Humour in UK TV ads

tstc3
Text Box
This copyrighted material has been assessed by Turnitin and
further usage will be monitored.
1
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
2
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
3
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: ................................................................

4
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

5
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.
6
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.

7
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
.................................................................................. 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
8
3.7 – Research Methodology
................................................................ 30
3.8 – Ethical Considerations
.................................................................. 34
3.9 – Limitations
.................................................................................... 34
3.10 – Conclusion

................................................................................. 34
FINDING AND ANALYSIS
........................................................................ 35
.................................................................................. 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
9
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
................................................................. 71
Appendix C (iii) – A Selection of Qualitative Content Analyses
................................................................. 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

10
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

11
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
12
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
13
To consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by
Kelly
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.

14
LITERATURE REVIEW
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
15
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.
16

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
17
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).

18
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
19
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

20
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
21
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
22
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.
23
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.

24
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
25
consumers, specifically with regard to low involvement
products.
METHODOLOGY

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
26

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
27
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

28
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
Advertising.

To identify the differences in the application of humour in
relation to
Television
Advertising.
To find out which humour device is most effective in
advertising
To compare how consumer attitudes are affected towards
brands
To consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by
Kelly
29

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.
30
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

31
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.
32
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.
33
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.
34
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.
35
FINDING AND ANALYSIS

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
Advertising.
2. To identify the differences in the application of humour in
relation to
Television
Advertising.
3. To find out which humour device is most effective in
advertising

4. To compare how consumer attitudes are affected towards
brands
5. To consider whether the Six Humorous Devices proposed by
Kelly
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
36

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.

37
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
38
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.
39
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%
3%

Low Involvement 15%
59%
40
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
41
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
ii)
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

42
iii)
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
iv)
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
v)
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
43
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.
44
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
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.
45
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.
vi)
vii)
Figure 4.8– Content Analysis Results for Advert 8 (Appendix D
viii)

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
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
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
46

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
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’
47
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
48
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.

49
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.
50

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
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
51
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
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
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
52

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
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
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
53
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
54

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.
55
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.
humour-dictated-by-genetics.html

humour-dictated-by-genetics.html
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489290
56
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).
57
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.
401_06e_tv_2658.pdf
401_06e_tv_2658.pdf
forecasts-global-ad-spending-surpass-500-billion-2011
forecasts-global-ad-spending-surpass-500-billion-2011
58
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
http://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html
59
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
(Accessed: 2
February 2012).

60
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
(Accessed: 5
March 2012).

http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385
61
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.busin
ess
(Accessed: 26 January 2012).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/23/advertising.busin
ess
62
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/14/ofcom-tv-
advertising-market
63
Weinberger, M. and Campbell, L. (1991) ‘The use and impact of

Humour in UK TV ads

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Humour in UK TV ads

Similar to Humour in UK TV ads (20)

More from turveycharlyn

More from turveycharlyn (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Humour in UK TV ads