 |
| The Three Stooges - Larry, Mo, & Curly made a poke in the eye funny. |
Each election season we are inundated with campaign ads. Whether on television, radio, the internet, or in print, these messages become a steady an irritating drone of noise for many. Each one represents millions of advertising dollars aimed at persuading the voting public that a particular candidate or piece of legislation is worthy or dangerous. Occasionally, a campaign may calculate that the injection of humor will set their politician apart from the others. However, this tactic has also proven to have disastrous results.
According Dr. Frank Luntz uthor of “Words That Work”, this political pollster and consultant states that the benefits of humor in this realm are, “It draws attention to the candidate, it helps you remember the candidate’s name, and it usually works at the beginning when you’ve got someone who’s unknown” (Luntz Global Video, 2014). He also details the negative aspects of this approach in a political climate. Dr. Luntz argues,
“If it goes too far, if it’s seen as frivolous, and in this environment where people are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, they really don’t want to laugh at politics” (Luntz Global Video, 2014).
In this interview, Dr. Luntz was referring to Joanie Ernst, the Republican senatorial candidate from Iowa. She attempted to integrate the humor of castrating pigs as a farm girl in Iowa to cutting the “pork” spending in Washington D.C. This combination of humor and content did not achieve the intended goal and “…humor and ad claims may have been judged to be independently successful, but the combination was considered inappropriate or ineffective…” (Cline & Kellaris, 1999, para. 7). While the ad did increase her name recognition, it was also judged to be a significant failure, lacking in good taste and common sense.
While humor in politics can be quite risky, sometimes there is also a significant payoff. As argued by Lytell, some of the heuristic or peripheral factors which influence individual are, “…whether the source is likable, in terms of both being attractive…and being similar to the receiver” (as cited in Lyttel, 2001, p.211). In 1992, Governor Bill Clinton appeared on the Arsenio Hall show. A first for any presidential contender, he began by playing his saxophone, followed by an interview. This type of exposure opened the candidate to a great deal of criticism but also humanized him in the eyes of younger voters. Rather than a public relation disaster, this risk instead created an instant media sensation and massive name recognition for Clinton.
Comedian, Chris Rock attempted to use humor in a monologue concerning the Boston Marathon bombings and The World Trade Center bombing. Although, in the world of comedy it is widely believed that nothing is off limits, his monologue was met with sharp criticism. Rock’s comments included,
“You've been training for a year, you finally get to the finish line, and somebody screams: 'Run!” and “They should change the name from the Freedom Tower to the 'Never Going in There' Tower. Because I'm never going in there” (Saturday Night Live, 2014).
For many, the events were too recent and horrific for them to be viewed in any type of humorous light and thus, Rock’s attempt at persuading viewers that this was funny, was not entirely successful.
From underwear to cookies, advertisers have found ways to humorously and memorably market products. Fruit of the Loom has used a convivial group of dancing and singing fruit to bring the concept of men’s briefs into the American living room. While many ad campaigns used celebrity endorsements or suggestive images, this company achieved a market presence by infusing the concept with humor. Although, viewers were greeted by talking grapes and other fruit, the “liking principle” was in full effect. (Magee, 2014, ch. 12.5) Fruit of the Loom simultaneously combined humor, message, and product. Consumers were persuaded to purchase this brand.
Fans of the Kansas City Royals employed a unique campaign which used the slogan, “We Don’t Suck Anymore”. Although products with this line were non-licensed, they went viral as fans humorously celebrated the return of their team to World Series. People were persuaded to buy the items and this is illustrative of “ironic wisecracks” and “self-effacing humor” (Cline & Kellaris, 1999, para. 1). Additionally it is stated, “Another way that humor might be effective in persuasion is to block systematic/central processing by distracting receivers from constructing counterarguments” (Lyttel, 2001, p. 207). By drawing attention to the shortcomings of the team and poor record since 1985, the slogan effectively stopped any counter arguments concerning which team’s record was stronger.
The creators of School House Rock used entertainment education infused with humor to impart a variety of lessons. Generations of children remember the images of a sad and lonely “Bill sittin’ on Capitol Hill” and “Lolly, Lolly, Lolly, get your adverbs here”. (Schoolhouse Rock, 2014) This groundbreaking group of musical lessons entertained children, while persuading them to learn. These memorable messages have passed the test of time and become a fixture of American pop culture and learning.
Indeed, humor is an effective tool for persuasion. Used properly, it can elevate a product, personality, or situation. However, there are circumstances in which humor may indeed have a deleterious effect. Tragic events or situations which require careful and analytical thinking would likely not benefit from the use of humor. In such instances, the application of humor might be viewed as poorly timed or in poor taste. Lyttel presented the “elaboration likelihood model” (as cited in Lyttel, 2011, p. 209), as an instance when “receivers assess persuasive messages differently depending on (among other things) their involvement with the issue” (Lyttel, 2001, p.209). When used haphazardly, ill-timed humor may actually persuade individuals to move in the opposite direction of that which was intended.
Arguably, there are many applications for persuading with humor in advertising, educating, and in skillfully crafted political moments. While it is possible to successfully combine elements of persuasion with humor, careful consideration must also be given to the timeliness and climate in which an audience will receive them. Humor can be a powerful tool in the arsenal of those who seek to persuade. It is wise to remember that to the receiver, faulty humor may feel more like a sharp stick to the eye, rather than a gregarious poke in the ribs.
References
Cline, T.W., & Kellaris, J.J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16 (1), 69-87.
Luntz Global Video. (2014, November, 1) Political Ads. [Video File]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbSQi6ALdIY
Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. The Journal of General Psychology, 128 (2), 206-217.
Magee, R. (2014). Persuasion: A social science approach. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Saturday Night Live. (2014, November 2) Chris Rock Monologue. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYZLKqGhSZs
Schoolhouse Rock. (2014, October, 29) America Rock. [Video File]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/_EyEujsvXIs
No comments :
Post a Comment