How is the concept of dark humour generally understood?

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Aggressive humour and comedic violence

Speck (1991) outlined five types of humour described earlier. Two of them, satire and full comedy, both include the theory of disparagement involving superiority. As a result of these theories connection to physical or psychological put-down, they have consequently been used with caution by advertisers to avoid offending an audience who could easily misinterpret the content or associate themselves as the target of this type of humour (Gulas, McKeage & Weinberger, 2010). Rapp (1951) traced the evolution of humour involving disparagement from physical battles of triumph, which today is rather substituted by ridiculing attempts in advertising settings (in Gulas et al., 2010). This means that within disparagement humour types there is frequently an object serving as the “butt of the joke”, which could correspond to celebrities or politicians as well as anonymous individuals.

Provocative advertising using taboo themes

The use of controversial themes in order for marketers to raise attention is commonly referred to as taboo or provocative advertising, which are two concepts with slightly different meanings. Whereas provocation is a strategy applied to fulfill the purpose of shocking the audience, taboo is the theme used to arrive at this effect (Manceau & Tissier-Desbordes, 2006). This reasoning is supported by Vezina and Paul (1997) who describe provocative advertising as a strategy where the intention is to shock consumers by transgressing societal and cultural norms or taboos. The construction of a taboo can in general be expressed as a prohibition that outlines a person’s daily actions (Sabri, 2012). Those prohibitions serve as foundations of behavioral norms, integrated by society’s values, which determine the degree of the taboo.

Masking

Shabir and Thwaites (2007) propose an additional function of humour in advertising by claiming that it can be applied as a masking device. Masking occurs when ‘the processing of a stimulus is interrupted by the subsequent immediate presentation of a second, different stimulus. The second stimulus acts retroactively to obscure the former one’ (Moore, 1988, p.302, in Shabir & Thwaites, 2007). This implies that the second stimulus decreases the visibility or awareness of the primary stimulus, thus working as a masking appeal. The strategy of masking can therefore be used in order to generate a positive perception of a stimulus that is otherwise perceived in a negative manner, or the other way around (Shabir & Thwaites, 2007). Although not explicitly referred to as masking, similar tendencies can be found in other studies. Brown et al., (2010) examination of comedic violence implies that the combination of these stimulus make the audience less observant towards the violent component.

Dark humour – its construct and proposed definition

In previous sections an attempt has been made to provide an overview of the negative sides of the humour construct. By the use of the different concepts introduced, the authors are hereby aiming to describe how they converge in order to ultimately arrive at a potential explanation of dark humour, as well as mapping out the position of this concept. Although providing their own content and contribution, some factors tend to integrate the previously discussed concepts full comedy, satire, aggressive humour, comedic violence and provocative advertising using taboo themes. Besides from the obvious notion that they all include features that distinguish from the more positive and careless types that are oftentimes referred to as humour, the authors managed to identify four evident key terms that unite these concepts further

Product type and dark humour

In order to provide a visual overview of how this definition can be linked to earlier presented theories, Stern’s (1996) taxonomy (Figure 2.3) has been modified to illustrate a framework (Figure 2.6) where dark humour is being mapped along with Speck’s (1991) humour types. The horizontal axes were changed from romantic to light humour, illustrating the positive and careless types, and from satiric to dark humour illustrating the negative and offensive types. In addition, to connect to the earlier discussion (Section 2.3) regarding the suitability of humour according to different product categories, the vertical axes were also changed from physical and verbal to high-risk and low-risk. By this, the authors attempt to investigate whether Freitas’ (2008) suggestion that there is an increased openness towards humour within high-risk product categories than previously expected applies specifically in the case of dark humour. The function of this figure is therefore mainly for use as a point of departure and tool within the empirical chapter.

Table of Contents :

• 1 Introduction
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Problem definition
  • 1.3 Purpose and research questions
  • 1.4 Delimitations
  • 1.5 Contribution
  • 1.6 Definitions
• 2 Frame of Reference
  • 2.1 Introduction
  • 2.2 The marketing communication process
  • 2.3 Product type and audience
  • 2.4 Theories of humour
    • 2.4.1 Mechanisms of humour
    • Summary mechanisms
    • 2.4.2 Speck’s taxonomy of humour
    • 2.4.3 Stern’s taxonomy of humour
    • Summary theories of humour
  • 2.5 Aggressive humour and comedic violence
  • 2.6 Provocative advertising using taboo themes
  • Summary: aggressive humour, comedic violence and taboo themes
  • 2.7 Masking
  • 2.8 Dark humour – its construct and proposed definition
  • 2.9 Product type and dark humour
• 3 Method
  • 3.1 Thesis approach
  • 3.2 Motivations for the choice of overall design
  • 3.3 Focus group
    • 3.3.1 Selection of sample and sample composition
    • 3.3.2 Choice of questions
    • 3.3.3 Pre-test
    • 3.3.4 Ethical considerations
    • 3.3.5 Execution of the focus groups
    • 3.3.6 Netnography: choice of advertisements
    • 3.3.7 Description of advertisements
  • 3.4 Data analysis
    • 3.4.1 Data assembly
    • 3.4.2 Data reduction
    • 3.4.3 Data display
  • 3.5 Assesing the quality
    • 3.5.1 Integrity of the data
    • 3.5.2 Balance between subjectivity and reflexivity
    • 3.5.3 Clear communication of findings

• 4 Findings from the focus groups
  • 4.1 Focus group
  • 4.2 Focus group
  • 4.3 Focus group
  • 4.4 Focus group
• 5 Analysis
  • 5.1 How is the concept of dark humour generally understood?
    • 5.1.1 The nature of humour
    • 5.1.2 The nature of dark humour
    • Summary
  • 5.2 How is the concept of dark humour perceived in
  • commercial settings?
    • 5.2.1 Emotional responses
    • 5.2.2 Responses to media violence: three key issues
  • Summary
  • 5.2.3 Masking as a mitigating tool in dark humour
  • 5.2.4 Generation Y as a potential target group
  • 5.3 Could dark humour be used within high-risk product categories?
    • 5.3.1 Previous research
    • 5.3.2 The participants’ view
    • 5.3.3 Effect on corporate image
    • 5.3.4 Men as an appropriate target group
  • 5.4 The proposition in the study
• 6 Conclusion
• 7 Discussion
  • 7.1 Relevance of the study
  • 7.2 Limitations
  • 7.3 Suggestions for further research
• 8 List of references
• 9 Appendix
  • 9.1 Topic Guide – Focus Groups
  • 9.2 Transcript – Focus Group
  • 9.3 Transcript – Focus Group
  • 9.4 Transcript – Focus Group
  • 9.5 Transcript – Focus Group
  • 9.6 Coding spreadsheet

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Dark Humour – and its use in advertising: perceptions of generation Y