Listerine – for the bridesmaid who’s never a bride: disparaging humour increases brand attitude and recall among the powerless

Purpose: While the potential benefits of integrating humour into advertisements are widely understood, the reasons why these effects emerge are not. Drawing on literature about the impact of psychological feelings of power, this research aims to examine how power motivation interacts with the presence of disparaging humour in ads to influence ad-related outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach: Following the measurement (Study 1) or manipulation (Study 2) of power motivation, participants viewed an ad featuring either disparaging humour or one of the following alternatives: no humour (Study 1) or non-disparaging humour (Study 2). Sense of superiority, brand attitude, ad claim recall and the perceived humorousness of the ad were then assessed.

Findings: Featuring disparaging humour in an ad increased participants’ sense of superiority, but only among those with high power motivation. Among such participants, this heightened sense of superiority increased the perceived humorousness of the disparaging humour (Studies 1 and 2), induced more favourable attitudes towards the brand featured in the ad (Studies 1 and 2) and enhanced ad claim recall (Study 2). These effects did not, however, extend to ads featuring non-disparaging humour (Study 2), indicating that it was the presence of disparaging humour, and not humour per se, that was responsible for these effects.

Originality/value: These findings break open the “black box” of humour by identifying why consumers perceive disparaging humorous content to be funny, when this effect will occur and what impact this will have on advertising-related outcomes.

Perceptions of mobile plan unit pricing and terms and conditions

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to test the efficacy of disclosing unit pricing and increasing the type size of complex terms and conditions in advertising. This is in line with recommendations made by global telecommunications regulators, including in Australia, to protect consumers in selecting mobile plans.

Design/methodology/approach: The authors employed a 2 (unit price disclosed: no, yes)×3 (type size: nine-, 12- and 15-point terms and conditions) full factorial, between-subjects experimental design using a scenario and fictional advertisements for 24-month mobile phone plans. This was complemented by 24 in-depth interviews with consumers who had recently purchased “real” plans and their assessment of these.

Findings: Extra information in the form of unit pricing has a positive influence on consumers’ value perceptions, but not on perceived confusion or risk. Presenting complex terms and conditions in larger type increases consumers’ perceived confusion and risk, but not perceived value, as consumers have difficulty understanding the complicated information presented.

Research limitations/implications: This study focused on a single country market for one product type of mobile phones, using a limited range of mobile plans. Practical implications: Public policymakers and providers are advised to pre-test planned changes to advertising’s informational content prior to implementation to identify the efficacy of proposed changes to protect consumers. Consumers may also need to be educated to accurately interpret complex plans.

Originality/value: The study contributes to the domain of informational content in advertising as a form of consumer protection. The effect of unit pricing and larger type for terms and conditions on consumer perceptions has not been examined previously in complex product settings.