Last week I talked about a McDonald’s ad featuring a cow on a trampline (if you missed the post, it’s here). Here’s a little reminder of the ad:
The question was: why is it effective as an ad? But it’s worth asking another question: how does it work as a funny ad? I’m asking this because I figured it would be a great excuse to look at more humorous ads (yeah!) and also to talk about a humour mechanism which sounds a bit highfalutin’, but is actually pretty amazing.
It’s called incongruity-resolution.
Incongruity-resolution is where you encounter two incongruous elements and mentally build a super-quick bridge between them. The bridge “resolves” them and we get that all-important “ah!” moment. The American writer Mark Twain put this very well: “Wit is the sudden marriage of ideas which before their union were not perceived to have any relation.”
So in the case of the McDonald’s ad, we think:
Cow = Milk
Trampoline = Moving up and down = Shake
= Milkshake.
Now, I know you get this — I’m not trying to patronise you by explaining it. But I’m spelling it out because having a sense of incongruity-resolution is a good yardstick for developing humorous communications.
This mechanism has been used in adland for years. And it’s used over a large range of products and in a wide variety of categories. You see it in ads for pricey high-heels from Harvey Nicks…
…Or washing-up liquid…
…And it’s the dynamic behind many jokes. I love this one:
Did you hear about the cargo ship carrying yoyos?
It sank 44 times.
So! We have a nice mechanism here, it’s tried and tested, McDonald’s use it, why don’t we just use this?
Well, we could… but there are two caveats.
The first is that developing the right kind of humour mechanism and style depends on the audience, the brand, the product and — critically — where the brand strategically wants to go. It’s not a one-size-fits-all practice. Granted, this might seem a bit of a humourless point to make, but we know enough about this fascinating subject to make informed decisions about how it should work in branding and communications. Indeed, that’s what I do.
The second point is that many great and funny ads don’t even use incongruity-resolution at all. Let’s take this one:
This 1991 ad might seem a little dated now (the line “more and more women are taking control of their futures” is a giveway) but it was part of a hugely successful campaign for Prudential.
As a couple, of course, they’re utterly incongruous. But is anything resolved? No. We are amused instead by the lack of resolution: the pained, get-me-outta-here expression on the wife’s face; the dullness of the dim, stay-at-home husband. There’s humour, sure, but there’s pain here too.
Incongruity-resolution is, however, a very good mechanism to be aware of. The ability for ad creatives to develop disparate elements and bring them together humorously is phenomenally important — it’s almost a form of visual shorthand.
Charlie Chaplin once said, “All I need to make a comedy is a park, a policeman and a pretty girl.” He wouldn’t have recognised the term incongruity-resolution — it was only formally developed in the early 1970s and he was a comedian, not a humour theorist — but by touching on these disparate elements, it’s nice to think that’s what he was hinting at.
Many thanks for reading.
Paddy
www.studiogilmore.com / +44 07866 538 233