participants that were selected were done so on the basis

that they were young, male and nonprofessional as Weinberger and

Spotts (1989) discovered that this demographic is the best suited audience

for humorous television adverts within the UK. The findings from the

qualitative content analyses were then analysed in a quantitative manner

in accordance with the advantages proposed by Tashakkori and Teddlie

(2003).

Understatement Representing

something as less

than is the case.

Joke Speaking or acting

without seriousness.

Ludicrous That which is

laughable or

ridiculous.

Satire Sarcasm used to

expose vice or folly.

Irony The use of words to

express the opposite

of what one really

means.

3.8 – Ethical Considerations

The university’s policy statement with regards to ethics in business

research has been consulted. In accordance with these principles, the

respect of the rights and fair treatment of others has been considered. In

terms of the method of research being carried out, the use of human

subjects requires each research participant to complete an informed

consent form (see Appendix F).

3.9 – Limitations

Wimmer and Dominick (2011) consider the main limitations of a content

analysis. A content analysis alone cannot provide the only basis for

assertions made about the effects of media. Also, the conclusions derived

from a particular content analysis are bound by the framework that the

content analysis follows. For example, the definitions used for humorous

devices may differ from researcher to researcher which could potentially

lead to varying conclusions. Also, Collis and Hussey (2003) dictate how

the use of purposive sampling cannot be considered numerically

illustrative of the entire population.

3.10 – Conclusion

This chapter has justified the reasoning behind the decision to employ

both a quantitative content analysis along with deductive, qualitative

content analyses. The clear practical details regarding the execution of the

research method were discussed along with the explicit recognition of the

limitations associated with this method of research. Although minimal, the

ethical issues relating to the method of research were also considered and

documented.

FINDING AND ANALYSIS

4.1 – Introduction

This chapter will present the findings from the quantitative and qualitative

content analyses, linking them back to the research objectives set and the

literature gathered from secondary research. The research objectives from

primary research were as follows:

1. To explore the extent to which the Six Humorous Devices proposed

by Kelly and Solomon (1975) are employed in UK Television

Advertising.

2. To identify the differences in the application of humour in relation to

High/Low Involvement and Think/Feel products in UK Television

Advertising.

3. To find out which humour device is most effective in advertising

Low/Feel products in UK Television.

4. To compare how consumer attitudes are affected towards brands

that use humour to advertise Low/Feel products and High/Think

products in UK Television.

5. To consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly

and Solomon (1975) need re-defining.

The results from the quantitative content analysis are summarised in Table

4.1 below with comparisons made to similar studies (Weinberger and

Spotts, 1989; Toncar, 2001). Full details of the sample used for the

quantitative content analysis can be found at Appendix B. The figures that

follow will display all answers from all participants in relation to all 8

advertisements used for the qualitative content analyses. Full

transcriptions of a selection of the interviews used for the content analyses

can be found at Appendix C and screenshots of all 8 advertisements used

for the content analyses can be found at Appendix D.

4.2 – Findings for Objective 1: To explore the extent to which the Six

Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly and Solomon (1975) are

employed in UK Television Advertising.

The literature surveyed on the use of humour in advertising showed that

humour is a common and effective form of advertising appeal, with

anywhere between 10% - 30% of advertisements across all mediums

containing humour (Krishnan and Chakravarti, 2003). More specifically to

UK television advertising, two significant studies (Weinberger and Spotts,

1989; Toncar, 2001) employed the six categories of humorous devices

framework proposed by Kelly and Solomon (1975) to evaluate which

types of humour are most prevalent.

Although it was not the purpose of the objective, in order to put the results

of the current study into context, a comparison was made in relation to

previous studies involving content analyses of the use of humour in UK

television advertising (see table 4.1). It should be noted that direct

comparisons across the studies should be made with restraint due to each

study using different independent judges along with the sample size of the

current study being smaller than previous studies. Although each study

followed a strict methodology with regard to coding each advert, it is not

realistic to expect the judges from each study to have obtained identical

instructions or definitions into the different types of humour device.

Table 4.1 - Humour type comparison of Weinberger and Spotts’

(1989) Study, Toncar’s (2001) Study and Current Study.

1989 2001 2012

Number of humorous

adverts analysed

89 85 34

Humour type

Pun (%) 14 4 12

Understatement (%) 2 16 0

Joke (%) 2 19 18

Ludicrous (%) 59 37 41

Satire (%) 33 18 20

Irony (%) 2 6 9

However, it is clear that at 41%, the ludicrous form of humour is the most

popular device of humour used within the adverts of this study. The

findings were also similar in the two previous studies where the ludicrous

form of humour was also the most popular. This contradicts the argument

of De Mooij (2010) who suggested that as a weak uncertainty-avoidance

culture, the UK is more tolerant of ambiguity and would therefore be more

inclined to use subtle forms of humour. Although adverts that used satire

and pun made up 32% of the sample analysed, not one advert in this

study was coded as using understatement; a form of humour which Toncar

(2001) defined as the most subtle form of humour. The continued

popularity of the ludicrous humour device in advertising can be explained

by the relentless desire for advertisers to remain noticed in an increasingly

crowded marketplace. This supports the stance put forward by Spiller and

Baier (2010) that advertisers need more brazen techniques to get their

message across in a progressively more competitive environment.

4.3 – Findings for Objective 2: To identify the differences in the

application of humour in relation to High/Low Involvement and

Think/Feel products in UK Television Advertising.

In general, the literature suggests that positive relationships between

humour in advertising and involvement is much stronger in low

involvement conditions (Chung and Zhao, 2003) and that humour works

best under low involvement conditions (Zhang and Zinkhan, 2006).

With reference to Table 4.2, 59% of the adverts analysed for humorous

intent were for low involvement/feeling products. This compares

consistently with previous studies where 56.2% of humorous adverts in

1989 (Weinberger and Spotts, 1989) and 50% of humorous adverts in

2001 (Toncar, 2001) also fell into the same low involvement/feeling

product category.

Table 4.2 - Percentage of adverts that use humorous intent across

different Involvement conditions.

These results support the views of Cateora and Graham (1999) in that the

situational use of humour may reflect management decisions more than

creative decisions whereby humour is seen as a successful method for

advertising low involvement/feeling products.

Contrary to Chung and Zhao’s (2003) claim that the use of humour in high

involvement products is risky and best avoided, 23% of the humorous

adverts analysed were for products that fell into the high

involvement/thinking category. This suggests that although Roman and

Maas (2005) acknowledge the difficulty in perfecting the use of humour,

especially in high involvement conditions, advertisers are willing to take

the risks involved. It can be speculated that the unanticipated high

percentage of high involvement/thinking adverts using humour relates to

advertisers combining more informative techniques with humour to induce

rational decision from consumers, whereas low involvement/thinking

adverts focus purely on humour. However, it is worth noting that although

the use of humour prevails in high involvement/thinking and low

involvement/feeling adverts, this is not a measure of how successful these

adverts are.

Thinking Feeling

High Involvement 23%

Low Involvement 15%

59%

4.4 - Findings for Objective 3: To find out which humour device is

most effective in advertising Low/Feel products in UK Television.

The literature surveyed and the results from previous studies, as well as

the results from the current study, all suggest that humour is most effective

when used in low involvement/feeling conditions. Further to this, the author

wanted to establish which of the six humour devices proposed by Kelly

and Solomon (1975) had the most positive effect on the participants. Of

the overall sample analysed, 5 adverts were selected for qualitative

content analyses, each fulfilling the low involvement/feeling product

criteria, but all exhibiting a different humour device. As no adverts

analysed were coded as using understatement, only 5 out of the 6 humour

devices could be analysed.

The questions asked during the content analyses designed to fulfil the

objective were as follows:

1. How did this advert make you feel?

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this

product?

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised?

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being

advertised?

Figures 4.1-4.5 represent the answers given from all participants of the

content analyses for adverts 1-5. The adverts were analysed by coding the

answers into three sections; negative, indifferent and positive. Answers

that were agreeable or positive in nature were coded into the positive

column. Answers that were disagreeable or negative in nature were coded

into the negative column. Finally, answers that could not be coded into

either category were coded into the indifferent column. All participants are

referred to by their participant number. Question 5 is irrelevant to this

research objective.

Figure 4.1 – Content Analysis Results for Advert 1 (Appendix D i)

Question Negative Indifferent Positive

Humour device used: Irony

1 2,5 3,9 1,4,6,7,8,10

2 2 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

4 2,3,5,9 1,4,6,7,8,10

5 1,4,10 8 2,3,5,6,7,9

Figure 4.2 – Content Analysis Results for Advert 2 (Appendix D ii)

Question Negative Indifferent Positive

Humour device used: Joke

1 2,9 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10

2 9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10

3 2,5 1,3,4,6,7,8,9,10

4 2,9,10 1,3,4,5,6,7,8

5 4 8 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10

Figure 4.3 – Content Analysis Results for Advert 3 (Appendix D iii)

Question Negative Indifferent Positive

Humour device used: Ludicrous

1 7 2,5 1,3,4,6,8,9,10

2 4 7 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10

3 10,9,1 2,3,4,5,6,7,8

4 7 2,4,5,8,9,10 1,3,6

5 2,4,5,7,9,10 6 1,3,8

Figure 4.4 – Content Analysis Results for Advert 4 (Appendix D iv)

Question Negative Indifferent Positive

Humour device used: Pun

1 5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10

2 2,8 3,5 1,4,6,7,9,10

3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

4 5 2 1,3,4,6,7,8,9,10

5 4 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10

Figure 4.5 – Content Analysis Results for Advert 5 (Appendix D v)

Question Negative Indifferent Positive

Humour device used: Satire

1 6 4,10 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10

2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

4 8 4,5,6,10 1,2,3,7,9

5 1,4,8 2,5,7,10 3,6,9

For question 1, the vast majority of participants reacted positively to each

low involvement/feeling advert. Only on 8% of occasions did a low

involvement/feeling induce a negative response from the participants.

Similarly for question 2, 84% of participants reacted positively to humour

being an appropriate device to advertise a low involvement/feeling

product. These results support the views of Burke and Edell (1986) that

positive arousal occurs when adverts are likeable.

For question 3, 90% of participants could successfully recall the product

and brand being advertised, with 100% of participants accurately recalling

both brand and product for advert 1, advert 4 and advert 5. These results

overwhelmingly support the views of Weinberger and Campbell (1995) in

that the use of humour has a positive effect on advert recall. Similarly, this

disproves the viewpoints of Belch and Belch (1984, cited in Jansson-Boyd,

2010, p.105) in that even though the majority of adverts were deemed as

being humorous by participants, the message was not lost on the

participants as they were able to successfully recall the products and

brands being advertised.

Conversely, question 4 exhibits some slightly contrasting results. In

general, 60% of participants acknowledged that an advert had a positive

effect on their attitude towards the brand being advertised. Although

generally positive, for advert 3 and advert 5, a positive response was only

displayed 30% and 50% of the time respectively. These results only

loosely support the views of Weinberger et al (1995) that humour

generates more favourable judgements towards the advertising message,

which is surprising given the favoured low involvement/feeling product

category. Interestingly, the humour device that is most prevalent in

advertising; ludicrous, had the worst positive response rate to brand

attitude.

Taking into account all participant responses to all questions, the results

show that humour has a positive effect on low involvement/feeling

products 81% of the time. More specifically, the most successful humour

device employed with an overall positive response rate of 90% was pun.

This supports De Mooij’s view that consumers in the UK prefer subtle

types of humour. However, this is not recognised by advertisers as this

study only found pun to be used on 12% of occasions (see Table 4.1).

This suggests that pun is an underutilised effective humour device for

advertising low involvement/feeling products. Cline and Kellaris (2007)

offers the explanation that advertisers gravitate towards less restrained

forms of humour for fear that their brand message will be lost in subtlety

otherwise.

4.5 – Findings for Objective 4: To compare how consumer attitudes

are affected towards brands that use humour to advertise Low/Feel

products and High/Think products in UK Television.

Through the initial quantitative content analysis of humorous adverts, it

became apparent that the majority of adverts fell into the low

involvement/feeling category. The literature suggested that humour works

best under such conditions (Zhang and Zinkhan, 2006) so these results

were not unexpected. However, almost one in four adverts that were

analysed was for products that fell into the high involvement/thinking

category. These findings are somewhat unexpected when considering that

the literature suggests that using humour to advertise such products is

risky and can prove distracting to consumers (Chung and Zhao, 2003).

Therefore, the author felt it was appropriate to apply the same qualitative

content analyses that were used on the small sample of low

involvement/feeling adverts and apply it to a small sample of high

involvement/thinking adverts to compare how the attitudes of consumers

differed.

Figures 4.6-4.8 represent the answers given from all participants of the

content analyses for adverts 6-8. The adverts were coded in an identical

manner to content analyses 4.1-4.5.

Figure 4.6 – Content Analysis Results for Advert 6 (Appendix D vi)

Figure 4.7 – Content Analysis Results for Advert 7 (Appendix D vii)

Figure 4.8– Content Analysis Results for Advert 8 (Appendix D viii)

Question Negative Indifferent Positive

1 3,5,9 2,8,10 1,4,6,7

2 2,3,4,6,8,9,10 1,5 7

3 1,4,6 2,3,5,7,8,9,10

4 3,9,10 1,2,5,6,8 4,7

Question Negative Indifferent Positive

1 2,4,7,9 3,6,10 1,5,8

2 3,4,6,7,9 2,5,10 1,8

3 1,2,3,4,10 5,6,7,8,9

4 2,4,7,9 3,5,6,10 1,8

Question Negative Indifferent Positive

1 1,3,4,6,7,8,10 2,5 9

2 1,3,4,6,7,8,10 2,5,9

3 2,7,8,9 1,3,4,5,6,10

4 1,3,4,6,7,8,10 2,5 9

For question 1, the high involvement/thinking adverts induce a negative

response 46% of the time which starkly contrasts to the 8% of the low

involvement/feeling adverts. Advert 7 provoked the highest negative

response with 70% of participants reacting negatively towards it. 2 out of

10 participants described the advert as ‘annoying’ and a further 2 out of 10

said that they ‘hated’ it. Further to this, only 20% of participants reacted

favourably to humour being an appropriate device to advertise high

involvement/thinking products. Interestingly, even though the vast majority

of participants reacted unfavourably towards the high involvement/thinking

adverts, 60% of participants were still successfully able to recall the brand

and product being advertised. This could question the validity of Burke and

Edell’s (1986) view that the likeability of an advert positively affects the

informational processing capability of consumers seeing as the majority of

participants disliked the high involvement/thinking adverts but could still

recall the brand and product being advertised. Question 4 proves the view

of Yeshin (2006) that the use of humour to advertise high involvement

products is risky in that such adverts can become irritated and put off. In

total, 47% of participants reacted adversely in terms of how their

perception of the brand had changed as opposed to just 17% of

participants who reacted positively.

4.6 – Findings for Objective 5: To consider whether the Six

Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly and Solomon (1975) need re-

defining.

With regards to the quantitative content analyses, 21% of the preliminary

sample of adverts had to be discarded on the grounds that there was

ambiguity in relation to how that advert could be coded in terms of its

humour device. This is also true of Toncar’s (2001) study where 21% of

the sample was discarded. Each advert that was discarded was removed

on the grounds that it could have been coded under two different

humorous devices. Of the 11 adverts discarded, ambiguity relating to ‘joke’

occurred 11 out of 11 occasions and ambiguity relating to ‘ludicrous’

occurred 7 out of 11 occasions (see appendix B).

This indicates that the definitions used in Kelly and Solomon’s (1975)

humorous devices framework may provide too much obscurity in order to

code humorous adverts successfully. As part of the content analyses for

adverts 1-5 (see figures 4.1-4.5), each participant was asked the following

question relating to the adverts use of humour device:

5. This advert was deemed to have used a humour in the form of

‘relevant humour device’, which is defined as ‘relevant definition’.

With regard to the advertisement you have just seen, what is your

opinion of this definition?

Advert 4 was coded as using pun and 90% of participants reacted

favourably to the concept and definition. This indicates that the definition of

pun is coherent and is easy to apply to humorous adverts when it is found.

Similarly, advert 2 was coded as using joke with 80% of participants

reacting in agreement to its definition. However, all of the 11 adverts

discarded from the preliminary sample, were removed on the grounds that

they could have been interpreted as using joke or another humorous

device. This suggests that although the participants agree with its

definition, the definition could be too general to apply explicitly to certain

humorous adverts. Advert 1 was coded as using irony and generally

induced a positive response with 60% of participants acting favourably.

However, the 30% of participants that acted negatively towards the

definition of irony criticised the definition’s exclusivity of words being ironic,

suggesting that a situation can be ironic rather than just words. This

suggests that in additional element to the definition to include the concept

of irony relating to a scenario would be beneficial. Advert 3 used the

ludicrous device and induced the highest negative response with 60% of

participants reacting unfavourably to its definition. There was a theme

amongst the participants with most disapproving of the words ‘laughable’

and ‘ridiculous’ claiming that these words are too strong to describe an

advert that can only be viewed as being tame. Therefore, the advert may

need to reassess the use of strong language in order to purvey something

that is more wide-ranging. Advert 5 used the satire device and provoked

the most indifferent response from participants with the majority of

participants in agreement that sarcasm best describes satire, yet

expressing confusion at the words ‘vice’ and ‘folly’. This indicates that the

definition may need readjusting to reflect more modern language in order

to improve its accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

5.1 - Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore how humour is used in television

advertising within the UK. This chapter will relate the findings from the data

analysis with the discussion from the literature review in order to answer

the research objectives and provide a concluding judgement in relation to

the research title. The objectives were partially met during the literature

review. However, following the content analyses, the author gained a

better understanding of how humour is used in television advertising within

the UK and the objectives were fully met as well as the emergence of

recommendations for further research.

5.2 - The extent to which the Six Humorous Devices proposed by

Kelly and Solomon (1975) are employed in UK Television Advertising.

Kelly and Solomon (1975) suggested that the use of humour in television

advertising can be categorised into six humorous devices: pun,

understatement, joke, ludicrous, satire and irony. Also, De Mooij (2010)

suggested that as a low power distance and uncertainty avoidance culture,

the use of humour in television advertising within the UK would be

prevalent. The primary research discovered that although the use of

humour was definitely evident within UK television advertising, the

understatement device was absent from the research findings.

Conversely, the use of the ludicrous and satire devices represented the

vast majority of humour type used. This suggests that although the

majority of Kelly and Solomon’s (1975) humorous devices are apparent

within the UK, there are clearly more popular devices that are used more

heavily compared to others.

The secondary research explored similar studies into the use of humour in

UK television advertising (Weinberger and Spotts, 1989; Toncar, 2001).

These studies found that all six of Kelly and Solomon’s (1975) humour

devices were apparent. Although the prevalence of all six humour devices

tended to vary across time, the use of humour was always skewed

towards the ludicrous and satire devices. It can be suggested from the

literature and findings of this study that in general, there is a broad range

Kelly and Solomon’s (1975) humour devices in use within the UK.

However, while certain devices such as ludicrous remain consistently

popular, the omission of other devices such as understatement reflects

the continually evolving notions of what is an acceptable form of humour

to advertise with.

5.3 – The differences in the application of humour in relation to

High/Low Involvement and Think/Feel products in UK Television

Advertising.

Vaughan (1986) introduces the FCB matrix as a means of categorising the

different means of involvement in relation to products using humour in UK

television advertising. Zhang and Zinkhan (2006) acknowledge that

humour works best under low involvement conditions. The primary

research found that the large majority of humour was applied to low

involvement/feeling products, although a large proportion of humour was

discovered to fall into the high involvement/thinking category. The

secondary research (Weinberger and Spotts, 1989; Toncar, 2001) concurs

with the findings from the primary research in that the majority of humour

application falls into the low involvement/feeling category. This indicates

that marketers recognise how the application of humour is best suited to

products falling into the low involvement/feeling category. However, there

is a contemporary emergence of marketers in the UK who ignore the high

involvement risks associated with humour (Chung and Zhao, 2003) and

seek to encourage rational decision making by combining humour with

informative methods of advertising.

5.4 – The humour device is most effective in advertising Low/Feel

products in UK Television.

Chung and Zhao (2003) note how the relationship between advertising

effectiveness and humour are at their strongest in low involvement

conditions. When analysing adverts displaying five of Kelly and Solomon’s

(1975) humour devices in the context of low involvement/ feeling

conditions, some interesting conclusions can be made. During the primary

research, the large majority of participants agreed with little variation that

all of the humour devices made them feel positive, were appropriate as an

advertising technique and helped them to recall. However, the most

variation arose when participants were questioned on their change in

brand attitude. The pun had the most positive reaction from participants in

terms of change in brand attitude and as a result, remained the most

effective humour device. This reveals that the most dominant devices of

humour in advertising are not necessarily the most effective. Marketers are

inclined to favour more consistent and blatant humour devices (Cline and

Kellaris, 2007) such as ludicrous to ensure that their message is not lost

compared to contemporarily effective humour devices such as the pun that

may lose their appeal.

5.5 – Compare how consumer attitudes are affected towards brands

that use humour to advertise Low/Feel products and High/Think

products in UK Television.

Primary research found that a larger than expected proportion of adverts

fell into the high involvement/thinking product category. On the other hand,

the largest proportion of adverts fell into the low involvement/feeling

category which was expected. Owing to this revelation, the author wanted

to compare how the brand attitudes of adverts belonging to both sets of

product categories were affected by the use of humour. As previously

discussed, participants generally responded positively to adverts in the low

involvement/feeling category. However, participants responded very

apathetically towards adverts that used humour in the high

involvement/thinking category with some participants exhibiting very

negative responses. While Yeshin’s (2006) views that misguided humour

can irritate consumers and dissuade them in certain instances, it is not to

say that humour as an approach to adverting high involvement/thinking

products is best avoided. Moreover, these findings further instate that

humour is a very difficult technique to get right (Roman and Maas, 2005)

and that with specific regard to high involvement/thinking products,

marketers need to re-evaluate how they combine informational techniques

with humour so that such adverts become more effective and successful.

5.6 – Consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by Kelly

and Solomon (1975) need re-defining.

The literature reviewed indicated that there has been a reliance on studies

focusing on humour in UK advertising (Weinberger and Spotts, 1989;

Toncar, 2001) to use Kelly and Solomon’s six humorous devices (1975).

However, in relation to this study as well as Toncar’s (2001) study, the use

of Kelly and Solomon’s humorous devices (1975) proved to be inefficient

more than a fifth of the time. Therefore, it emerged that the author should

explore the usefulness of Kelly and Solomon’s humorous devices (1975)

as a basis for investigating humour in advertising research. In congruence

with the conclusions of previous research objectives, the participants

reacted most favourably towards pun in relation to its definition, thus

further indicating that this device is effective, well defined and potentially

underutilised by marketers. Similarly, although they were the most

frequent devices of humour employed, ludicrous and satire provoked the

most negative reaction from participants in relation to their definitions. With

specific regard to satire, participants commented on the archaic language

used in its definition. This reinforces the notion that Kelly and Solomon’s

(1975) humorous devices are outdated. Although the author is not

suggesting that the concepts involved in Kelly and Solomon’s (1975)

humorous devices are not relevant, they are in need of a fresh approach to

being defined. As a result of this, future research into humour and

advertising would be subject to less ambivalence and provide the basis for

more credible and consistent research findings.

5.7 – Limitations

One of the main limitations to this study was the reliance on drawing upon

Weinberger and Spotts’ (1989) and Toncar’s (2001) studies for the basis

of primary research. However, their inclusion was integral due to their

relevance towards this area of research. Also, there are occasions where

the literature reviewed has been outdated, but due to the wealth of

literature available on the research topic; the most relevant literature was

justifiably included.

Another major limiting factor of this study relates to the sampling

techniques employed. Although appropriate for a study of this size, the

purposive sampling technique used for the qualitative content analyses is

not the best sampling method in order to draw conclusions representative

of the entire population.

5.8 - Further Research

As this study progressed, opportunities for further research presented

themselves to the author that would provide a more coherent

understanding of the research topic.

Existing literature tends to ignore the role that humour can have in

advertising high involvement products, suggesting that such practice is

best avoided. However, this study reports the development of advertisers

using humour in high involvement/thinking products. Further research into

which types of humour work best with high involvement products would

provide marketers with a more informed approach on how to implement

humour into this particular niche of advertising to achieve more consistent

and effective results.

As discussed during the fifth research objective, it has been suggested

that Kelly and Solomon’s (1975) humorous devices framework needs

updating. Therefore, it is important that further research develops this

theme so that a more contemporary humorous devices framework can be

knowledgably cultivated. Application of a modern humorous devices

framework would be able provide the basis for more consistent and

reliable research into the relationship between advertising effectiveness

and humour.

As a result of this research, it has transpired that the use of the pun is a

well-defined and effective, yet an underutilised device of humour used in

television advertising within the UK. Further research into the mechanics

of applying the pun in UK television advertising would present marketers

with the comprehension and confidence of how to successfully execute the

pun to achieve its obvious marketing potential.

REFERENCES

Allen, C., Machleit, K., Kleine, S. and Notani, A. (2005) ‘A place for

emotion in attitude models’, Journal of Business Research, 58, pp.494-

499.

Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., Harker, M. and Brennan, R. (2009) Marketing:

An Introduction. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Armstrong, G. and Kotler, P. (2009) Marketing: An Introduction. 9 th

edn.

Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Berelson, B. (1952) Content Analysis in Communication Research. New

York: Free Press.

Bloxham, A. (2008) ‘British humour dictated by genetics’, The Telegraph,

10 March [Online]. Available at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581251/British-humour-

dictated-by-genetics.html (Accessed: 17 February 2012).

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods. 2 nd

edn.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burke, M. and Edell, J. (1986) ‘Ad Reactions over Time: Capturing

Changes in the Real World’, Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1),

pp.114-118, JSTOR [Online]. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489290 (Accessed: 5 March 2012).

Burke, R. and Srull, T. (1988) ‘Competitive interference and consumer

memory for advertising’, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, pp.55-68.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581251/British-humour-dictated-by-genetics.html

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489290

Cateora, P. and Graham, J. (1999) International Marketing. 10 th

edn.

Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Chung, H. and Zhao, X. (2003) ‘Humour effect on memory and

attitude: moderating role of product involvement’, International Journal of

Advertising, 22, pp.117-144.

Cline, T. and Kellaris, J. (2007) ‘The influence of humor strength and

humor-message relatedness on ad memorability’, Journal of Advertising,

36, pp.55-67.

Cline, T., Altesch, M. and Kellaris, J. (2003) ‘When does humour enhance

or inhibit ad responses?’, Journal of Advertising, 32(3), pp. 31-45.

Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2003) Business Research: A Practical Guide for

Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. 2 nd

edn. Hampshire: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Curran, J. and Blackburn, R. (2001) Researching the Small Enterprise.

London: Sage Publications.

De Mooij, M. (2010) Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding

Cultural Paradoxes. 3 rd

edn. London: Sage Publications.

De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M. And Anckaert, P. (2002) ‘Media context

and advertising effectiveness: the role of context appreciation and

context/ad similarity’, Journal of Advertising, 31(2), pp.49-61. JSTOR

[Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189214 (Accessed: 3

February 2012).

FIFA. (2006) No.1 Sports Event. Available at:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-

401_06e_tv_2658.pdf (Accessed: 23 November 2011).

Fisher, C. (2010) Researching and Writing a Dissertation. 3 rd

edn. Essex:

Pearson Education Limited.

Francis, L. (1994) ‘Laughter, the best mediation: humor as emotion

management in interaction’, Symbolic Interaction, 17(2), pp.147-163.

Geuens, M. De Pelsmacker, P. and Faseur, T. (2011) ‘Emotional

advertising: Revisiting the role of product category’, Journal of Business

Research, 64, pp.418-426.

Grbich, C. (2007) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. London:

Sage.

GroupM. (2010) GroupM Forecasts Global Ad Spending to Surpass $500

Billion in 2011 [Press release]. 6 December. Available at:

http://www.groupm.com/bulleting/press-release/groupm-forecasts-global-

ad-spending-surpass-500-billion-2011 (Accessed: 23 November 2011).

Hackley, C. (2010) Advertising & Promotion: An Integrated Marketing

Communications Approach. London: Sage.

Hall, E. (1976) Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.

Han, S., Lerner, J. and Keltner, D. (2007) ‘Feelings and consumer decision

making: The appraisal-tendency framework’, Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 17, pp.158-168.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_06e_tv_2658.pdf

http://www.groupm.com/bulleting/press-release/groupm-forecasts-global-ad-spending-surpass-500-billion-2011

Haugtvedt, C. Herr, P. and Kardes, F. (2008) Handbook of Consumer

Psychology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hofstede, G. (1984) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in

Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Culture’s and Organizations: Software of the Mind.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hsieh, H. and Shannon, S. (2005) ‘Three Approaches to Qualitative

Content Analysis’, Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), pp.1277-1288.

ITIM (2012) Geert Hofstede: United Kingdom. Available at: http://geert-

hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html (Accessed: 17 February 2012).

Jansson-Boyd, C. (2010) Consumer Psychology. Maidenhead: McGraw-

Hill.

Kamhawi, K. and Weaver, D. (2003) ‘Mass communication research

trends from 1980 to 1999’, Journalism and Mass Communication

Quarterly, 80(1), pp.7-27.

Kandel, E., Schwartz, J. and Jessell, T. (2000) Principles of Neural

Sciences. 4 th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kanso, A. and Nelson, R. (2002) ‘Advertising localization overshadows

standardization’, Journal of Advertising Research, 42(1), pp.79-89.

Kelly, P. and Solomon, P. (1975) ‘Humor in Television Advertising’,

Journal of Advertising Research, 26(4), p.32.

http://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html

Kent, R. and Allen, C. (1994) ‘Competitive interference effects in consumer

memory for advertising: The role of brand and familiarity’, Journal of

Marketing, 58, pp.97-105.

Krippendorff, K. (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its

Methodology. London: Sage.

Krishnan, H. and Chakravarti, D. (2003) ‘A process analysis of the effects

of humorous advertising executions on brand claims memory’, Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 13(3), pp.230-245.

Krugman, H. (1965) ‘The impact of television advertising: Learning without

involvement’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(3), pp.349-356.

Laros, F. and Steenkamp, J-B. (2005) ‘Emotions in consumer behaviour: a

hierarchical approach’, Journal of Business Research, 58, pp.1437-1445.

Lerner, J. and Keltner, D. (2000) ‘Beyond valence: Toward a model of

emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice’, Cognition and

Emotion, 14, pp.473-493.

Lindridge, A., Hogg, M. and Shah, M. (2004) ‘Imagined multiple words:

How South Asian women in Britain use family and friends to navigate

border crossings between household and social contexts’, Consumption,

Markets and Culture, 7, pp.211-238.

MacInnis, D., Moorman, C. and Jaworski, B. (1991) ‘Enhancing and

measuring consumers' motivation, opportunity and ability to process brand

information from ads’, The Journal of Marketing, 55(4), pp.32-53. JSTOR

[Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251955 (Accessed: 2

February 2012).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251955

Mandler, G. (1984) Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress.

New York: Norton.

Mayring, P. (2000) ‘Qualitative Content Analysis’, Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), pp.1-20.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online]. Available at:

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385

(Accessed: 28 February 2012).

McDonald, M. and Christopher, M. (2003) Marketing: A Complete Guide.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

McGhee, E. (1979) Humor: Its Origin and Development. San Francisco: W

H Freeman.

Nisbett, E., and Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and

shortcomings of social judgment. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Nelson, M., Brunel, F., Supphellen, M. and Manchanda, R. (2006) ‘Effects

of culture, gender and moral obligations on responses to charity

advertising across masculine and feminine cultures’, Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 16, pp.45-56.

Nevett, T. (1992). ‘Differences between American and British television

advertising: Explanations and implications’, Journal of Advertising, 11(4),

pp.61-71.

Palda, K. (1966) ‘The Hypothesis of a Hierarchy of Effects: A Partial

Evaluation’, Journal of Marketing Research, 3(1), pp. 13-24, JSTOR

[Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3149430 (Accessed: 5

March 2012).

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3149430

Percy, L. and Elliott, R. (2009) Strategic Advertising Management. 3 rd

edn.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Readon, J., Miller, C., Foubert, B., Vida, I. and Rybina, L. (2006)

‘Antismoking messages for the international teenage segment: The

effectiveness of message valence and intensity across different cultures’,

Journal of International Marketing, 14(3), pp.115-138.

Roman, K. and Maas, J. (2005) How to Advertise. 3 rd

edn. London: Kogan

Page Limited.

Rossiter, J., Percy, L. and Donovan, R. (1991) ‘A better advertising

planning grid’, Journal of Advertising Research, 31, pp.11-21.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007) Researching Methods for

Business Students. 4 th

edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Shao, A., Bao, Y. and Gray, E. (2004) ‘Comparative advertising

effectiveness: A cross-cultural study’, Journal of Current Issues and

Research in Advertising, 26(2), pp.67-80.

Smith, H. (1975) Strategies of Social Research: The Methodological

Imagination. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Spiller, L. and Baier, M. (2010) Contemporary direct & interactive

marketing. 2 nd

edn. London: Pearson Education.

Sweney, M. (2006) ‘Advertising agencies use World Cup to show they're at

the top of their game’, The Guardian, 23 April [Online]. Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/23/advertising.business

(Accessed: 26 January 2012).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/23/advertising.business

Sweney, M. (2011) ‘Ofcom unlikely to refer TV advertising market to

Competition Commission’, The Guardian, 14 December [Online]. Available

at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/14/ofcom-tv-advertising-

market (Accessed: 6 March 2012).

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in

Social and Behavioural Research. California: Sage Publications.

Teng, L. and Laroche, M. (2006) ‘Interactive effects of appeals, arguments

and competition across North American and Chinese cultures’, Journal of

International Marketing, 14(4), pp.111-128.

Toncar, M. (2001) ‘The use of humour in television advertising: revisiting

the US-UK comparison’, International Journal of Advertising, 20(1),

pp.521-539.

Tulving, E. and Psotka, J. (1971) ‘Retroactive inhibition in free recall:

Inaccessibility of information available in the memory store.’ Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 87, pp.1-8.

Vaughan, R. (1986) ‘How advertising works: A planning model revisited’,

Journal of Advertising Research, 26(1), pp.57-66.

Walters, P., Whitla, P. and Davies, H. (2008) ‘Global strategy in the

international advertising industry’, International Business Review, 17(3),

pp. 235-249.

Weilbacher, W. (2003) ‘How advertising affects consumers’, Journal of

Advertising Research, 43, pp. 230-234.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/14/ofcom-tv-advertising-market

Weinberger, M. and Campbell, L. (1991) ‘The use and impact of humor in

radio advertising.’ Journal of Advertising Research, 31, pp.44-52.

Weinberger, M. and Spotts, H. (1989) ‘Humor in U.S. versus U.K. TV

commercials: A comparison’, Journal of Advertising, 18(2), pp.39-44.

Weinberger, M., Spotts, H., Campbell, L. and Parsons, A. (1995) ‘The use

of humor in different advertising media’, Journal of Advertising Research,

35, pp.44-56.

Wells, W., Moriarty, S. and Burnett, J. (2006) Advertising Principles &

Practice. 7 th

edn. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Wimmer, R. and Dominick, J. (2011) Mass Media Research: An

Introduction. 9 th

edn. London: Cengage Learning.

Yeshin, T. (2006) Advertising. London: Thomson Learning.

Yoo, C. and MacInnis, D. (2005) ‘The brand attitude formation process of

emotional and informational ads’, Journal of Business Research, 58,

pp.1397-1406.

Zhang, Y. and Zinkhan, G. (2006) ‘Responses to humorous ads: does

audience involvement matter?’, Journal of Advertising, 35(4), pp.113-127.

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Statement of Learning

Undoubtedly, the dissertation process has been the largest piece of

academic study that I have undertaken. Initially, I found the whole process

overwhelming and almost intimidating at times. However, through

determination, perseverance and passion for my area of research, I feel as

though I have been able to complete the process to the best of my ability.

Hindrances and complications are all part of an academic study of this

size, but once encountered, I believe I have dealt with them both logically

and professionally. Approaching the dissertation process required

restrained organisational competence and time management abilities and,

subsequently, I feel that these particular skills have been enhanced

throughout the whole process. The literature review and methodology

chapter of the dissertation have been illuminating as I have never had to

critically analyse existing literature or consider research methods in such

depth before. Although at times these were arduous aspects to the

process, I feel more mature and academic as a result. I feel that the

analytical skills developed during the dissertation process will be

particularly invaluable and applicable to my future professional

endeavours. I have approached the dissertation process to the best of my

ability and I am proud of myself for completing such an extensive piece of

work, which will in no doubt only be of benefit in the future.

Appendix B – Quantitative Content Analysis: Sample Details.

Appendix C (i) – A Selection of Qualitative Content Analyses

Transcriptions : Participant 1

Advert 1: Oreo – ‘How to eat an Oreo’

1. How did this advert make you feel? It was good, I liked the girl. She reminds me of Karen from Outnumbered.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product?

Yes, there are loads of biscuits on the market you’ve got to stand out somehow.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised?

Oreo’s.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? Well I liked the girl and it made me laugh so yeah, I suppose I like them a little bit more.

5. This advert was deemed to have used a humour device in the form of ‘irony’, which is defined as ‘the use of words to express the opposite of what one really means’. With regard to the advertisement you have just seen, what is your opinion of this definition? Well technically I don’t think the words used were ironic, but the situation was ironic I think.

Advert 2: Aldi – ‘Red Dress’

1. How did this advert make you feel?

I really enjoyed that advert, silly but funny.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Yes.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised?

Low fat cereal from Aldi.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? I’m surprised at how much I liked that advert so yeah I feel a bit more positive towards Aldi now.

5. This advert was deemed to have used a humour device in the form of ‘joke’, which is defined as ‘speaking or acting without seriousness’. With regard to the advertisement you have just seen, what is your opinion of this definition?

Yeah what the man said at the end was a joke wasn’t it? You can’t argue with that.

Advert 3: Pomegreat – ‘Oh, what a beautiful morning’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I thought it was pretty funny actually, not sure why but it reminded me of The Head from Art Attack.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Definitely.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised?

Some form of Pomegranate juice?

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? Yeah it reminded me of my childhood a little bit so I’ll think positively of the brand because of that.

5. This advert was deemed to have used a humour device in the form of ‘ludicrous’, which is defined as ‘that which is laughable or ridiculous’. With regard to the advertisement you have just seen, what is your opinion of this definition? Yeah I’d agree with that, the man’s head in the mouth and the deep voice on the woman is quite ludicrous.

Advert 4: Aldi – ‘A fine pair of pollocks’

1. How did this advert make you feel?

I wish all adverts were that good; subtle and hilarious.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Yes.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Aldi fish fingers.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? Oh yeah, it’s only a positive outcome for me.

5. This advert was deemed to have used a humour device in the form of ‘pun’, which is defined as ‘the humorous use of a word or phrase in a way that suggests two interpretations’. With regard to the advertisement you have just seen, what is your opinion of this definition? That’s what a pun is isn’t it? A play on words? Then yeah I think it works.

Advert 5: Snickers – ‘Divas’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I thought it was pretty funny; I’ve got mates like that!

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Without a doubt, Snickers always go down that route.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised?

Snickers chocolate bar.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? I like Snickers and I like that advert.

5. This advert was deemed to have used a humour device in the form of ‘satire’, which is defined as ‘sarcasm used to expose vice or folly’. With regard to the advertisement you have just seen, what is your opinion of this definition?

I thought I knew what satire was, but that just confused me.

Advert 6: Aviva – ‘Multicar waders’

1. How did this advert make you feel? It was alright as far as insurance adverts go, I like Paul Whitehouse.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? I’m not sure really, a lot of insurance adverts are rubbish but at least this one wasn’t pretentious.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? It was car insurance, can’t remember which brand though.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? It hasn’t changed my opinion.

Advert 7: Directline – ‘A bit rough’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I thought it was quite good actually; the bit at the end was funny.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? I think so.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Insurance.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? Yeah it made me like them.

Advert 8: Swiftcover – ‘The Swift brothers – lost documents’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I really dislike adverts like this.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? No I don’t think so.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Swift cover car insurance.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? There’s something about them that I find suspicious.

Appendix C (ii) – A Selection of Qualitative Content Analyses

Transcriptions : Participant 5

Advert 1: Oreo – ‘How to eat an Oreo’

1. How did this advert make you feel?

It made me think that if the girl is difficult like that at her age, what will she be like when she’s in her teens? I wouldn’t want to be her Dad then.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product?

I think so, yeah.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Oreo’s.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised?

I’m not really a big fan of Oreo’s to be honest so my mind has already been made up. My opinion hasn’t really changed.

Yeah I’d say the advert is ironic so the definition works.

Advert 2: Aldi – ‘Red Dress’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I’m still chuckling now at that one, very good.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? If they’re as good as that one then absolutely.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? It was a cereal advert; I’m not sure which cereal though come to think of it.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised?

It was a really good advert I hope they make some more like that, so I’d say I like them more now, although I’m not sure if I’d go and shop there.

Yeah, the definition works for me.

Advert 3: Pomegreat – ‘Oh, what a beautiful morning’

1. How did this advert make you feel? It didn’t really have much of an effect, not as funny as the last advert.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Yeah, but they’ll have to try harder next time.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Pomegreat. Pomegranate juice I’m going to say.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? Like I said, the advert was OK. It wasn’t really much of an attitude changer.

It’s not very clear I don’t think, there are probably adverts that are more laughable and more ridiculous.

Advert 4: Aldi – ‘A fine pair of pollocks’

1. How did this advert make you feel? Did I miss something there?

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Maybe, but I didn’t get that one at first so it’s risky. They might alienate people if it’s not obvious.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised?

Aldi fish fingers.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? I probably dislike them a little bit for outwitting me actually!

Advert 5: Snickers – ‘Divas’

1. How did this advert make you feel? Yeah not a bad advert, worthy of a chuckle I’d say.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product?

Definitely.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Snickers chocolate bar.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? I already have a firm opinion of Snickers and this doesn’t really change anything.

Advert 6: Aviva – ‘Multicar waders’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I found it boring.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? I guess you could try; I’m not sure how you can make car insurance funny though.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Aviva car insurance.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? The advert just passed me by really, so my attitude hasn’t changed.

Advert 7: Directline – ‘A bit rough’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I’m a big fan of Chris Addison and for that reason I enjoyed the advert.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product?

I’m not really sure, I only liked the advert because Chris Addison is in it, but I wouldn’t say it was hilarious.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Directline insurance.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? No real change to be honest.

Advert 8: Swiftcover – ‘The Swift brothers – lost documents’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I switched off to be honest, lots of adverts try that cutesy animal thing and I’m not really bothered about it.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Possibly, but it’d have to be better than that.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Swift cover car insurance.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? As I mentioned I didn’t pay that much attention so no real change really.

Appendix C (iii) – A Selection of Qualitative Content Analyses

Transcriptions : Participant 9

Advert 1: Oreo – ‘How to eat an Oreo’

1. How did this advert make you feel? A bit predictable really, it reminded me of that Haribo advert where the girl makes her Dad sign a confession. It was alright though.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product?

Absolutely, as long as they’re funny!

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? It was Oreo’s.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? Well as I said the advert was a bit bland really so I’m not swayed by it either way.

5. This advert was deemed to have used a humour device in the form of ‘irony’, which is defined as ‘the use of words to express the opposite of what one really means’. With regard to the advertisement you have just seen, what is your opinion of this definition? Yeah I’d probably agree with that, the advert was pretty ironic.

Advert 2: Aldi – ‘Red Dress’

1. How did this advert make you feel?

I think I may have missed that one, I’m a bit confused.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Well, as long as the humour works. I didn’t really like that one which might annoy me after a while.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Low fat cereal from Aldi.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? It hasn’t really to be honest.

Yeah no arguments with that one.

Advert 3: Pomegreat – ‘Oh, what a beautiful morning’

1. How did this advert make you feel?

That stuff looks pretty good I want to try some.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? I’d probably say so, yeah.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Some form of pomegranate juice? Not too sure of the brand name though, I’ve not heard of it before.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? Like I mentioned, I hadn’t heard of them before.

5. This advert was deemed to have used a humour device in the form of ‘ludicrous’, which is defined as ‘that which is laughable or ridiculous’. With regard to the advertisement you have just seen, what is your opinion of this definition? I wouldn’t use the words laughable or ridiculous to describe the advert, it was a little bit tame for that.

Advert 4: Aldi – ‘A fine pair of pollocks’

1. How did this advert make you feel?

It’s just a very good at advert isn’t it? It doesn’t try too hard and it’s very funny.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Yeah when the humour is good, I hate adverts that try to be funny when they’re not.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised?

Aldi fish fingers.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? I like the brand more.

Advert 5: Snickers – ‘Divas’

1. How did this advert make you feel? It was a funny advert. I liked it.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Yes.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Snickers chocolate bar.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? It’s one of the better adverts on TV which works in Snickers’ favour I’d say.

Advert 6: Aviva – ‘Multicar waders’

1. How did this advert make you feel? It reminded me of those tedious Sunday afternoons you had to spend with your family when you were younger.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? I don’t think so.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Aviva car insurance.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? I’d probably say I don’t like Aviva that much now.

Advert 7: Directline – ‘A bit rough’

1. How did this advert make you feel? It filled me with dread for the future.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Definitely not.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised? Directline insurance.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised? I’m not a fan of Directline now.

Advert 8: Swiftcover – ‘The Swift brothers – lost documents’

1. How did this advert make you feel? I like stuff with talking animals in it, I liked it.

2. Do you think that humour is an appropriate device to advertise this product? Yeah I’d say so, it can’t hurt.

3. Can you recall the brand and product being advertised?

Some type of car insurance.

4. If at all, how has your attitude changed towards the brand being advertised?

It reminded me of the Meer Kat adverts which I like too.

Appendix D (i) - Screenshot of Advert 1: Oreo – ‘How to Eat an Oreo’

Appendix D (ii) - Screenshot of Advert 2: Aldi – ‘Red Dress’

Appendix D (iii) - Screenshot of Advert 3: Pomegreat – ‘Oh, What a

Beautiful Morning’

Appendix D (iv) - Screenshot of Advert 4: Aldi – ‘A Fine Pair of

Pollock’s’

Appendix D (v) - Screenshot of Advert 5: Snickers – ‘Divas’

Appendix D (vi) - Screenshot of Advert 6: Aviva – ‘Waders’

Appendix D (vii) - Screenshot of Advert 7: Directline – ‘A Bit Rough’

Appendix D (viii) - Screenshot of Advert 8: Swiftcover – ‘The Swift

Brothers – Lost Documents’

Appendix E - Student Research Ethical Issues Form

Appendix F – Informed Consent Forms for Research Participants

100

101

Last Page