A Cross-Cultural Typology of

Advertising HumorJAMES M. BARRY

SANDRA S. GRAÇA

2013 Cross Cultural Research Conference

Antigua, Guatemala 12/08/13

Contribution

• This research provides marketers with meaningful frameworks for crafting humor-based content strategies in a global setting• High growth in edu-taining social videos*

• Humor continues as most popular form of entertainment in commercials

• But meaningful humor typologies are lacking

• This research is based on large scale, TV commercial evaluations using social engagement data

• This research provides a manageable set of humor classifications that are well aligned with theory

• Typology further reveals some anticipated cultural reactions to aggressive humor types considered in the derived typology

* 87% of marketers use video for content marketing; $6.3B to be spent on video ads in 2015

Objectives

• Inductively derive a humor typology from: • Large scale sampling viral YouTube videos recast from

commercials

• High level sort of comic devices into theory-based classifications

• Model synthesis to fit multi-theory taxonomies and researched comic devices

• Examine effectiveness of humor types for a final typology selection and framework for cultural analysis• Examine empirical results relative to literature findings

• Qualify humor performance from viral video statistics

• Compare performance of each type across national cultures

Importance of Humor

• Humor in advertising dominates entertainment in spot TV and online commercials• Accelerated growth in viral video

marketing• Almost every major brand uses YouTube

as a back channel for recast TV commercials

• > 6B hours of video are watched each month on YouTube

• 95% of viral videos are entertaining, two-thirds of which are intended to be funny

• Nearly $50 billion is spent annually on worldwide humorous commercials

Viral YouTube Videos (> 50K Views) Recast from TV Commercials

Non-Humorous EntertainmentInformativ

e

Humorous Entertainment

3 Theories of Humor

•Cognitive (Ah-Hah!)•Emotional (Ha! Ha!)•Physiological (Ahh!)

Incongruity-ResolutionRelief-Release

Superiority

Incongruity-Resolution Theory of Humor

• Humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between:• What we expect• And what actually happens

• Main point of the theory• Is not the incongruity • It’s the resolution (i.e., putting the objects

in question into the real relation)

Incongruity

Resolution

Ah Hah!

Cognitive Stimulus

Superiority Theory of Humor (Disparagement)

• Laughter is a "sudden glory” we feel when witnessing the misfortunes of others (schadenfreude)

• Misfortunes assert the person's superiority on the background of another’s shortcomings

• Seen as aggressive and disparaging, reactions to this humor are mixed

Ha Ha!

Social Stimulus

Tension-Relief (Arousal-Safety) Theory of Humor

• Laughter results when psychological tension is reduced

• Homeostatic (arousal-safety) mechanism from release of nervous energy or hysteria• Overcoming sociocultural inhibitions

• Revealing suppressed desires

• Barely escaping danger

Ahh!Affective Stimulus

Literature Review

• Speck’s (1991) humorous message taxonomy defines 5 humor types • Framework demonstrates multi-theory interactions, but lacks specificity &

an adequate framework for cultural sensitivity examination • Berger (1993) and Buijzen & Valkenburg (2004) identified 200+ comic

devices• Lee and Lim (2008) and Hatzithomas et al. (2011) examine cultural

influencesSpeck (1991)

Complex Nature of Humor Complicates Typology

• Humor is derived from complex cognitive and psychological conditions

• Studies still lack a foundation in which to appropriately categorize humor in line with well accepted theories• Broad theories at one end

• Too many humor categories of mixed concepts at other end (e.g., mixes of comic devices or skit manipulations)

Synthesis of Comic Devices & Theory

Theory

Incongruity-Resolution

Superiority

Arousal-Safety (Relief)

Speck’s TaxonomyComic Wit

Resonant Wit

Satire

Resonant Comedy

Full Comedy

Comic DevicesPuns

HyperboleParodies

StereotypingSarcasmMockerySlapstick

etc.

Incongruity Mechanisms

Conceptual Discord

Aberrant Behaviors

Visual Anomalies

Methodology

• Examined re-casted spot television ads posted on YouTube

• 2107 commercials (> 50K views, past decade) were classified as having content intended to be humorous• Views measured for attention

• Net likes and comments captured for engagement

• Up to three comic devices per episode

• Commercials were then defined and sorted into categories of comic devices that dominated the commercial

• 1st level consolidation of comic devices was based on face value discovery of in-group conceptual similarity and distinctiveness across groups

Example Comic Device: Babies Performing as

Adults

Methodology

• Incongruity Theory: Royal family out of sorts

• Superiority Theory: Society satire

• Relief Theory: Letting loose of parliamentary process

Full Comedy: Social Order Deviancy

Response to Cognitive Shift

Feelings of Sudden Glory • Malicious Joy (C)*• Mocked Peculiarities (C)• Lofty Conquests (C)• Society Satire (C, E)*,#• Awkward Moments (E)*,#

Repressed Energy Release • Impulsive Outbursts (D, E)• Exercising Improprieties (D, E)• Displaced Embarrassment (D,

E)*,#• Strange Sentimental Response

(D)• Displaced Irritation (D)• Suspenseful Relief (D)

Social Order Deviancy• Outwitted Censorship• Unprepared Remorseful

Predicament• Slapstick Comedy*,#• Unleashed Insanity

Incongruity Mechanisms• PD: Perceptual

Displacement • IJ: Ironic Juxtaposition• P: Puns • H: Hyperbole• ST: Surprise Twist

Aberrant Behaviors• PD: Maladroitness (C)*,#• PD: Irreverence (D)*,# • PD: Eccentricity (A, C, D)*,# • IJ: Ironic Behaviors (A, C)*,#• H: Over-reactive Behaviors (A, C, D)

Visual Anomalies• PD: Scale Distortion (A, C)*,#• PD: Grotesque Appearance (A, C)*,#• PD: Mimicry/Impersonation (A, C)*,#• IJ: Visual Surprise (A)*,#• IJ: Visual Irony (A)*,# • IJ: Dramatic Irony (C)*,#• H: Exaggerated Qualities (A)*,#• H: Speed Distortion (A)*,#• ST: Transformation (A)*,#

Conceptual Discord• PD: Nonsense (A)*, #• PD: Strange Settings (A)• PD: Ignorance (C)*,#• IJ: Misunderstandings (A)*,#• IJ: Situational Irony/Coincidence (A,

C)*,#• IJ: Untimely Quandaries/Mishaps (C,

E)• IJ: Illusory Superiority (C) • P: Puns (A)*,#• H: Exaggerated Outcomes (A)*,#• H: Understatements (A)• ST: Conceptual Surprises (A, C, D)*• ST: Reversals (A, C, D)

Ad Performance• Attention• Likeability• Engagement

Arousal Mechanisms• Shameful Discoveries• Melodrama• Taboos• Narrow Escape• Suspense• Dream Exploits• Disappointment• Sexual Allusions*,#• Infantilism*,#• Aggression• Antagonism• Anxiety

Mockery Mechanisms • Misfortune (C) • Sarcasm & Insults (C)*,#• Stereotyping (C)• Parodies (C)*• Background Mockery (C)• Outwitting (C)*• Delusions of Grandeur (C)• Humbled Haughtiness (C)• Highlighted Inferiorities (C)

Humor Types (Speck, 1991)A. Comic Wit (Incongruence)B. Sentimental Humor (Arousal-Safety)C. Satire (Incongruence + Disparagement )D. Sentimental Comedy (Incongruence +

Arousal-Safety)E. Full Comedy (Incongruence,

Disparagement + Arousal-Safety)

* Humor technique adopted from Buijzen and Valkenburg (2004)

# Humor technique adopted from Berger (1993)

A

B

C

DE

Synthesis of Theory, Speck’s Taxonomy, Comic Device Literature &

Test ResultsSpeck Humor Types Incongruency Disparagement Arousal-Safety Humor Type 1 Humor Type 2 Humor Type 3

Full Comedy High High High Social Order Deviancy AwkwardnessSatire High High Low Putdowns Malicious JoySentimental Comedy

High Low High Unruliness

Comic Wit * High Low Low Absurdity 1) Irony 2) Surprise 3)

Sentimental Humor Low Low High Sentimental Humor

Conceptual Discord Aberrant Behaviors Visual AnomaliesPerceptual Dispacement

Nonsense & Strange Settings

EccentricityDistortions &

Impersonations1) Absurdity

Ironic JuxtapositionMisunderstandings &

Situational IronyIronic Behaviors

Visual Surprise & Visual Irony

2) Irony

Puns Puns NA NA Small Volume

HyperboleExaggerated Outcomes &

UnderstatementsOver-reactive Behaviors Exaggerated Qualities 1) Absurdity

Surprise Twist Conceptual Surprise NA Transformation 3) Surprise

* Incongruity Mechanisms

Typology of 9 Humor Types

1. Absurdity

2. Irony

3. Surprise

4. Malicious Joy

5. Putdowns

6. Unruliness

7. Social Order Deviancy

8. Awkwardness

9. Sentimental Humor

Inductive Support of Incongruity Theory

17 Performing/ Talking Babies 33 Cyborgs Acting as Humans 53 Wrong Answer1 Exaggerated Results 18 Animal Willpower 34 Humans Acting as Animals 54 Uneventful Conclusion2 Exaggerated Response 19 Multiple Personalities 35 Hypocritical Behaviors 55 Absurd Chain Reaction3 Exaggerated Nightmare Reactions 20 Foolishness 36 Oxymorons4 Exaggerated Stories 37 Unusual Pairing 56 Storyline Twist

21 Illustrated Idioms 57 Fantasy Turned Reality5 Unrattled by Danger 22 Humanized Depiction 38 Callous Turned Kind 58 Twist of Fate6 Exaggerated Simplicity 23 Unusual Setting 39 Miscast Temperament7 Exaggerated Concealment 24 Unconventional Routine 40 Soft Tough Guy 59 Age Transformation 8 Profound Grasp of the Obvious 41 Unlikely Friendliness 60 Magic

25 Object Replacement 42 Unusually Considerate 61 Body Switch26 Sound Imitations

9 Exaggerated Body Reactions 27 Animal Substitution 43 Adult Acting Child 62 Surprise Revelation10 Supernatural Performance 28 Anthropomorphism 44 Childish Adult 63 Creature Appearance 11 Incredible Allure 45 Miscast Role 64 Wishful Thinking12 Speed & Scale Distortion 29 Dim-witted 46 Mistaken Identity

30 Baffling Dialog 47 Unlikely Hero31 Irrelevance

13 Taking Extreme Measures 32 Confusing Response 48 Anachronisms 14 Awestruck 49 Coincidental Backlash15 Over Intense 50 Miscommunications16 Over Heroic 51 Misplaced Routine

52 Misunderstood Intentions

Theory of Incongruity

CONCEPTUAL DISCORD

VISUAL ANOMALIES

ABERRANT BEHAVIORS

Ironic TemperamentMisrepresented Context

Bizarre Substitutions

Nonsense

Ironic Persona

EXAGGERATION IRONYVisual Irony

Exaggerated Outcomes

Understatement

Exaggerated Qualities

Overreactions

Odd BehaviorsPERCEPTIONAL DISCORD

Visual Surprise

SURPRISE TWIST

Situational Irony

Conceptual Surprises

Plot Trickery

Transformation

Inductive Support of Superiority Theory

65 Background Mockery 81 Accident Prone 101 Tough Predicaments66 Illusory Superiority 82 Futile Attempts 102 Regretful Actions 67 Maladroitness 83 Innocently Offensive 103 Regretful Statements 68 Quirkiness 84 Toxic Stupor 104 Caught Off Guard

69 Outwitting 85 Unexpected Danger 105 Uncomfortable Male Bonding 70 Macho Gone Sour 86 Unexpected Injury 106 Uncomfortable Intimacy71 Arrogant Knockdowns 87 Unexpected Damage 107 Uncomfortable Conversation72 Unfair Advantage 88 Spoiled Romance 108 Creepiness

73 Exaggerated Cultural Nuance 89 Bad Timing 109 Wrong Impression74 Parodies 90 Bad Idea 110 Exposed Privacy75 Language Peculiarities 91 Lost Opportunity 111 Public Embarassment76 Cheeky Barbs 92 Unforeseen Consequences 112 Unveiled Feminine Side

77 Blondes & Bubbas 93 Paybacks 113 Captured Glances78 Sterotyped Professions 94 Backfires 114 Revealed Deceptions79 Celebrity Impersonation 95 Hangovers 115 Exposed True Colors80 Beauty Conquered Male 96 Overextended 116 Revealed Fantasies

97 Cavemen98 Grotesque & Deformed99 Derelicts100 Gross Incompetence

AWKWARDNESS

Stereotyping

PUTDOWNSMocked Peculiarities

Lofty Conquest

Society Satire

Bungling Behaviors

Unanticipated Spoiler

MALICIOUS JOY

Unfortunate Happenstance

Deserved Repercussions

Cretins

Remorseful Regrets

Uncomfortable Settings

Exercising Humility

Revealed Secrets

Inductive Support of Relief/Release Theory

117 Angry Yelling 133 High Society Satires 149 Youthful Discoveries118 Nervous Breakdown 134 Outwitting the Honorable 150 Inner Child119 Sports Fanatical 135 Rule Breaking 151 Child Mimicry of 120 Extreme Screaming 136 Undermining Authority

152 Narrow Escape121 Belligerance 137 Taboos & Sacred Barriers 153 Fear of What's to 122 Forceful Demonstration 138 Exercising Professional 154 Barely Escaped 123 Spontaneous Performance 139 Exhibitionism124 Body Explosion 140 Face Slapping 155 Histrionic Behaviors

156 Melancholic Behaviors125 Annoying Natures 141 Odor Offensive 157 Fervent Behaviors126 Incessant Talker 142 Repulsive Behaviors127 Ending the Annoyance 143 Unrefined Behaviors 158 Dream Exploits 128 Annoying Repetitions 144 Bleeped Language 159 Suggestive Sexual

160 Contradicting Inner 129 Invasive Peeking 145 Mad Science130 Disorderly Pop Culture Lexicons 146 Sadomasochism131 Recalcitrance 147 Public Disturbance132 Unsightly Exposure 148 Swooning Women

Impulsive Outbursts

SOCIAL ORDER DEVIANCY SENTIMENTAL HUMOR

Displaced Irritation

Exercising Improprieties

Society Irreverence

Forbidden Behaviors

Inner Secrets

Hysteria

Offensive Behaviors

Unleashed Mania

Child Innocence

Fear & Anxiety Relief

Melodrama

UNRULINESS

Categorizing Across Cultures

• To qualify each commercial by national culture, viewers from over 100 nations were recorded from YouTube stats

• 92 countries were scored according to Hofstede’s measurements • Some based on Hofstede’s original research

• Some based on subsequent studies from other researchers

• Country scoring was not available for approx. 20% of the sample

• In order to show substantial differences across cultural dimensions, scores between 40 and 60 were removed as being moderate

Country PD

I Sc

ore

H,M

,L*

IND

V S

core

H,M

,L*

MA

SC S

core

H,M

,L*

UA

I Sc

ore

H,M

,L*

Country PD

I Sc

ore

H,M

,L*

IND

V S

core

H,M

,L*

MA

SC S

core

H,M

,L*

UA

I Sc

ore

H,M

,L*

Argentina 49 M 46 M 56 M 86 H Lebanon 75 H 40 M 65 H 50 MAustralia 36 L 90 H 61 H 51 M Lithuania 40 L 60 H 30 L 60 HAustria 11 L 55 M 79 H 70 H Luxembourg 40 L 60 H 50 M 70 HBangladesh 80 H 20 L 55 M 60 H Malaysia 104 H 26 L 50 M 36 LBelgium 65 H 75 H 54 M 94 H Mexico 81 H 30 L 69 H 82 HBrazil 69 H 38 L 49 M 76 H Morocco 70 H 25 L 53 M 68 HBulgaria 70 H 30 L 40 L 85 H Nepal 63 H 30 L 40 L 40 LCanada 39 L 80 H 52 M 48 M Netherlands 38 L 80 H 14 L 53 MChad 77 H 20 L 46 M 54 M New Zealand 22 L 79 H 58 M 49 MChile 63 H 23 L 28 L 86 H Nigeria 80 H 30 L 60 H 55 MChina 80 H 20 L 66 H 30 L Norway 31 L 69 H 8 L 50 MColombia 67 H 13 L 64 H 80 H Pakistan 55 M 14 L 50 M 70 HCongo 77 H 20 L 46 M 54 M Panama 95 H 11 L 44 M 86 HCosta Rica 35 L 15 L 21 L 86 H Peru 64 H 16 L 42 M 87 HCroatia 73 H 33 L 40 L 80 H Philippines 94 H 32 L 64 H 44 MCzech Rep. 57 M 58 M 57 M 74 H Poland 68 H 60 H 64 H 93 HDenmark 18 L 74 H 16 L 23 L Portugal 63 H 27 L 31 L 104 HEcuador 78 H 8 L 63 H 67 H Puerto Rico 62 H 84 H 60 H 61 HEgypt 70 H 25 L 45 M 80 H Qatar 80 H 38 L 52 M 68 HEl Salvador 66 H 19 L 40 L 94 H Romania 90 H 30 L 42 M 90 HEstonia 40 L 60 H 30 L 60 H Russia 93 H 39 L 36 L 95 HEthiopia 70 H 20 L 65 H 55 M Saudi Arabia 95 H 25 L 60 H 80 HFinland 33 L 63 H 26 L 59 M Serbia 86 H 25 L 43 M 92 HFrance 68 H 71 H 43 M 86 H Singapore 74 H 20 L 48 M 8 LGermany 35 L 67 H 66 H 65 H Slovakia 104 H 52 M 110 H 51 MGhana 80 H 15 L 40 L 65 H Slovenia 71 H 27 L 19 L 88 HGreece 60 H 35 L 57 M 112 H South Africa 49 M 65 H 63 H 49 MGuatemala 95 H 6 L 37 L 101 H South Korea 60 H 18 L 39 L 85 HGuyana 77 H 20 L 46 M 54 M Spain 57 M 51 M 42 M 86 HHong Kong 68 H 25 L 57 M 29 L Sri Lanka 68 H 50 M 40 L 45 MHungary 46 M 80 H 88 H 82 H Sweden 31 L 71 H 5 L 29 LIceland 30 L 60 H 10 L 50 M Switzerland 34 L 68 H 70 H 58 MIndia 77 H 48 M 56 M 40 L Taiwan 58 M 17 L 45 M 69 HIndonesia 78 H 14 L 46 M 48 M Thailand 64 H 20 L 34 L 64 HIran 58 M 41 M 43 M 59 M Trinidad 47 M 16 L 58 M 55 MIraq 95 H 30 L 70 H 85 H Turkey 66 H 37 L 45 M 85 HIreland 28 L 70 H 68 H 35 L UAE 90 H 25 L 50 M 80 HIsrael 13 L 54 M 47 M 81 H Uganda 77 H 20 L 46 M 54 MItaly 50 M 76 H 70 H 75 H UK 35 L 89 H 66 H 35 LJamaica 45 M 39 L 68 H 13 L Ukraine 96 H 38 L 40 L 93 HJapan 54 M 46 M 95 H 92 H Uruguay 61 H 36 L 38 L 100 HJordan 80 H 38 L 52 M 68 H US 40 L 91 H 62 H 46 MKenya 64 H 27 L 41 M 52 M Venezuela 81 H 12 L 73 H 76 HKuwait 90 H 25 L 40 L 80 H Vietnam 70 H 20 L 40 L 30 LLatvia 40 L 60 H 30 L 60 H Yemen 80 H 38 L 52 M 68 H

Zaire/Zambia 60 H 35 L 40 L 50 M

* H- High Score; M - Moderate Score; L - Low Score

Evaluation of Humor Effectiveness Along Individualistic Dimensions

• Only half of the entertaining commercials viewed in collectivist cultures were considered humorous

• Aggressive humor (e.g., unruliness, putdowns and malicious joy) scored higher in engagement among highly individualistic cultures

• Collectivist cultures may see aggressive humor as offensive, socially inappropriate or running counter to relational harmony

•

Enga

gem

ent*

-40%

Attention*

High INDV

+40%

-80%n = 2501 commercials

Circle size denotes

number of commercials.

Humor (68%)Non-Humor (32%)

+50% +100% +150%

-50%-100%-150%

+80%

Enga

gem

ent

*

Surprise

Sentimental Humor

Putdowns

Non-Humor

Unruliness

Irony

Malicious Joy

Awkwardness

Absurdity

Social Order Deviancy

-40%

Attention*

LowINDV

+40%

-80%n = 635 commercials

Circle size denotes

number of commercials.

Humor (49%)Non-Humor (51%)

+50% +100% +150%

-50%-100%-150%

+80%

Enga

gem

ent

*

Social Order Deviancy

Surprise

Sentimental Humor

Putdowns

Non-Humor

Irony

Malicious Joy

Awkwardness

AbsurdityUnruliness

Evaluation of Humor Effectiveness Along Uncertainty Avoidance Dimensions

• As expected, viewers from countries of high uncertainty avoidance essentially dismiss humor based on absurdities • HIGH UAI: 30% below average on engagement

and 20% below average on attention • LOW UAI: 15% above average on engagement

and 70% above average on attention

• Consistent with the literature, this could reflect their inherent aversion to ambiguity (Hatzithomas et al. 2011; Lee and Lim, 2008)

-40%

Attention*

Low UAI

+40%

-80%n = 469 commercials

Circle size denotes number of commercials.

Humor (60%)

Non-Humor (40%)

+50% +100% +150%-50%-100%-150%

+80%

Enga

gem

ent*

Surprise

Sentimental Humor

Putdowns

Unruliness

Irony

Social Order Deviancy

Malicious Joy

Awkwardness

Non-HumorAbsurdity

-40%

Attention*

High UAI

+40%

-80%n = 804 commercials

Circle size denotes number of commercials.

Humor (54%)

Non-Humor (46%)

+50% +100% +150%-50%-100%-150%

+80%

SurpriseSentimental Humor

Putdowns

Unruliness

Social Order

Deviancy

Malicious Joy

AbsurdityNon-

Humor

Awkwardness

Irony

Evaluation of Humor Effectiveness Along Masculinity Dimensions

• In the case of masculinity, samples from highly masculine cultures showed: • Higher engagement scores on putdowns, and

• Higher attention scores on unruliness as compared to their feministic counterparts

• This is consistent with the more aggressive and competitive nature of masculine societies.

• Samples from feministic cultures also showed more preference to non-humorous forms of entertainment.

-40%

High MASC

+40%

-80%n = 1834 commercials

Circle size denotes number of commercials.

Humor (66%)

Non-Humor (34%)

+50% +100% +150%-50%-100%-150%

+80%

Enga

gem

ent*

SurpriseSentimental

HumorPutdowns

Unruliness

Irony

Social Order DeviancyMalicious Joy

Awkwardness

Absurdity

Non-Humor

-40%

Attention*

Low MASC

+40%

-80%n = 392 commercials

Circle size denotes number of commercials.

Humor (49%)

Non-Humor (51%)

+50% +100% +150%-50%-100%-150%

+80%

Enga

gem

ent*

SurpriseSentimental Humor

Putdowns

Non-Humor

UnrulinessSocial Order Deviancy

Malicious JoyAwkwardness

Absurdity

Irony

Evaluation of Humor Effectiveness Along Power Distance Dimensions

• Contrary to Lee and Lim (2008), viewers from cultures of high power distance show far less engagement and viewing of commercials featuring disparagement (e.g., putdowns)

• This would suggest that individuals from these nations are sensitive to their class structure and, consequently, feel uncomfortable exploiting someone’s stature.

-40%

Attention*

High PDI

+40%

-80%n = 774 commercials

Circle size denotes number of commercials.

Humor (52%)

Non-Humor (48%)

+50% +100% +150%-50%-100%-150%

+80%

Surprise

Sentimental Humor

PutdownsUnruliness

Irony

Social Order Deviancy

Malicious JoyAwkwardness

Non-Humor

Absurdity

-40%

Attention*

Low PDI

+40%

-80%n = 2335 commercials

Circle size denotes number of commercials.

Humor (69%)

Non-Humor (31%)

+50% +100% +150%-50%-100%-150%

+80%

Enga

gem

ent*

Surprise

Sentimental Humor

UnrulinessIrony

Malicious Joy

Awkwardness

Absurdity

Non-Humor

Putdowns

Social Order Deviancy

Conclusion

• This research found 9 humor types to represent the vast majority of high performing commercials when measured by total views and social media engagement.

• The sample was large enough to further explore the cross-cultural distinctions inferred in the literature.

• Among the humor types that consistently score above average across most cultures are those based on the incongruity theory (e.g., absurdity, irony and surprise).

Conclusion

• Many of the cultural distinctions fall along the lines of negative or aggressive humor

• This implies that advertisers should be sensitive to a culture’s receptivity to humor that is deemed disparaging or socially inappropriate.

Limitations

• Single author evaluation of humor devices

• Study is exploratory • Requires several controls on advertising effectiveness (e.g., controls for

cultural actors, skit manipulations, brand preference, demographic appeal, etc.)

• Lacks analysis of multi-theory influences (combined influence of incongruity, superiority and relief effects)

• YouTube statistics do not isolate video performance by country (i.e., uses top 3 country stats for total view and likeability count)

Thank You

?

References

Berger, Arthur Asa (1993). An Anatomy of Humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Buijzen , M. & Valkenburg, P.M. (2004). Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychology, 6, 147-167. Hatzithomas, L., Zotos, Y., Boutsouki, C. (2011). Humor and cultural values in print advertising: a cross cultural study. International Marketing Review, 28(1), 57-80. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lee, Y.H. & Lim, E.A.C. (2008). What’s funny and what’s not: the moderating role of cultural orientation in ad humor. Journal of Advertising. 37(2), 71-84. Speck, P.S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. In Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 13, James Leigh & Claude Martin, Jr EDS. University of Michigan, 1-44.