Humour in Advertising

Humour is a funny thing, pardon the pun. It's subjective, which means that in advertising, what passes as humour to one consumer is considered dull or offensive to another. Humour in advertising is always a risk; while I admire the companies that take the plunge and try something different to distinguish their product and engage their audience, I also realize that if the approach falls flat, the results can be disastrous for the product or its current campaign.

On one hand, having amusing, humorous ads grabs the attention of the audience and engages them emotionally in a product in ways a more serious ad does not. As a result of finding the ad more interesting and entertaining, they may have a new perspective or even respect for the product because it took successful risks to communicate a message, and might advertise it through word-of-mouth (e.g. "Did you see the Superbowl commercial about Doritos? Wasn't it hilarious?"). This increase in brand-awareness can be really rewarding for the company's image and improve their consumer base.

However, just because something is funny doesn't always mean a consumer will want to buy what's being presented to them. According to an article from the International Business Times, media analytics company Ace Metrix did a study about the effectiveness of humorous commercials, and found that though funny ads make a product more memorable and appealing to their consumers, these types of ads are not as effective when it comes to motivating the consumers to buy the actual product. 

The effectiveness of the "sell" factor in humorous ads depends on several components, one being whether the product is presented in a way that makes not only the funny concept memorable, but the product itself that is associated with the ad. Every now and then, a commercial or ad comes along that is unique and elicits a laugh or two, but the brand behind it is obscured by the humour, either not strongly present in the ad enough for the viewers to recognize it, or too forgettable compared to the content of the ad. This represents a worse-case-scenario of humorous advertising: an unusual approach becomes too effective, and the key message/selling point is lost.

Another factor is the preferences of the demographic itself. It's hard to know exactly how people will react to your ad; although there are merits to knowing your target audience and appealing to their sense of humour, there will always be those that didn't enjoy the ad, or misinterpreted its intent. The worse case scenario here is that the ad is so ineffective and rubs the consumers the wrong way, trying to be clever and funny but failing to the point that the product's reputation is damaged and this effects sales. 

So, is it worth the risk trying to make a "funny ad"? Because humorous ads aren't guaranteed to work, it's definitely safer to go with the serious approach, which has a higher chance of communicating the product properly and selling it to consumers. It really depends on the type of company, and whether they feel comfortable putting their image and success on the line. In the case of brands that need reviving or want to reach a wider base, taking such a risk could be extremely rewarding, and they have less to lose than those brands that are more established. Personally, I would stick with the bland route, because in the end an ad has to sell, that's why it was made in the first place.