Research Project

Humour in Advertising: Does Humour in television advertising affect consumer

Brand Perception? A Statistical analysis

Stuart McDougall

Bath Spa University

5th of April 2017

Word Count - 9003

1
Abstract
The use of humour in advertising is vastly used by practitioners and marketers alike. Many adverts
on television contain humour. Using humour in television advertising has many advantages. The
literature poses that humour is effective in gaining and retaining consumers’ attention, it also makes
the brand more memorable in the mind of the consumer. Humour has also a very broad scope, with
their being many humour types. This research project looks at humour in television advertising and
its effect on the brand. More specifically the research question ‘Does humour in television
advertising affect consumer brand perception?’

From the research question two objectives where constructed in order help achieve answering the
question. One objective has been subsequently broken down in to three objectives as to give clarity
when answering the research question

Firstly,

1) Does Humour have a positive effect on consumer brand perception

o Does humour have a negative effective on consumer brand perception
o The humour used in television advertising has no effect on consumer brand
perception
2) What type of humour do consumers find the funniest and how does this affect their
consumer brand perception.

In order to achieve the objectives a questionnaire was constructed using a range of Likert scale and
open ended questions. The two questions sought to incorporate a mixed method of both
quantitative and qualitative data.

The key findings form the research project was that the humour used in television adverts has no
effect on consumer brand perception. Furthermore, consumers rated silliness to be the funniest type
of humour. However, it failed to change the change the consumers brand perception.

2
Contents
Table of Figures.....................................................................................................................................4
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5
Research Question.............................................................................................................................6
Research Objectives..........................................................................................................................6
Literature Review..................................................................................................................................7
Humour in Advertising.......................................................................................................................7
Humour Types.................................................................................................................................10
Effects of Humour on the Brand......................................................................................................12
Methodology...................................................................................................................................14
Research Approach..........................................................................................................................14
Data Collection................................................................................................................................14
Questionnaire..............................................................................................................................14
The Consumers............................................................................................................................15
Selection of Advertisements............................................................................................................15
Data Analysis...................................................................................................................................16
Quantitative.................................................................................................................................16
Qualitative...................................................................................................................................17
Reliability and Validity.....................................................................................................................17
Ethical Considerations.....................................................................................................................18
Results.............................................................................................................................................19
Quantitative results.....................................................................................................................19
Qualitative Results.......................................................................................................................27
Limitations to Data Collection......................................................................................................32
Discussion............................................................................................................................................33
Does Humour have a positive effect on consumer brand perception.............................................33
Does humour have a negative effect on consumer brand perception.............................................34
The Humour used in television advert has no effect on the consumers brand perception.............34
What type of Humour do consumers find the funniest and how does this affect their brand
perception.......................................................................................................................................35
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................37
Limitations to research project and future recommendations for research....................................38

3
Table of Figures
Figure 1................................................................................................................................................20
Figure 2................................................................................................................................................20
Figure 3................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 4................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 5................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 6................................................................................................................................................23
Figure 7................................................................................................................................................24
Figure 8................................................................................................................................................24
Figure 9................................................................................................................................................25
Figure 10..............................................................................................................................................26
Figure 11..............................................................................................................................................26
Figure 12..............................................................................................................................................27
Figure 13..............................................................................................................................................28
Figure 14..............................................................................................................................................29
Figure 15..............................................................................................................................................30
Figure 16..............................................................................................................................................31

4
Chapter 1
This first chapter seeks to introduce a small background into the use of humour in television
advertising and also the reasons as to why a research project has been pursued in this field.
Subsequently, at the close of this chapter the research question and research objectives shall be
outlined.

Introduction
When considering building a brand and its importance due to its ability to grow an organisations
market share, television advertisements is one of the strongest tools which can be used by
practitioners to build the brand which can be nationally, sometimes universally recognised.
Therefore, the message a television ad relays must be one which can be accepted and interpreted by
most. Nowadays consumers have various options and the availability to skip adverts by changing
channels. Thus, advertisements have a tougher task of conveying their message and promoting the
brand. One technique which can be used in a television advertisement which has the potential to
keep the viewer from changing the channel is humour. According to Beard (2005) one out of every
five television ads contains humorous appeals. Furthermore, humour stands as one of the few
universals applicable to all and all languages throughout the world (Kruger 1996). However, although
humour can be applicable to all it can become subjective in its interpretation. What one person may
find humorous another could find distasteful and not applicable. Thus, when practitioners are
creating a humorous ad it must become apparent that not all viewers will find this humorous.
Moreover, a possible downside of the use of humour is that people may focus so strongly on the
advertisements entertainment aspect that the product or brand information does not get through
(Kuilenburg, Jong, Rompay 2011). This research project aims to delve further into the use of humour
in television advertisements but overall it aims to better understand how perceptions of a brand
may or may not be influenced by the use of humour. Perceptions play a fundamental role when
consumers are making a logical decision whether to shop, purchase or use a particular service of an
organisation or brand. Perception is defined as the way in which someone views/regard something.
Previous advertising research conducted by concluded that humorous advertising positively affected
the viewer’s mood. Also Madden et al (1988) found that humorous advertisements have the ability
to draw more positive feelings than non-humorous ads.

5
Research Question
Does Humour in Television advertising affect consumer brand perception?

Research Objectives

H1- Does the humour used in a television advertisement have a positive effect on consumer brand
perception?

o H1.2 – Does humour used in a television advertisement have a negative effect on

consumers brand perception?

o H1.3 – The humour used in television advertisement has no effect on consumer

brand perception?

 H2 – What do consumers think is the funniest type of humour? And how does this effect
their brand perception?

6
Chapter 2
In the previous chapter a research area has been outlined which gave an overall purpose to this
research project which resulted in a research question followed by two research objectives. Thus,
this chapter will seek to review the relative literature in relations to our research objectives, such as
relative literature on the use of humour in advertising and also its effect on brands and further
literature regarding the different types of humour used in television advertising.

Literature Review

Humour in Advertising
Through initial research into the topic not many results had been yielded and although advertisers
have employed humour into their advertisement campaigns Sternthal and Craig state that relatively
little is known about persuasive effect of humour (Sternthal and Craig, 1973). They suggest that
there are two design approaches which dominate the experimental literature on humour. In one
approach attitudinal measures are taken before and after being presented with satirical
communication. The other method involves a comparison of the persuasive effects of humorous as
opposed to serious messages. Although Sternthal and Craig laid foundations for understanding the
theoretical design when experimenting humour they were only able to draw some tentative
conclusions on a number of communication goals such as message comprehension, persuasion,
communication source and audience characteristics. These conclusions must be viewed as tentative
because although based on all of the available literature at the time, the literature was rather small
and consisted exclusively of non-advertising studies as there was simply little to no prior work in
advertising to review.

However, through further researching this topic, over time, much more research had been
undertaken. We have learned that humour is a widely used technique in advertising with studies
suggesting that as much as 24.4% of prime time television in the U.S has humorous intent
(Weinberger and Spots 1989).This has also been supported by an earlier study by Kelly and Solomon
who summarise that approximately 15% of advertisers are using humorous appeals in television
advertisements (Kelly and Solomon,1975) Having established that humour has been used to enhance
message communication (Kelly and Solomon, 1975), further research has been conducted deeper
into different aspects. Research has been conducted in how humour can affect attention with results
yielding that 94% of advertising practitioners see humour as an effective way to gain attention with

7
also a further 55% of advertising researchers believing humour to be superior to non-humorous in
gaining attention (Madden and Weinberger, 1984).When testing humorous television ads with non-
humorous controls on four attention measures: initial attention, sustained attention, projected
attention and overall attention. Specks found that humorous ads outperform non-humorous on each
attention measure (Speck, 1991). This has also been supported by the studies in attention towards
television ads (Stewart and Furse, 1986 cited in Weinberger and Gulas, 1992)

Clearly, humour has a positive response on individuals’ attention towards advertisements. Another
communication goal is how humour affects message comprehension. In a study of 1000 television
ads, the results revealed humorous content to increase the comprehension of an ad (Stewart and
Furse, 1986 cited in Weinberger and Gulas, 1992). However this is in stark contrast with other
researchers who speculate that humour may lower message comprehension (Sternthal and Craig,
1973).Furthermore, knowing that humorous ads are processed more does not permit any direct
inferences about their impact on consumer judgments.

Thus, an experiment was conducted to assess the role of prior brand evaluation as a moderator of
the effects of humour in advertisements on ad attitude, brand attitude, purchase intent, and choice
behaviour (Chattopadhyay and Basu, 1990). The researchers hypothesised that humorous ads are
more effective in persuading consumers than non-humorous ads when the consumers have a
favourable prior brand evaluation and also, humorous ads are less effective than non-humorous ads
when the consumers' prior brand evaluations are unfavourable. The results from their experiment
showed that for ad attitude humorous ad engendered a significantly more favourable ad attitude for
subjects who already had a positive opinion about the advertised brand. However, humorous ads
are less effective than non-humorous ads for persons who have a negative prior brand evaluation.
The results for brand attitude showed that humour in advertising appears to enhance brand attitude
significantly for persons with a favourable prior brand evaluation but has the opposite effect for
those who initially have a negative brand evaluation. Purchase intent showed that show that
subjects with a positive prior evaluation were significantly more likely to make a purchase when
exposed to the humorous ad. Subjects with a negative prior evaluation had higher purchase intent
when exposed to the non-humorous ad.

Overall, taken together, the results for the ad attitude, brand attitude, purchase intent, and choice
behaviour show a consistent pattern. Humour in advertising has a significant and favourable effect
only when the message recipient's prior evaluation of the advertised brand is favourable.

8
Again, this also strengthens the claim that humour is an effective communication tool that
advertisers can draw upon. It is also a tool which consumers have a positive relationship with. This
study also laid some foundations that humour in advertising has a positive effect on a brand.
Nevertheless, these foundations are only tentative because they only view the consumer thoughts
towards brands which they already have a favourable relationship with, thus, not addressing if a
consumers perception of a brand had been influenced by the humour in the advert. The same can be
said for consumers purchase intent as the question was not posed to answer if the humour used in
the advertisement would affect their purchasing decision after seeing the ad.

It appears that there are two main models which capture the thoughts of consumers when viewing
humour in television ads (I) Cognitive-based model (2) Affective-Based model. In the research
conducted by (Einsend, 2011) he tested whether tested both these models on extant explanations of
the effects of humour along with a new cognitive-affective model, thus, creating a new third model
the integrative affective-cognition model. A previous meta-analysis study by Einsend, however, has
shown that humour enhances attitudes towards the ad (Aad) and attitudes toward the brand (Abr)
(Einsend, 2009). Each model proposes a different way in which humour is processed by consumers.

The cognitive model assumes that there are three ways in which can affect cognitive responses of
consumers: 1) Humour enhances cognitions in general, whereby positive cognitions outweigh
negative ones 2) Humour reduces negative cognitions (distraction effect) 3) Humour enhances ad-
related cognitions but reduces brand related cognitions (Vampire effect, Evans 1998)

The affective model, simply put an “affective transfer” occurs such that humour evokes affect which
is then carried over to the ad and the brand. It also illustrates that humour enhances positive affect
and suppresses negative (Einsend, 2009) Both kinds of affective reactions have impacts on liking to
the (Aad) and liking to the brand (Abr).

The integrative affective-cognition model illustrates that affective responses triggered by humour
can shape responses on different cognitive levels such as perceptions, thoughts and decisions.
Providing two main explanations about how humour-induced affect influences cognitions: 1)
Humour enhances positive effect, which leads consumers to process congruent information by
enhancing positive cognitions (congruity effect). 2) Humour enhances positive effect, which in turn
reduces processing of cognitions, whereas negative affect enhances positive cognitions (affect
regulation).

Overall, this research gave strong conclusions that humour enhances attitudes towards an ad and
also attitudes toward a brand whilst providing a strong framework models of how humorous effects

9
can be recorded. However the study does not illustrate the different types of humour presented to
the test subjects. Furthermore, the study shows that humour enhances liking towards a brand but
fails to show what aspects of attitude have changed, for example perception.

Humour Types
Having mentioned humour types and the possibility of different humour types having different
effects on consumers liking towards an ad and brand it is essential that for the purpose of this study
humour types is explored more in depth. Research conducted by Speck (1990) suggests that humour
is multidimensional. It is dimensional in two ways: 1) In respect to underlying processes (basic
dimensionally) 2) In respect to various combinations of those processes (combinational
dimensionally).

Basic dimensionally appear to have three human processes (HP), 1) engages the subject on a
different level , 2) requires a unique pattern of processing and 3) produces a distinct effect. Speck
breaks down the three humour process;

 HP1) Arousal-Safety – This generally involves an out pouring of sentiment or good will for
people that we consider warm, friendly or familiar. In its fullest form, arousal-safety
involves an empathetic bonding with someone who narrowly avoids disaster.
 HP2) Incongruity resolution – Incongruity occurs wherever: 1) two or more elements in a
stimulus field cannot explained using a single processing schema or 2) when the entire
stimulus does not comport with ones expectations regarding that event. This two-step
pattern is characteristics of puns, punch lines, comic reversals, comic irony,
understatement and exaggeration.
 HP3) Humorous disparagement – Disparagement is that humour is fundamentally a social
tool for criticism, censure, and control, satire, ethnic humour, and put down humour are
the best known members of this class. Satire, put-down humour and self-depreciating
humour are frequently used in advertising (Speck,1990).

This from these three humour processes, five humour types (HT) can be classified:

1) Comic Wit – Comic wit is provided by techniques such as visual puns, ironic juxtapilation,
perceptual displacement and exaggeration. Although such ads might initially require high
attention, energy and task involvement, subsequent viewings probably entail less effort and
provide less wit humour.
2) Sentimental Humour – The ad used in Speck study is replete with warm smiles, big hugs and
good will. These are standard characteristics of (HP1) arousal safety

10
 3) Satire – Satire is a combination of two humour processes: Incongruity resolution and
humorous disparagement. Repetition, exaggeration and irony.
4) Sentimental Comedy – This is also a combination of two humour processes: Incongruity and
humorous disparagement. Sentimental comedy provides effective pleasure that is not found
in comic wit and cognitive pleasure that is not found in sentimental humour. Conversely,
since sentimental comedy employs no disparagement is lacks aggression that characterises
satire. Sentimental comedy is relatively rich, complex and generally inoffensive form of
humour
5) Full comedy – This requires a mixture of all three humour processes: Arousal-safety,
incongruity resolution and humorous disparagement. Unlike sentimental comedy it involves
aggression. Unlike satire, it offsets negative affect with positive sentiment. As a result full
comedy is a very rich, cognitively, affectively and socially complex form of humour.

Speck has shown real detail in separating humour types and which humour processes they are
combined from. The extensive explanations provide further understanding as to the different types
of humour. The study has created a strong and thorough taxonomy of humour used in advertising.
However although the study addresses humour and its effect on ad message, it does not address the
impact of humour used in an ad total effect on the brand. Also it does not address which humour
types is the most effective in changing consumers’ perception of the brand.

Researching further into types of humour used in advertising Cantescu and Gail (2001) establish
seven types of humour that is most frequently used across television and magazine advertising
(Catescu and Gail, 2001). The seven types of humour identified are;

1) Comparison – Putting two or more elements together to produce a humorous situation

2) Personification – Attributes human characteristics to animals plants and objects
3) Exaggeration – Over stating and magnifying something out of proportion
4) Pun – Using elements of language to create new meaning which result in humour
5) Sarcasm – Blatant ironic responses or situations
6) Silliness – Ranges from making funny faces to ludicrous situations
7) Surprise – Includes all advertisements where humour arises from unexpected situations

The research found that humour is used more frequently in television ads than in magazine adverts,
supporting previous research conducted by Weinberger and Spotts (1989). Furthermore it found
that silliness is the most frequently used type of humour in television adverts.

11
Although the study is brief it has been able to draw some conclusions in terms of reaffirming that
humour is mostly used in Television ads and also that silliness is the most frequently used in
television adverts. However, in relation to research done by Speck (1990) this research does not
cover the use of other humour types proposed by Speck in combination with the humour processes.

Effects of Humour on the Brand

Moving forward, we must now consider the effect humour in television advertising has on the brand
itself. Research conducted by Khan and Khan (2013) looked to discover the effect humorous
advertising had on consumers brand recognition. In their study they used four well-known brands
namely Fevicol, Cadbury Chocolate, Karrbon Mobiles and Coca- Cola. Again, in this study they also
used the cognitive and effective models (Einsend 2009, Einsend 2011) to explain the impact of
humour in advertising. However, in this study they use Leavitts (1970) multidimensional model, later
refined by Bruzzare and Tallyn (1997) which is the most comprehensible method so far for capturing
viewers’ reactions to television commercials.

This study hypothesised that there would be high impact of brand recognition in relation to the
humour appeal of the ad and also that there is high impact of the ad and it’s dimensions on brand
recognition. In this case, both hypotheses were supported. The key finding from the research was
that humour is generally associated with increasing product awareness, thereby increasing brand
recognition and association. Furthermore, humour helps in spreading positive word of mouth about
the brands products in almost every product category. Thus, helping brand awareness and brand
recognition. Finally, humour also effects consumers intent to suggest an brand to his/her family. In
most cases, humour leads to recommendation of a brand to family members.

However, although Khan and Khan (2013) research supported their hypothesis this is stark contrast
of the research conducted prior to their study by Kuilenburg, Jong and Rompay (2011). Again the
focus is on how humour effects consumers ability to re-call a brand after viewing a humorous
advertisement. Conversely, in this study the focus differs slightly in its approach and methodology, in
this case, it places greater attention on humour complexity and humour relatedness in the ad and its
effect on consumers’ ability to link the brand with the humorous ad. The study hypothesised that
commercials using high complexity humour show a stronger brand linkage than commercials using
low complexity humour. Furthermore, commercials using related humour show a stronger brand
linkage than commercials using related humour. Finally, humour relatedness and humour complexity
will interact in their prediction of brand linkage. The effect of relatedness on brand linkage will be
stronger in commercials with high complexity humour than in commercials with low complexity
humour. The latter was the only supported hypothesis.

12
Therefore, this places slight contradiction on the research conducted by Khan and Khan (2013), if, as
there research suggests, the ad has a higher impact on the recognition of the brand because of the
humour appeal of the ad. The questions beckons as to why advertisements using high complexity
humour do not show strong brand linkage and why advertisements using related humour do not
show stronger brand linkage/recognition. One speculation could be that because Kuilenburg, Jong
and Rompay (2011) used over a hundred commercials and Khan and Khan (2013) only used 8
commercials focusing on 4 specific brands the participant’s results became diluted due the
concentration required to asses all the advertisements. However, Khan and Khans participant’s
where students aged between 19-26 all of which studied advertising, their responses could have
been somewhat bias and not reflected the ability of consumers to recall a brand.

It is possibly worth noting at this stage that the more funny and relevant the humour, the more likely
it is to cause attitudinal change. Conversely, the weaker the humour and less relevant, will engender
counterarguments unfavourable to the ad claims and detrimental to the formation of positive
attitudes (Zhang and Zinkman, 2006). This gives strength to the claim that advertisements which are
viewed as being more humorous have more of an impact, therefore engaging the viewer more.

13
Chapter 3
Methodology
This next chapter will illustrate how the data will be collected in order to answer the research
questions, thus achieving the purpose of this research project. First the research philosophy shall be
presented, then the research approach followed by the research strategy. Then, data collection and
sample selection shall be discussed. Furthermore, the methodology issues which occurred during
this study will also be highlighted and discussed.

Research Approach
Due to the nature of this research project and the literature yielding very little in results in relation
the research question, this research paper will use the approach and research strategy Grounded
Theory. Grounded theory can be used to refer to a methodological approach, a method of inquiry
and the result of a research process (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Grounded theory was developed by
Glaser and Strauss (1967) as a response to the ‘extreme positivism’ of much social research at the
time. Grounded theory was therefore developed as a process to analyse, interpret and explain the
meanings that social actors construct to make sense of their everyday experiments in specific
situations (Charmaz, 2006). Although grounded theory methodology is most commonly used in
qualitative studies it can also be used in quantitative studies. This research project places heavy
weight on quantitative data however qualitative data will also be collected and analysed. This is due
the flexibility it gives through taking an abductive approach, moving between inductive and
deductive (Charmaz, 2011)

Data Collection
Primary data will be collected through the means of a questionnaire which shall consist of both
quantitative (closed questions) and qualitative (open-ended questions). Collecting a mix of data will
ensure clarity (Gephart, 2004). Quantitative strategies will be provide statistical data from this
pattern and any other regularity can be achieved (Bryman, 1990). Qualitative methods will then be
used to provide the descriptive data which can be used to further and deeper understand the effect,
if any, humour has on consumers brand perception.

Questionnaire
A questionnaire is one of the most commonly used data collection techniques (Saunders et al, 2016).
Due to a questionnaire asking respondents the same set of questions, it delivers an efficient way of
collecting responses from a large sample prior to analysis (Saunders et al, 2016). Having understood

14
this, it would be difficult to peruse completing this project without using a questionnaire not only
due to the selected sample and its size but also the data that this project seeks to retrieve.

The questionnaire used in this research project follows a simple design and structure. The
questionnaire itself is a self… The questionnaire was designed to collect statistical data. Therefore,
all questions bar one where constructed using Likert scale, this question design was used because
quantifiable data could be easily retrieved through this method. However, the questionnaire also
consisted of an open-ended question to enable consumers to give deeper insights into their
thoughts regarding the use of humour in advertising and its effect, if any, on their brand perception
and why. See (Appendix, 1) for full questionnaire)

The Consumers
Choosing a sample size is extremely important in any research project as it is not practical or
effective to study whole populations (Marshall, 1996). Thus non-probability purposive sampling was
used due to the respondents’ capability to answer the question in relation to the research objectives
(Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The sample was originally proposed to be 100 members of the general
public who watched television adverts and where also familiar with the brands chosen.

To ensure the highest rate of responses the questionnaire was self-administered via the web
through SurveyMonkey.com and a range of social media platforms including personal Facebook
pages. The questionnaire was available for customers to take from February 1 st and March 1st. Any
questionnaire which had be submitted incomplete was disregarded from the research.

Selection of Advertisements
As one of the research objectives I to discover what type of humour consumers think is the funniest
and what effect does this have on their brand perception. Therefore, using the literature a range of
humour types had to be analysed through a description presented by previous researchers. In this
research project the types of humour chosen are based on the descriptions given by Cantescu and
Gail (2001). Four advertisements have been selected based on their content which uses different
types of humour.

The first humour type chosen is Silliness. Silliness is described as ranging from making funny faces to
ludicrous situation(Catescu and Gail, 2001) . In this advert a group of Adults are sat on a train in a
seating booth eating Haribo star mix sweets. However, when each adult speaks their voice does not
resemble that of an Adults, instead, their voices are that of a young child. Therefore, this is very silly
humour

15
The second type of humour chosen is surprise. Surprise is described as all advertisements where
humour arises from unexpected situations (Catescu and Gail, 2001). In this advert a Dad is visited by
his children in hospital. He is led in the hospital bed eating a pack of the new multi-crisp pack of
crisps. He fails to offer his children any of the crisps he is eating. Then, his daughter surprisingly takes
the remote which controls his hospital bed and pushes a button making the bed fold in on its-self
squashing her Father in the bed.

The third type of humour chosen is sarcasm. Sarcasm is described as blatant ironic responses or
situations (Catescu and Gail, 2001). In this advert two men are about to play a game of tennis. One
of them picks up a tennis ball and says to his opponent “do you want the ball”? He then proceeds by
pretending to throw the ball across the court whilst shouting at his opponent “Fetch! Fetch!”. He
then asks his opponent “Where’s the ball?” to which he reply’s” its behind your back”. Looking
surprised, holding his mouth open the man holding the ball then reveals the ball from behind his
back, he then looks at his opponent and say “Good boy, Good boy” whilst patting him on the head.
Thereafter, he rewards his opponent by giving him the new Mars mini as a treat. Therefore, this
humour is purely sarcastic as the man treats his opponent as he would a dog.

The fourth and final type of humour chosen is personification. Personification is described as
attributing human characteristics to animals plants and objects (Catescu and Gail, 2001). In this
advert a sheep is in a chewing competition. The commentator states that the sheep has been
chewing for two days. Maynard Basset sweets are jumping into the sheep’s mouth where it
continues to chew and swallow the sweets. A few more sweets are consumed by the sheep, it then
eats one final sweet and with that confetti and a banner appear behind the sheep whilst the
commentator states “that’s a world record” the add then closes. Thus, this humour is personification
as the sheep is performing a task that which a human would perform.

Data Analysis

Quantitative
The Likert scales questions allowed for a quantitative analysis to be undertaken. After the closing
date of the questionnaire had passed and all the questionnaires had been submitted, the data
gained was then categorized by question. This data was then put in to bar charts to show the
frequency a respondent answered whilst yielding overall statistics as to how respondents answered
each question. Thus, each statistic was from formulated from each question which in turn further
developed an answer to the research objectives.

16
Qualitative
As this research project is following Grounded Theory, then the analysis within the qualitative data
shall follow that of the Grounded theory method (Charmaz, 2008). This follows a two-step
procedure. The first step will be initial coding. This is the process where the data originally gained
from the open-ended question within the questionnaire will disaggregated into conceptual units and
provided with a label seeking to derive meaning from the respondents answers. The data will coded
using ‘vevo’ codes which is where a short phrase shall be used to combine data of similarity.
Thereafter focused coding will take place this will involve deciding on which of the initial codes to
use in order to develop the analytic and explanatory focus of the coded data. Thus, this will result on
a smaller more focused set of codes. The process will be conducted using excel. Responses will be
transcribed into columns then given codes. These codes will then be subjected to a frequency test to
assess the amount of times they appear throughout the data. From this a proportion equation shall
be conducted in order to place a percentage on how many respondents gave the same or similar
answers. This data shall then be presented in the form of tables. See (Appendix, 4,5,6,7) for
descriptive data)

Reliability and Validity

Of course, as in any research project it is critical that the data gained from the research methods
used yield reliable and valid results, otherwise it would have a considerable effect on whether the
data retrieved could answer the research question. Weber (1990) specifies that when conducting an
analysis upon qualitative data inferences must be made upon the text to ensure that the variables
are consistent and valid in measuring what is intended to be measured. Therefore, the text was
analysed using Grounded theory from which the themes and pattern emerged from the data itself.

To guarantee the right data was retrieved and aligned with the research objectives the structure of
the questionnaire was specific, simple, clear and relevant (Lietz, 2009). Further ensuring the validity
of the questionnaire it had been piloted prior to distribution to ascertain that the questions posed
would return the desired responses needed to answer the research question and achieve the
research objectives

Every respondent to the questionnaire was asked the exact same set of questions to further ensure
reliability (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).

17
Ethical Considerations
From the outset of the questionnaire, all respondents who wished to take the questionnaire where
informed on the purpose of the study. They were also informed that no private information would
be required such as name, email or date of birth as to ensure the respondents anonymity. The only
information required was their gender.

18
Chapter 4
The previous chapter discussed and highlighted the methodology of this research project. In this
chapter the quantitative and qualitative data obtained through the distributed questionnaire shall
be presented. These results will begin to form a conclusion in relation to the objectives of this
research project.

Results
Quantitative results
In totality the questionnaire gained 67 respondents (Appendix 2). However 17 of those respondents
failed to complete the full survey leaving only 50 respondents who completed the full questionnaire.

After disregarding the 17 incomplete responses 67.35% who took the survey where female and the
remainder of 32.65% where male (see appendix, 3).

When asked on a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest 5 being the highest) too rate how funny they found
the Haribo advert 10.42% rated 1, 18.75% rated 2, 31.25% rated 3, 18.75%, rated 4 and 20 .83%
rated 5. Overall the average was 3.21%

Figure 1

When asked if the advert has NEGATIVELY affected the way they view the brand 74% said not at all
8% said slightly, 14% said neutral, 4% considerably and 0% said yes extremely. Then, when asked if

19
the advert had POSITIVELY affected the way the view the brand 26% said no, not at all, 18% said
slightly, 36% said neutral, 18% considerably, 2% yes extremely.

Figure 2

Figure 3

20
When asked on a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest) too rate how funny they
found the Walkers advert 8.16% rated it 1, 36.73% rated it 2, 24.49% rated it 3, 18.37% rated it 4
and 12.24% rated it 5. Overall the weighted average was 2.90%

Figure 4

21
When asked if the advert has NEGATIVELY affected the way they view the brand 70% said no not at
all with a further 30% remaining neutral. Then, when asked if the advert had POSITIVELY affected the
way the view the brand 36% no not at all, 10% said slightly, 34% said neutral, 14% said considerably
and 6% said yes extremely.

Figure 5

Figure 6

22
When asked on a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest) too rate how funny they
found the mars advert 22% rated it 1, 28% rated it 2, 10& rated it 3, 12% rated it 4, 28% rated it 5.
Overall the weighted average was 2.96%

Figure 7

23
When asked if the advert has NEGATIVELY affected the way they view the brand 60% no not at all,
8% said slightly, 28% said neutral, 2% said considerably and 2% yes extremely. Then, when asked if
the advert had POSITIVELY affected the way the view the brand 26% said no, not at all, 20% said
slightly, 46% remained neutral, and the final 8% said considerably.

Figure 8

24
Figure 9

When asked When asked on a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest) too rate how
funny they found the Maynard Basset advert 40% rated it 1, 22.4/% rated in 2, 18.37 rated it 3,
10.2% rated it 4 8.6% rated it 5. Thus, the weighted average was 2.22%.

Figure 10

25
When asked if the advert has NEGATIVELY affected the way they view the brand 50% said no, not at
all, 10% said slightly, 30% remained neutral, ad the final 10% said considerably. Then when asked if
the advert has POSITIVELY affected the way they view the brand 42% no, not at all, 4% said slightly,
42% remained neutral, 10% said considerably and 2% said yes extremely.

Figure 11

Figure 12

26
Qualitative Results
Within the questionnaire there was a series of open-ended question which respondents where
asked to answer. These questions came after the respondent had been asked whether the advert
has positively or negatively affected their brand perception. The question asked the respondents to
explain their answer in more depth. The reason for this question was to analyse how different types
of humour effected the consumers brand perception and to also assess how consumers viewed that
use of humour.

Responses to Silliness

Figure 13

27
The descriptive data has been converted into a table through identifying common themes from the
text and recording their frequency. From the responses gained from the silliness advert four themes
became apparent from the data. The first, with 36% of respondents, stated that although they found
the ad funny it had no effect on their brand perception. Such comments like:

“Found the ad funny but doesn’t change the way I feel about the brand” and;

“I think the advert is good. Hasn't put me off either way to how I thought of them before”

Another common theme which 24% stated was that the humour in the advert made the brand more
appealing. With respondents stating:

“The advert is very funny and makes the brand more appealing” and;

“It has the brand more appealing as it has engaged the audience using humour within the
advert that has shown that the product is enjoyed by people of all ages”

The third theme which occurred frequently with respondents was the humour made the brand more
memorable, with 24% stating:

“I do like humour in advertisements as it seems to make the brand more memorable.” And;

“It was bright and entertaining which keeps you engaged. It doesn’t make the brand worse,
the advert shows the company have a nice way of keeping the product in your mind”

28
Finally, on the contrary to the positive comments 18% of respondents found the advert to be
annoying, which can’t be ignored. Respondents stated:

“I don't like the advert it's extremely annoying” and;

“Its just really annoying”

Responses to Surprise

Figure 14

Again, after respondents watched the advert and asked whether they felt that the advert had
positively or negatively affected their brand perception, they were subsequently asked to give more
detail. Interestingly, the results differed slightly from those of the responses to silliness. Albeit, 57%
still said that they found the advert funny but it had no effect on their perception of the brand
repeating previous comments such as:

“It made me laugh a bit but doesn't make me feel any different about the brand at all”

However, 25% of respondents stated that they don’t understand how the humour in the advert
related to the product. Such statements like:

“Found the ad funny but not sure on how it relates to the product” and;

“The characters in the advert as likeable as they're similar to a typical family but I’m not sure
how it relates to product”

29
Where frequently apparent in the descriptive data

Finally, another theme which came from the data in regard to this advert was the 18% of
respondents didn’t like the humour and believed that this advert was sending out the wrong
message. Respondents stated:

“People say to children, always share and no violence. This is displaying an adult not sharing
and the children responding in a angry behaviour. Sets a bad example, also has a wide target
audience” and;

“Kids are taught to share this advert dose not promote that message”

Responses to Sarcasm

Figure 15

Again respondents were asked the same question as why they answered the way they did in relation
to whether they found the humour had changed their brand perception. Again, however, after
analysing the responses the majority of respondents (45%) answered in ways which reflected that
they thought the advert was funny but it had not changed their view of the brand. With one
respondent even saying:

“Why have i never actually seen this advert on TV? It’s the funniest one so far but it still
doesn’t change my perception of the brand”

30
However, once again a large proportion of the respondents took a negative from the humour used in
the ad. Their responses have been labelled under the theme distasteful due to the content of their
response. Some key responses stated:

“Really childish & an insult to dog owners. I can relate, however being a responsible pet
parent, I found the comparison of an unsuspecting human to highly intelligent mammals to
be offensive. I have a strong opinion on the content.” and;

“Using the chocolate as a reward of being good or you've earned it, trying to make this
brand seem a high end luxury product but in patronising way”

Once again, respondents felt that the humour used in the advert made the brand more memorable
(21%). They said that:

“I found the ad really funny it made me laugh I would be reminded of the ad when I next see
a mars product” and

“I found the ad very funny and it will make me remember mars but it had no effect on the
way I feel about the brand”

Response to Personification
Figure 16

31
Finally, the last type of humour used in the advert was personification. This time though the
respondents felt differently about the humour used in the ad to previous humour types. A large
proportion of respondents stated they did not like the use of an animal in the advert:

“Did not like the use of a sheep in this advert and did not find it very funny. Animals should
not eat sweets, and I this has put me off buying the brand” and;

“Ridiculous. I cannot relate, this poor sheep, chewing sugary gummies? I cannot imagine
something more damaging. I have a strong opinion on the content.”

Again, respondents felt the same about this humour type as the previous. It did not affect their
perception of the brand even though they found the ad funny (31%).

However, the majority of respondents (38%) actually found this advert and type of humour rather
boring. Boring has been deemed the correct theme as it relates to respondent not finding the
advertisement enjoyable, entertaining or interesting. Respondents stated:

“Did not find advert particularly funny or that interesting”

“Boring advert that wouldn't encourage me to buy product”

Limitations to Data Collection

The sample chosen aims to represent the population, however, to further ensure that the data
collected represents how the population really feels regarding humour in advertising and its effect
on their brand perception the sample would need to be larger. One of the key limitations to the data
collection was the size of the questionnaire. Having more than 20 questions not including the four
television advertisements was a considerable factor when it came to understanding why so many
respondents failed to complete the questionnaire. However, this could not be avoided as only
testing one advert would have yielded insufficient results that could not answer the research
question or achieve the research objectives. Another limitation was the use of the web as a platform
to distribute the questionnaire. Having used the web the intended target of 100 person sample
failed to be achieved as the questionnaire was unable to gather enough responses. This could be
combatted by issuing the questionnaire to respondents in person in high traffic areas.

32
Chapter 6
Discussion
This next chapter will analyse the results from the primary data that was collected through the
questionnaire which will provide the platform to make a conclusion in relation to the research
objectives and the research question. The research objectives gave scope to this research question
which in turn built an argument to answer the research question. The research question looked to
determine whether humour in television advertising had any effect on consumers brand perception.
Thus, the research objectives shall be analysed in the same order as they were proposed previously
in Chapter1 to ascertain if the research question has been answered.

The first objective was broken down into three. It sought to answer if humour in television
advertising had a positive, negative or no effect on consumers brand perception. The second
objective sought to discover which humour type consumers found the funniest and how this
effected their brand perception.

Does Humour have a positive effect on consumer brand perception

Overall, the majority of consumers stated that they felt the humour in each advert had not positively
affected their consumer brand perception. This is interesting because although Madden and
Weinberger (1984) study suggested that humour has great effect in capturing consumers’ attention
to the advert. It questions whether humour although effective in harvesting attention it does not
have the ability to influence the consumers brand perception in a positive way. However, while
respondents to the questionnaire resoundingly answered that they felt humour had not effected
their brand perception positively or they remained neutral on the subject, when asked to give more
detail on the their answer some interesting themes came to light.

One of the themes that respondents repeated was that they felt the humour made the brand more
appealing. This is supported in the literature by Einsend (2009, 2011) who conclude in his research
that humour creates more appeal for the brand. Humour is a phenomena which engages us through
laughter, respondents who felt the ad made the brand more appealing also stated that they though
the ad was funny. This can be viewed as a slightly positive change in perception. However, only a
small minority of respondents who felt this way and it was also subjective to the humour type used
in the advert.

33
Another key theme was that the humour used in the adverts made the brand more memorable.
Although not a positive change in perception consumers recognising that they feel the would recall
the brand when shopping reinforces the research conducted by Khan and Khan (2013) who
established that consumers where more likely to have the ability to recall a brand after watching a
humorous advert. Again, humour can leave an imprint on memory as they have been subjected to a
phenomena which they experience as positive and fun natured, allowing the consumer to reflect on
the brand more easily due to their experience with advert.

Albeit, consumers stated that they felt humour had not effected their perception positively of a
brand. Humour still has the capability to make a brand more appealing to a consumer and more
memorable.

Does humour have a negative effect on consumer brand perception

Largely respondents again stated that they felt the humour used in the adverts had not negatively
affected their perception of the brand. This is not only a good thing for practitioners and brands
alike but is also interesting because it reinforces Madden et al (1998) belief that humorous ads draw
more positive feelings than an advertisements that are non-humorous .

Much like the responses gained in relation to humour having a positive effect, a small minority of
respondents did feel as though certain types of humour had a negative impact. Notably, a large
proportion of consumer did not like the use of animal. Of course this is subjective to the advert and
also the product but it does pose the question of whether it is suitable to use animals in humorous
adverts given the reaction of the respondents.

Furthermore, another theme which came to fruition through the descriptive data was a large
proportion of respondents felt uncertain as to how the humour in the advert related to the product.
This could be viewed as slightly negative as the true point of advertising is being able to send an
informative message about a product or service. This concern was also voiced by Kuilenburg, Jong
and Rompay (2011) who believed that because of the adverts humorous entertaining qualities the
viewer could become so engrossed with the humour that the message about the product could
become diluted and that is what a number of respondents have highlighted.

The Humour used in television advert has no effect on the consumers brand
perception
As can be seen from the quantitative data and the qualitative data, overwhelmingly respondents
stated that they feel as though humour has no effect on their brand perception. While humour may
make a brand more appealing and more memorable, it does not affect the way they feel or view the

34
brand itself. Repeatedly throughout the descriptive data respondents stated that although they
found the ad funny it had not changed the way they felt about the brand. This was repeated through
every humour type, regardless.

There is no doubt that humour has qualities that allow a brand to engage their customer in their
advertisement but the results from this research project has shown that humour may not be strong
enough to alter consumers perceptions. Humour is mostly playful, each of the humour types used
within the adverts was light hearted. There is the possibility that violent humour or that of sort has
the ability to changes consumers’ perception in a positive or negative way.

Also, only 4 humour types where used in this research project. Different results could be yielded if
different types of humour had of been used. Overall, this objective H1.3 has been supported by the
research findings.

What type of Humour do consumers find the funniest and how does this
affect their brand perception
Cantescu and Gail (2001) identified seven types of humour used in print and television advertising;
comparison, personification, exaggeration, pun, silliness, sarcasm, surprise. They found that silliness
was the most frequently used in television advertising. This research project used four of those
humour types; silliness, surprise, sarcasm and personification. Through the results gained from the
questionnaire silliness has also been rated the funniest having the highest average rating of 3.21%
closely followed by sarcasm which had an average rating of 2.96% and surprise with an average
rating of 2.90%. Personification was the rated the least funniest with an average rating of 2.22%

Silliness not only was rated the funniest but it also gained the most positive comments in relation to
making the brand more memorable and more appealing. It should be noted that Catescu and Gail
(2001) study was conducted over fifteen years ago. This is interesting because it shows that
practitioner’s particular warmth towards using this humour type has not changed nor has the
consumers’ view of finding it funny and entertaining. Silliness also gained the most positive
comments such as making the brand more memorable and more appealing. Again, the majority of
the respondents although they found It funny it had no effect on their brand perception

However, closely second was sarcasms. Sarcasm was identified by Cantescu and Gail (2001) as the
most commonly used humour type in print media, but again we must consider the time scale in
which attitude and use of humour has changed. Consumers have obviously become more partial and
acceptable of sarcasm in humour television advertising. On the contrary, a large amount of

35
respondents found the humour distasteful. Some respondents believed the humour to patronising.
Of course this is subjective to the advert and content, used again in a different context may yield
different results.

Surprise closely followed sarcasm in the ratings. However, through analysing the descriptive data
surprise yielded some negative comments for practitioners. Respondents believed that surprise used
in this context mislead the purpose of the message of the advertisement as a large majority was
unsure as to how the humour related to the product. Furthermore, respondents also believed that
the humour was sending the wrong message to young viewers which is why a small percentage
(14%) had said the ad had considerably affected their perception of the brand negatively. Again, this
is subject to context but highlights the fact that practitioners must understand their audience and
the message that they are portraying about the brand and product. Once more the larger majority of
respondents found the ad funny but it had not effected their perception of the brand.

Finally, personification was ranked lowest by respondents. This was also reflected when analysing
the descriptive data. Overwhelmingly a large number of respondents believed this advert was
boring. This is stimulating because it raises the questions as to whether personification is an effective
humour type to use, this is especially apparent because humour has been assessed to be an unique
method of capturing consumers attention during a television advertisement (Madden and
Weinberger, 1984) thus, if consumer find personification adverts boring it weakens the strength of
the advertisement. Furthermore, consumers found the use of an animal personifying a human role
very negative. This places doubt upon practitioners using animals in humorous advertisements as it
could deter consumers from the brand if they have strong views on the content.

36
Chapter 7
This next chapter seeks to conclude this research project focusing on clarifying whether the research
conducted has achieved the objectives proposed at the beginning of this project and have worked
towards answering the research question. Furthermore, this chapter will strive to determine to what
extent the research objectives where met. It shall also include the limitations to the research project
and recommendation for future research.

Conclusion
This research project has been successful in remaining constant with the research approach; through
this reliable and credible results have been obtained. The grounded theory approach allowed the
research to be undertaken in such a manner that theory has emerged from the results of the data
due to insufficient literature and prior studies on the research topic. It has been presented in a
traditional deductive style as to illustrate the process in which the data has been analysed.

The research project posed the question of ‘Does humour in television advertising affect consumer
brand perception’, which in turn gave rise to two research objectives. The first objective was
subsequently broken down into three smaller objectives as to create a broader scope for the project
sought to gain data that would answer whether humour had a positive, negative or no effect at all
on consumer brand perception. Also, due to humour being a broad subject in itself having many

37
different humour types which can be utilised by practitioners a further objective was created which
sought to establish which humour type consumers found the funniest and how this affected their
brand perception. These objectives effectively helped to answer the research question giving the
research project focus and direction.

The questionnaire which used a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative questions made it
possible to achieve the research objectives. The key findings within this research project concluded
that humour does not have any effect on consumer brand perception. While the literature and other
results within this project illustrate that humour is an effective advertising tool when it comes to
grabbing consumers’ attention, making a brand more appealing and also allowing the brand to be
easier recalled by the consumer. It does not possess the qualities in order to change ones perception
neither in a positive or a negative way. This suggests that practitioners should use humour to only
engage with the customer and acquire their attention. Moreover, a practitioner should opt to use a
non-humorous ad when seeking to change a consumers perception about a brand.

Another key finding of this research project was that respondents rated silliness as the funniest type
of humour. However, it failed to have any effect on the respondents brand perception with the an
overwhelmingly majority stating that they found the ad funny but it had no effect on their brand
perception. Therefore, practitioners should seek to use silliness when looking to entertain the
consumer and engage with them. On the contrary, personification was rated the least funniest which
practitioner should then be tentative be cautious when using this type of humour in adverts. Thus,
the research question can be answered as, no, humour in television adverts does not affect
consumer brand perception.

Limitations to research project and future recommendations for research

In chapter 5 various limitation where outlined in relation to the data collection method such as the
size of the sample having to be larger in order to reflect the wider populations feelings and also the
choice of using the web as a platform for distributing the questionnaire and retrieving data. However
there is more limitations to this research project. Another being a lack of literature on the subject
which consequently ended in having to take a different research approach. If more literature had
been available then the approach taken could have been different.

Although there are several limitations have been identified so to have recommendations for future
research. Considering the way in which respondent reacted to different types of humour a further
research study could pursue researching what the disadvantages to using humour in television
advertising is. Furthermore, due to this research project only analysing the effects of four humour
types further research could be conducted into the effects of other humour types in television

38
advertising and their relative, if any, effects on consumer brand perception. Moreover another
stimulating and fundamental research topic could be what are the different between male and
females regarding their views on different types of humour. Furthermore which humour type does
each age group find the funniest could also be a research topic. Finally, this research project studied
perception another strong relating topic could be whether humour in advertising affects the brand
image.

39
References
Beard, F.K. 2005, "One hundred years of humor in American advertising", Journal of
Macromarketing, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 54-65.

Bruzzone, D.E., & Tallyn, D.J. 1997, "Bruzzone, Danold E., Tallyn Debora J. (1997) "Linking Tracking to
Pretesting with an 'ARM'", Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (3), 74-79.", Journal of Advertising
Research, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 74-79.

Bryman, A. 1990, Quantity and Quality in social research, 2nd edn, Division of Unwin Hyman Ltd,
London.

Cantanescu, C. & Gail, T. 2001, "Types of Humour in Television and Magazine Advertising", Review of
Business, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 92-96.

Charmaz, K. 2006, Constructing Grounded Theory, Sage, London.

Chattopadhyay, A. & Basu, K. 1990, "Humor in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Prior Brand
Evaluation", Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 466-476.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. 2008, Basics of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Einsend, M. 2011, "How humour in advertising works: A meta-analytic test of alternative models",
Marketing letters, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 115-132.

Einsend, M. 2009, "A meta-analysis of humour in advertising", Journal of Marketing Research

Science, vol. 37, pp. 191-203.

Gephart, R. 2004, "Gephart, R., 2004, “Qualitative Research”, Academy of Management Journal, vol.
43, no. 4, pp. 454- 462.", Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 454-462.

40
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.

Kelly, J., Patrick & Solomon, J., Paul 1975, ""Humour in Television Advertising"", Journal of
Advertising September 1, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 31-35.

Khan, B., M. & Khan, S. 2013, "Effect of Humorous advertising on Brand Recognition", IUP Journal of
Brand Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7-36.

Kruger, A. 1996, "The nature of humor in human nature: Cross-cultural commonalities", Counselling
Psychology Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 235-241.

Kullenburg, P., Jong, M. & Rompay, T., V. 2011, "That was funny, but what was the brand again?",
International Journal of Advertising, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 795-814.

Leavitt, C. 1970, "A Multidimensional Set of Rating Scales for Television Commercials", Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 427-429.

Lietz, P. 2010, "Reearch into Questionnaire design", International Journal of Market Research, vol.
52, no. 2, pp. 249-272.

Madden, J.,Thomas, Allen, C.T. & Twible, J.L. 1988, "Attitude toward the Ad: An assessment of
Diverse Measurment Indices under Different Processing "Sets"", Journal of Marketing Research, vol.
25, no. 3, pp. 242-252.

Madden, J.,Thomas & Weinberger, G., Mark 1982, "The Effects of Humor on Attention in Magazine
Advertising,", Journal of Advertising, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 8-14.

Marshall, M., N. 1996, "Sampling for qualitative research", Family Practice, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 522-
525.

Olson, J.M. & Roese, N.J. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, "The percievd funniness of
humorous stimuli", 1995, vol. 21, pp. 908-913.

41
Saunders, M. & Lewis, P. 2012, Saunders, M. & Lewis, P., 2012, Doing Research in Business &
Management, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2016, Research Methods for Business Students, 7th edn,
Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow.

Speck, S., Paul 1990, "The humorous messgae taxonomy:A Framework for the study of Humorous
Ads", Current Issues and Research in Advertising January 1, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-44.

Sternthal, B. & Craig, C.,Samuel 1973, "Humour in Advertising", Journal of Marketing October 1, vol.
37, no. 3, pp. 12-18.

Weinberger, G., Mark & Spotts, E., Harlan 1989, "Humor in U.S. Versus U.K. TV Advertising,", Journal
of Advertising January10, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 39-44.

Weinberger, M. & Gulas, C., 1992, "The Impact of Humour in Advertising: A review", Journal of
Advertising December 1, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 35-59.

Zhang, Y. & Zinkham, G., M. 2006, "Responses to Humorous Ads", Journal of Advertising, vol. 35, no.
4, pp. 113-127

42
Appendix

Appendix 1

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Appendix 2

Appendix 3

52
Appendix 4

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

53
Appendix 7

Record of Supervisory tutor meetings

54
55