Last week I looked at the thinking behind the Economist’s famous ‘White out of Red’ campaign (if you missed it, it’s here). This week I want to answer a simple question: why do we actually find these ads funny? It’s a good excuse to look at more funny ads (yeah!), but also to look at the oldest theory of humour: Superiority Theory.
How old is it? Let’s just say we have to go back to bearded Greek men in togas. Plato — the chap below — and Aristotle both argued that humour comes from first noticing the flaws in other people. Our amusement is due to a subsequent feeling of superiority over them.
Fast-forward several centuries and this theory still holds up. You’ll most often see the superiority mechanism at work when the humour has a victim, a butt of the joke. You’ll hear it in one-liners:
I can always tell when the mother-in-law’s coming to stay. The mice throw themselves on the traps. (Les Dawson)
Or this cartoon by the great Jack Ziegler:
One of the best-known scenes in British sitcom history, of Del Boy falling through the bar, is an example of superiority. Del Boy is hurt, not us — and so we laugh.
Likewise, in advertising, we’re amused because we’re watching a clown:
…Clearly, Economist ads use superiority as a tool:
What’s more, supporters of superiority theory value wordplay and puns. Why? It shows the intellectual superiority of the joke teller.”1 And the Economist ads certainly aren’t short of wordplay:
This all suggests superiority is our main humour mechanism. Case closed?
Well, not quite. Let’s take a look at one of the campaign’s best-known ads, written by its creative director, David Abbott:
There’s superiority here, sure: we feel smug because we’re not that struggling 42-year-old trainee.
But there’s another humour mechanism happening here, too. A few weeks ago, (here), I talked about incongruity-resolution. This is a time-honoured way of creating humour in ads — especially print ads. Basically, the advertiser creates a little puzzle and invites the audience to figure it out.
Here’s an example:
It’s a siege, of course. But the cops have mysteriously chosen to shelter behind a VW Polo. Why? Because that car’s tough. You think: “Ah, I get it. Nice.”
Similarly, if we go back to the Economist’s 42-year-old management trainee ad…
…the incongruity between the trainee’s age and apprenticeship jars until, a millisecond later, we get it.
So, in short, there are two humour mechanisms working in this ad: two little motors spinning inside it. And this is what gives the ad its power: it’s hitting us both on a cognitive (solve a puzzle) level and an emotional (feel this superior feeling) one.
Of course, when he wrote this ad, I can’t imagine that the late great David Abbott was thinking this — for all we know, he might have been thinking of what he was going to have for lunch. But given the intelligence and wit of this ad, I reckon he could have allowed himself a glass of Champagne, when he sat down to eat.
Many thanks for reading,
Paddy
www.studiogilmore.com / pg@studiogilmore.com / +44 7866 538 233 / Twitter: @mrpaddygilmore