Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

Desperate Times for General Ad Agencies

Resorting to Humor to Pay the Bills

November 2006 By Denny Hatch
16
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

In the News

Holiday Marketers Play the Humor Card
THE advertising approach for the coming holiday shopping season is shaping up as more ha-ha-ha than ho-ho-ho. With Halloween out of the way, Madison Avenue is bringing out campaigns intended to stimulate retail sales for Christmas and Hanukkah. The tack many ads are taking is humorous, ranging from wry subtlety to fall-down slapstick, rather than traditionally sentimental, schmaltzy or straightforward.
—Stuart Elliott, The New York Times, Nov. 7, 2006

In fact, it’s possible to reach the majority of Americans in one place at one night of the year—Super Bowl Sunday—for which you will pay $2.5 million for a 30-second spot.

The Ratings Game
Most people believe that what’s being sold on television is product—cars, toothpaste, beer, Nexium.

Actually we, the viewers, are being sold. The networks—or individual stations—guarantee to round up a certain number of us to watch at a certain hour and they sell us to sponsors. If more of us watch, the sponsor must pony up more loot. If the ratings are below the guarantee, a rebate is paid.

Measuring the number of viewers is very tricky.

A. C. Nielsen and Arbitron
For years, Nielsen sent diaries to households—one diary for each TV set in the house up to a total of five—and asked viewers to record the day of the week, the time and channel or program watched. Arbitron did the same for radio. The number of listeners or viewers were then projected based on diaries returned.

To a direct marketer—who can measure results within 10ths and 100ths of a percent—this is a truly primitive system. For starters, the system relies on the honesty and competence of rank amateurs.

For example, I never watch an evening newscast. I watch all six. I start with Brian Williams and skip to Charles Gibson when I don’t like the story or during a commercial break. During that half hour, I check in on Katie Couric, Brit Hume on Fox, Lou Dobbs on CNN and MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson.

It would be impossible for me to keep track in a Nielsen diary!

People Meters
Both Nielsen and Arbitron have tried to bring the rating system into the 21st century by persuading people to wear little black boxes that record precisely what they watch on TV (Nielsen) or listen to on radio (Arbitron).

Implicit is measuring the influence of advertising—a scheme called Project Apollo. In the May 9, 2005 issue of Advertising Age, Al Ries predicted that Nielsen was chasing the wrong model. Ries wrote:

Marketing people live in an advertising-centric world, but consumers don’t. Advertising is the bread and butter of the marketing community, but consumers see advertising mostly as an annoyance. So if Apollo is the Holy Grail of the marketing community, then TiVo is the Holy Grail of the consumer community.

Bingo!

The Nielsen TV commercial rating system has come to a standstill because the networks—ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox—don’t trust any system that can’t track how consumers see advertising on digital recorders such as VCRs and TiVos.

The point here is that the television industry—networks and cable—aren’t comfortable with any kind of accountability.

General advertising agencies are terrified of accountability because they’re spending clients’ money like sailors, and are taking their cut. If it can be proved that the ads aren’t being seen or that they aren’t generating sales, the client will look elsewhere for advertising efficiency.

The Need for Response
The great retail mogul, John Wanamaker, said he believed that half of his advertising was wasted, but he didn’t know which half.

The new book, “What Sticks: Why Most Advertising Fails and How to Guarantee Yours Succeeds,” claims that Wanamaker’s numbers are wrong.

Based on $1 billion spending by 36 leading advertisers over five years, authors Rex Briggs and Greg Stuart claim that only 37 percent of all advertising is wasted.

In 1952, my uncle, Eric Hatch, wrote a Kraft Television Theater play and I was invited to accompany him to 30 Rockefeller Plaza one day to watch the rehearsals. This was live black-and-white TV and fascinating. At one point, I watched the mellifluous-voiced Kraft spokesman, Ed Herlihy, whose tummy preceded him by fifteen minutes, deliver a commercial—a voice over as a cook demonstrated a recipe for a casserole with canned clams and melted Kraft cheese.

It was reported that the founder of the company, old J.L. Kraft (he died the next year), watched the commercial in disbelief and went into the bathroom and threw up. But the next day, Kraft saw a surge in cheese sales and canned clams were sold out all over the country.

The commercial was a success.

Today, with media wildly fragmented by hundreds of channels, if no offer is made—and no response mechanism supplied—it’s certifiably impossible to measure the ROI of an ad or a campaign.

So at least $370 million out of every $1 billion is wasted.

About Humor in Advertising
One group of humorous ads that worked was created in the 1930s and 1940s by Theodor Seuss Geisel, who had a long and illustrious career in advertising before he became Dr. Seuss and created a line of beloved children’s books. According to The Times of London, Dr. Seuss was the seventh highest dead earner last year (tying with Ray Charles), bringing in £5.3 million. Kurt Cobain was number one, earning £26.3 million, followed by Elvis Presley, who earned £22 million.

At the end of this newsletter, you’ll find two classic Dr. Seuss ads, one of which has the caption he made famous, “Quick, Henry, the Flit!”

But as more and more advertisers move to direct, which is accountable and measurable, the sweet-talkers at the general agencies—who know nothing about direct—have to do some fancy footwork in their castles in Oz to keep Toto from pulling down the green curtain and exposing them as incompetent wastrels.

So humor is the message du jour this holiday season. Watch Santa Claus and his reindeer get a parking ticket in a Garmin G.P.S. navigational devices commercial, and see a pine tree eating a Campbell’s Soup casserole. Other thigh-slappers to watch for will be from Lowe’s, cellphones sold by Virgin Mobile USA, The Gap, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, shoplocal.com, Gifts.com, Kohl’s, American Eagle Outfitters, Target and Home Depot.

If the ads can’t be measured, at least they’ll be talked about.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

* “Is your copy funny or cute? (Avoid humor at all costs.)”
—Milt Pierce, Freelancer

* “For the Tufts School of Veterinary Medicine’s newsletter, Your Dog, I wrote a letter from the Dean of the Veterinary School emphasizing the credentials and expertise of their canine authorities. Then I added a second lift note—from a dog!—explaining why dogs hate the newsletter. (It makes their owners too knowledgeable, and teaches owners how to break dogs’ bad habits!) Humor is usually risky, but in this case, proved highly effective. It added significantly to the strength of this control.”
Barbara Harrison, Freelancer

* Note that Barbara Harrison used humor in a peripheral element—the lift note. It wasn’t the main thrust of the effort.

* “Don’t use humor.”
—Craig Huey, President, Direct Marketing Creative Group

* “Don’t be cute. Your advertisement can entertain a million readers—and not sell one of them.”
—Andrew Byrne, Freelancer

* “Your job is to sell, not entertain.”
—Jack Maxson, Freelancer (who put Brookstone on the map)

* “Be well-mannered, but don’t be a clown. People don’t buy from bad-mannered salesmen, and research has shown that they don’t buy from bad-mannered advertisements. It’s easier to sell people with a friendly handshake than by hitting them over the head with a hammer. You should try to charm the consumer into buying your product. This doesn’t mean that your advertisements should be cute or comic. People don’t buy from clowns.”
David Ogilvy

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

ACNeilsen.com
http://www2.acnielsen.com/site/index.shtml

Arbitron
http://www.arbitron.com/

The Advertising Artwork of Dr. Seuss
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dsads/index.shtml
 
16

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Bob Jaburek - Posted on November 12, 2006
There are just too many successful examples that contradict Mr. Hatch's point. One need only recall the classic Burma Shave road side ads that have transcended advertising and been elevated to authentic bits of Americana. All were based on a humorous foundation. The fact that one can't purchase Burma Shave today is not of a result weak advertising. Try a bit of personal marketing research on yourself and think back as to which ads in your past you recall (the farther back the better). Now ask yourself why you remember those ads?

Effective advertising, in any media, must entertain and inform the consumer. In the combat zone that is advertising the war to rise above the clutter of the competition is constant. And if the advertiser loses that battle they have lost the war. It is the entertainment element of any ad that arrests the attention of the consumer. Without that objective having been secured all the information in the world will go for naught. If information were enough to sell a product, media of all types would exist in today's world in only black and white. But we live in a very colorful world indeed with as much hi-definition as possible packed into the message. Even the Daily Gazette has gone to full color. What Ogilvy calls "charm" is cheap in today's market; the ante has been raised considerably. And successful advertisers are those who make their message memorable through the proper balance of entertainment and information.

There is no substitute for great creativity, effectively applied. That is true in warfare and just as true in advertising. "To the victor go the
spoils."
Michael Hodgson - Posted on November 11, 2006
So where does that leave viral ads? Most of them are humorous, but because they're targetted they get sent to the people with the 'right' sense of humour. But do they sell? The Mini Cooper GP was a limited edition car which sold out almost immediately, and had one of the best viral ads I've seen. But was it the add or the product that sold it? Is it the add or the product that'll keep residuals so high.
Mike French - Posted on November 10, 2006
One of the big problems I see with using humor in commercials is that humor is so subjective. It's impossible to find universally funny stuff that everyone in America will relate to. And it seems to me that most humor is pointless and only acts as a distraction to whatever product is being shown. I hate that blinds commercial that shows a window to the backyard with the exploding barbeque fiasco going on throughout the entire ad. With all eyes on that silly thing, who if anyone could even say what the ad was about? Also, I think humor might be used as an attention getter, but only if it is crafted in the old tried and proven formula of, incident-point-benefit: the funny incident is shown, it has an easily understood big point to it, and that point clearly demonstrates a huge customer benefit (or a great USP).
Denis Laramée - Posted on November 10, 2006
Truth is, we don't really know how advertising works. Advertising content can have cognitive or affective effects. However, just liking a commercial can influence a brand's perception. In that light, humour, if it has a positive influence on liking the ad, is a good thing. The problem is that good humour is not easy to create and can always fall flat. The true mark of desperation is resorting to pointless humour when you can't think of anything else to do.
John Kennedy - Posted on November 10, 2006
Humorous or not I find most TV ads still focus on features rather than benefits. They gotta tell me what it does for ME and not make me wonder why I would want THAT thing!
Jeff Steele - Posted on November 10, 2006
Recalling Stan Freiberg's entertaining but often ineffectual ads, I agree that the humor in an ad can potentially obscure the product or the company, but it can be extremely effective in illustrating a concept. I have used it (in the caption and/or the graphic) in in-house publications and in direct mail, sometimes just to get the reader's attention, to promote income-paying charitable gifts. So far, we've beaten the control 100% of the time by a substantial margin, and, in some cases, by a multiple. More importantly, actual gift revenue from respondents was tracked as accurately as possible, and showed unprecedented results.
jrpolgar - Posted on November 10, 2006
Commercials on TV need to have some entertaining grab or they get bleebed as the viewer scans another program then flips back now and then to watch the show. My wife hates when I do that but like Denny, I'll watch several news programs at news time and for regular shows, I always have a back up program I can flip back and forth to. For me, seeing parts of a secondary program is better than watching a lot of commercials.

There are WAY too many cutsie commercials or those that are trying to win some production award. I can't recall how many times I've watched a commercial that was entertaining and kept me from flipping but there are quite a few these days. Unfortunately, those I hang around to watch, I can't figure out what they are selling at all or worse, I get it at the end with a few seconds flash. Problem is, I know nothing about the product or if it would benefit me in any way at all. Just that it was an interesting commercial. I don't like annoying ads either with shouting, old fashioned harping sales pitches.

What's worse is the fact the column is right! There's hundreds of channels out there. I often find myself spending 10 minutes surfing around all of them looking for something interesting and getting nothing but 100 commercials! I have all stations, pay a lot every month, and I feel like I'm paying for nothing at times. My wife will here me bemoan the fact with something like "@#$%@#$%!, 200 @#%@#$%#$@ stations and nothing to watch! Unbelievable! Call up and cancel this @#$% service!" the reply is "We get discount with the broadband and then you have to change e-mails and then..."

So I watch about as many rented videos a week as I watch programs on TV and just pay for both. By the way, except when my kid says "I WANT THAT" I don't buy anything because of an ad on TV. If I knew another way to figure what my children would like for present then even that wouldn't have an impact anymore :-)
Carl Street - Posted on November 09, 2006
BOTH you and Mr. Coggeshall have read it wrong; the fact is in 1947 there were only 87 TV sets in the USA... :)

Seriously, your point that modern technology has given advertisers the ability to definitively measure advertising effectiveness and its implications for "show biz" agencies is well taken and right on target.
Carl Street
carl_street@cjstreet.com
Denny Hatch - Posted on November 09, 2006
Denny Hatch replies to J.J. Coggeshall:

Thanx for writing.

If you go to the IAG Research Web site (www.iagr.net/) and and watch the automatic slide show at the left of your screen, you will see where I got the viewership stats for Berle, "Beverly Hillbillies" and "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." You are right. According to IAG the number was not 84% watching Berle. I copied it wrong. The number was 87%. Obviously it must refer to those homes that had television. Thanx again for writing. Cheers.
John Friesen - Posted on November 09, 2006
I couldn't agree more. When I was learning to be a copywriter, I picked up Herschell Gordon Lewis's excellent book: Direct Mail Copy That Sells. One of the first things I learned from it was: In the Age of Skepticism, cleverness for its own sake may well be a liability, rather than an asset. How true. I have found that mild humour works, though -- especially if done through a cartoon, such as the Seuss ad for Flit. The illustration is kind of amusing, but the message is specific and serious. Otherwise, unless you are a comedian, belly laughs are bad for business.
J.J. Coggeshall - Posted on November 09, 2006
Your article confirms most things I have heard or read about TV advertising over the years. However, I do not believe as stated that Milton Berle "was watched by an average of 84 percent of US households." in 1948-1950. There were many households throughout the U.S. that did not yet have TV in the household in that time period. I would believe that 84% of households that had TV watched him showing the large reach of the networks during the early days of TV.
Barb - Posted on November 09, 2006
Sorry, Denny, but I don't share your disdain for humorous advertising. We have TiVo and love it because we can skip the obnoxious commercials hammering us --including my kids, who I've taught how to fast-forward, since the ads for kids are the worst and most blatantly aggressive. We actually do stop fast-forwarding if we see something that looks funny. If it is, my husband will call me in from the other room to watch it. While it may not necessarily provide a lasting impression of the product, at least we saw it. It's better (for them) than a fast-forward that relegates them to oblivion. If we see another commercial from that company, we'll be more likely to stop and watch, so see if it was as good as the other one. Take Geico's neanderthals. Brilliant stuff. How about Vonage's super dumb blonde? CareerBuilder.com's office monkeys? Those build memorability. Forced sincerity or staged tender moments do nothing for me, as a consumer. Show me that you're clever. (Gotta be clever to produce good humor.) Then I'll be listening.
John Crowley - Posted on November 09, 2006
I do love humorous commercials. They are generally funnier and better written than most sitcoms. The problem, of course, is I rarely recall the advertiser. Remember the famous "I Can't Believe I Ate the Whole Thing" and "Spicy Meatball" spots done for Alka-Seltzer during the 1970s? They were huge hits that won all the major industry awards. Sales of Alka-Seltzer, however, continued to trend downward during their entire run. Seems everyone was laughing except the folks at Miles Laboratories.
Carol Brandt - Posted on November 09, 2006
Hear! Hear! I have never forgotten the funny tummy ads that didn't sell . . .
David Garfinkel - Posted on November 09, 2006
Seems to me that tossing away billions of dollars of ad fees that COULD have produced sales is no laughing matter. But of course there is a need for some kind of entertainment to keep eyeballs in an entertainment-oriented medium like TV. The folks at the agencies don't get how to do it, though. Two ways I've found to make humor work in an ad: Self-deprecation (which would be terribly hard for an agency to sell a client, since the client would think the smart alecs at the agency are trying to make fun of HIM (or her), rather than to advance sales of his or her products); and two, to make fun of the problem that the product is meant to solve. A friend of mine who used to be a carny would sell the Shammy at fairs and would make a joke: 'If you have a Golden Reliever... I mean a Golden Retriever...' By diminishing the problem you make the prospects feel bigger. They like that and then feel more likely to buy.
dena lackey - Posted on November 15, 2006
okay so don't tell my boss.... but what do you think of the way we used humor on our web site? www.ncgraphics.com
I'm not sure its professional enough but since we're designers the goal was to be clever... did it work? would you use us to brand your company or create a message for your target market.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Bob Jaburek - Posted on November 12, 2006
There are just too many successful examples that contradict Mr. Hatch's point. One need only recall the classic Burma Shave road side ads that have transcended advertising and been elevated to authentic bits of Americana. All were based on a humorous foundation. The fact that one can't purchase Burma Shave today is not of a result weak advertising. Try a bit of personal marketing research on yourself and think back as to which ads in your past you recall (the farther back the better). Now ask yourself why you remember those ads?

Effective advertising, in any media, must entertain and inform the consumer. In the combat zone that is advertising the war to rise above the clutter of the competition is constant. And if the advertiser loses that battle they have lost the war. It is the entertainment element of any ad that arrests the attention of the consumer. Without that objective having been secured all the information in the world will go for naught. If information were enough to sell a product, media of all types would exist in today's world in only black and white. But we live in a very colorful world indeed with as much hi-definition as possible packed into the message. Even the Daily Gazette has gone to full color. What Ogilvy calls "charm" is cheap in today's market; the ante has been raised considerably. And successful advertisers are those who make their message memorable through the proper balance of entertainment and information.

There is no substitute for great creativity, effectively applied. That is true in warfare and just as true in advertising. "To the victor go the
spoils."
Michael Hodgson - Posted on November 11, 2006
So where does that leave viral ads? Most of them are humorous, but because they're targetted they get sent to the people with the 'right' sense of humour. But do they sell? The Mini Cooper GP was a limited edition car which sold out almost immediately, and had one of the best viral ads I've seen. But was it the add or the product that sold it? Is it the add or the product that'll keep residuals so high.
Mike French - Posted on November 10, 2006
One of the big problems I see with using humor in commercials is that humor is so subjective. It's impossible to find universally funny stuff that everyone in America will relate to. And it seems to me that most humor is pointless and only acts as a distraction to whatever product is being shown. I hate that blinds commercial that shows a window to the backyard with the exploding barbeque fiasco going on throughout the entire ad. With all eyes on that silly thing, who if anyone could even say what the ad was about? Also, I think humor might be used as an attention getter, but only if it is crafted in the old tried and proven formula of, incident-point-benefit: the funny incident is shown, it has an easily understood big point to it, and that point clearly demonstrates a huge customer benefit (or a great USP).
Denis Laramée - Posted on November 10, 2006
Truth is, we don't really know how advertising works. Advertising content can have cognitive or affective effects. However, just liking a commercial can influence a brand's perception. In that light, humour, if it has a positive influence on liking the ad, is a good thing. The problem is that good humour is not easy to create and can always fall flat. The true mark of desperation is resorting to pointless humour when you can't think of anything else to do.
John Kennedy - Posted on November 10, 2006
Humorous or not I find most TV ads still focus on features rather than benefits. They gotta tell me what it does for ME and not make me wonder why I would want THAT thing!
Jeff Steele - Posted on November 10, 2006
Recalling Stan Freiberg's entertaining but often ineffectual ads, I agree that the humor in an ad can potentially obscure the product or the company, but it can be extremely effective in illustrating a concept. I have used it (in the caption and/or the graphic) in in-house publications and in direct mail, sometimes just to get the reader's attention, to promote income-paying charitable gifts. So far, we've beaten the control 100% of the time by a substantial margin, and, in some cases, by a multiple. More importantly, actual gift revenue from respondents was tracked as accurately as possible, and showed unprecedented results.
jrpolgar - Posted on November 10, 2006
Commercials on TV need to have some entertaining grab or they get bleebed as the viewer scans another program then flips back now and then to watch the show. My wife hates when I do that but like Denny, I'll watch several news programs at news time and for regular shows, I always have a back up program I can flip back and forth to. For me, seeing parts of a secondary program is better than watching a lot of commercials.

There are WAY too many cutsie commercials or those that are trying to win some production award. I can't recall how many times I've watched a commercial that was entertaining and kept me from flipping but there are quite a few these days. Unfortunately, those I hang around to watch, I can't figure out what they are selling at all or worse, I get it at the end with a few seconds flash. Problem is, I know nothing about the product or if it would benefit me in any way at all. Just that it was an interesting commercial. I don't like annoying ads either with shouting, old fashioned harping sales pitches.

What's worse is the fact the column is right! There's hundreds of channels out there. I often find myself spending 10 minutes surfing around all of them looking for something interesting and getting nothing but 100 commercials! I have all stations, pay a lot every month, and I feel like I'm paying for nothing at times. My wife will here me bemoan the fact with something like "@#$%@#$%!, 200 @#%@#$%#$@ stations and nothing to watch! Unbelievable! Call up and cancel this @#$% service!" the reply is "We get discount with the broadband and then you have to change e-mails and then..."

So I watch about as many rented videos a week as I watch programs on TV and just pay for both. By the way, except when my kid says "I WANT THAT" I don't buy anything because of an ad on TV. If I knew another way to figure what my children would like for present then even that wouldn't have an impact anymore :-)
Carl Street - Posted on November 09, 2006
BOTH you and Mr. Coggeshall have read it wrong; the fact is in 1947 there were only 87 TV sets in the USA... :)

Seriously, your point that modern technology has given advertisers the ability to definitively measure advertising effectiveness and its implications for "show biz" agencies is well taken and right on target.
Carl Street
carl_street@cjstreet.com
Denny Hatch - Posted on November 09, 2006
Denny Hatch replies to J.J. Coggeshall:

Thanx for writing.

If you go to the IAG Research Web site (www.iagr.net/) and and watch the automatic slide show at the left of your screen, you will see where I got the viewership stats for Berle, "Beverly Hillbillies" and "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." You are right. According to IAG the number was not 84% watching Berle. I copied it wrong. The number was 87%. Obviously it must refer to those homes that had television. Thanx again for writing. Cheers.
John Friesen - Posted on November 09, 2006
I couldn't agree more. When I was learning to be a copywriter, I picked up Herschell Gordon Lewis's excellent book: Direct Mail Copy That Sells. One of the first things I learned from it was: In the Age of Skepticism, cleverness for its own sake may well be a liability, rather than an asset. How true. I have found that mild humour works, though -- especially if done through a cartoon, such as the Seuss ad for Flit. The illustration is kind of amusing, but the message is specific and serious. Otherwise, unless you are a comedian, belly laughs are bad for business.
J.J. Coggeshall - Posted on November 09, 2006
Your article confirms most things I have heard or read about TV advertising over the years. However, I do not believe as stated that Milton Berle "was watched by an average of 84 percent of US households." in 1948-1950. There were many households throughout the U.S. that did not yet have TV in the household in that time period. I would believe that 84% of households that had TV watched him showing the large reach of the networks during the early days of TV.
Barb - Posted on November 09, 2006
Sorry, Denny, but I don't share your disdain for humorous advertising. We have TiVo and love it because we can skip the obnoxious commercials hammering us --including my kids, who I've taught how to fast-forward, since the ads for kids are the worst and most blatantly aggressive. We actually do stop fast-forwarding if we see something that looks funny. If it is, my husband will call me in from the other room to watch it. While it may not necessarily provide a lasting impression of the product, at least we saw it. It's better (for them) than a fast-forward that relegates them to oblivion. If we see another commercial from that company, we'll be more likely to stop and watch, so see if it was as good as the other one. Take Geico's neanderthals. Brilliant stuff. How about Vonage's super dumb blonde? CareerBuilder.com's office monkeys? Those build memorability. Forced sincerity or staged tender moments do nothing for me, as a consumer. Show me that you're clever. (Gotta be clever to produce good humor.) Then I'll be listening.
John Crowley - Posted on November 09, 2006
I do love humorous commercials. They are generally funnier and better written than most sitcoms. The problem, of course, is I rarely recall the advertiser. Remember the famous "I Can't Believe I Ate the Whole Thing" and "Spicy Meatball" spots done for Alka-Seltzer during the 1970s? They were huge hits that won all the major industry awards. Sales of Alka-Seltzer, however, continued to trend downward during their entire run. Seems everyone was laughing except the folks at Miles Laboratories.
Carol Brandt - Posted on November 09, 2006
Hear! Hear! I have never forgotten the funny tummy ads that didn't sell . . .
David Garfinkel - Posted on November 09, 2006
Seems to me that tossing away billions of dollars of ad fees that COULD have produced sales is no laughing matter. But of course there is a need for some kind of entertainment to keep eyeballs in an entertainment-oriented medium like TV. The folks at the agencies don't get how to do it, though. Two ways I've found to make humor work in an ad: Self-deprecation (which would be terribly hard for an agency to sell a client, since the client would think the smart alecs at the agency are trying to make fun of HIM (or her), rather than to advance sales of his or her products); and two, to make fun of the problem that the product is meant to solve. A friend of mine who used to be a carny would sell the Shammy at fairs and would make a joke: 'If you have a Golden Reliever... I mean a Golden Retriever...' By diminishing the problem you make the prospects feel bigger. They like that and then feel more likely to buy.
dena lackey - Posted on November 15, 2006
okay so don't tell my boss.... but what do you think of the way we used humor on our web site? www.ncgraphics.com
I'm not sure its professional enough but since we're designers the goal was to be clever... did it work? would you use us to brand your company or create a message for your target market.