Research

Results

A study was designed to learn more about the connection between football and Super Bowl commercials. The study focused on the recall and perceptions of ads that used humor or violent humor. The study was designed to learn more about the impact of humorous ads on viewers who were fans of either team participating in the game versus the impact of humorous ads on viewers who were nonfans. A quantitative study with Likert-style questions was designed on google forms and was distributed through Facebook, email, and text message to the researcher’s own network and the researcher requested that the network pass along the survey via the snowball method. The study was distributed in March 2022. The researcher received 101 responses; 92 participants completed the survey from start to finish.

Participant Demographics

Two demographic questions were asked. One was about gender. One was about age. Of the 92 participants who completed the survey 64.5% (n=60) were male and 35.5% (n=32) were female. The 18-29 age category was 57.6% (n=53). The 30-39 age group was 9.8% (n=9). The 40-49 age group was 5.4% (n=5). The 50-64 age group was 23.9% (n=22). Lastly, the 65 and over age group was 3.3% (n=3). One question asked the participants if they were fans of either team playing in the game. 44.1% (n=41) were fans. Nonfans made up 55.9% (n=52).

Participant's Recall of Ads: Fans vs Nonfans

Fans tuned into the Super Bowl to watch their favorite team compete and win the Super Bowl. The football aspect of the broadcast was important to them. The nonfans tuned into the Super Bowl to be entertained. They had no stake in the results. The nonfans were less frequently fooled by the decoys in the list of advertisements given to see which were recalled as having been shown during the Super Bowl. Nonfans appear to have better recall than fans. Nonfans also seemed to remember specific products better.

Participant’s Recall of Ads: Humor/Violent-humor/Non-humor

The researcher wanted to learn which commercials participants could recall from the Super Bowl. The researcher designed the questions to include commercials that were actually shown and others that weren’t shown. These were decoys to keep the participants honest. Participants were correctly able to recall most of the commercials, and the highest responses were for commercials actually shown. Lays, Coinbase, and Budweiser scored the highest of all the commercials recalled, and they were actually shown.

The participants then clicked on videos embedded in the survey. They were asked to view the videos one at a time. Then, they answered the same four questions about each video.

1. Did they think the ad was funny?

2. Did they think the ad was violent?

3. If they thought the ad was violent, describe why

4. Did the advertisement change your feeling toward the brand?

The survey measured whether or not participants remembered if the product was shown in the ad. 87.7% (n=71) of participants’ recalled Lays Potato Chips were shown in the ad. 66.7% (n=54) recalled the Hellman’s mayonnaise appeared in the ad. And 35.8% (n=29) recalled that Budweiser appeared in the ad.

Two additional questions were asked to measure levels of recall. One asked in which commercials the product were physically consumed. The second question asked participants to choose celebrities from a list to see if they could recall which ones appeared in the ads. Participants overwhelming recognized that the Lays chips were eaten at 87.2% or n=68. Hellman’s was much lower. 34.6% or n=28 recognized the mayonnaise was eaten. 73.1% of the participants recognized that Budweiser wasn’t consumed but 26.9% of the participants said that it had been.

Seth Rogan and Pete Davidson were the most recalled celebrities. Seth Rogan was in the Lays ad and Pete Davidson was in the Hellman’s ad. For Seth Rogan, 88.2% (n=75) recalled seeing him in the Lays ad. For Pete Davidson, 87.1% (n=74) recognized seeing him in the Hellman’s ad.

Participant’s Perception of Ads: Humor/Violent-humor/Non-humor

The last question asked if the violence made any of the commercials more memorable. 70.1% (n=61) said no. 29.9% (n=26) said yes.

Chart 6: Did Violence Make Commercial More Memorable

Two of the advertisements, the Lays ad and the Hellman’s ad, were obviously funny and participants agreed. The participants considered the Hellman’s ad violent. Eighteen of the 22 who responded used the word “hit” or “tackle.” The third ad was not obviously humorous and the participants agreed. They also agreed that it wasn’t violent. Overwhelmingly, the ads did not change people’s feelings towards the brand, 90%: for Lays, 91.3% (n=84); for Hellman’s, 92.1% (n=82); and for Budweiser 90.2% (n=83).

Discussion

The first research question asked “Does a nonfan have better recall of Super Bowl commercials than a fan of either team playing in the game?” Fans tuned into the Super Bowl to watch their favorite team compete and win the Super Bowl. The football aspect of the broadcast was important to them. The nonfans tuned into the Super Bowl to be entertained. They had no stake in the results. The Bud Light ad was recalled by twice as many nonfans as fans. This was the company’s first time advertising Bud Light NEXT. People know the Bud Light brand but may not be aware of the NEXT extension. People also know the usual Bud Light ads featuring Dilly Dilly or Post Malone, which are very funny, and this ad was very different. The music was very catchy. The visuals are darker and quick-moving. It felt more like a very short movie, and the product name wasn’t revealed until the end. This is traditional in Super Bowl commercials and has been since the “1984” Apple ad. Since that ad, viewers expect to be drawn into a story by the ads and to be as entertained by the ads as the game (Mansky, 2019). This makes sense, because the nonfans are watching the game for the entertainment, which includes the commercials.

The nonfans were also less frequently fooled by the decoys in the list of advertisements given to see which were recalled as having been shown during the Super Bowl. Nonfans appear to have better recall than fans. Nonfans also seemed to remember specific products better. Nonfans remembered the Lays ad by 20% over fans. Nonfans remembered the Bud Light Next ad by 33.3% over nonfans. The Lays ad had humor and it was the only one of the three most recalled that used humor. This ad checked many of the boxes from the literature review because it used both celebrities and humor (Hatzithomas et al., 2018), which are considered part of the entertainment for Super Bowl ads. When Seth Rogan marries a ghost-zombie that supports the incongruity theory, which says people laugh when they are surprised (Khan & Khan, 2013). The Bud Light Next ad wasn’t funny but it is supported by Mansky (2019) who wrote about the cinematic quality of Super Bowl ads was important to the entertainment of the event.

Overall, the results indicate that nonfans have higher recall than fans. This answers yes to Research Question 1 and may indicate that nonfans pay more attention to the ads during the Super Bowl than fans.

Research question #2 asked “How does the use of humor in Super Bowl commercials impact viewers' recall of the product being advertised?” The Lays commercial was by far the most recalled, by 14% more than Coinbase and 15% more than the Bud Light ad. The Lays ad was funny, and the other two were not. Kim et al. (2012) concluded that humor sells and entertainment holds value. The Lays ad starts off with the two celebrities – Seth Rogan and Paul Rudd – eating chips and talking. They’re dressed in tuxedos and one of them is clearly a groom. They recall the fun they’ve had together, and the memories they share get crazier and crazier. Finally, in the end, Seth Rogan marries a ghost-zombie, which is a shock, and the ad shows them all dancing at the wedding. This is a good example of the relief theory, which is a theory about humor. This theory describes humor as a release of nervous energy (Khan & Khan, 2013; Meyers, 2000). This happens in the Lays ad after the shock of the wedding and the funny relief of the dancing. The ad may have also been more memorable because of all the kinds of humor used. Physical humor, violent humor, and humor that is hostile in nature or makes people feel superior makes people laugh (Khan & Khan, 2013; Meyers, 2000; and Yoon, 2016).

Research question #2 was also tested when the researcher asked the participants to please check the boxes of the commercials they just viewed to see which ones they remembered. The commercials were named by product. The Lays ad was the most recalled of all. 86.9% (n=73) of all the viewers recalled the Lays ad. The second most recalled ad was also funny but featured only violent humor. That ad was for Hellman’s. 75% (n=63) of participants recalled that ad.

The Coinbase ad sent more than twenty million people to its landing page in one minute. This was a level of engagement six times higher than previously. It was historic and unprecedented (Valinsky, 2022). The ad showed a black screen with a QR code bouncing from side to side. The recall of fans and nonfans was pretty even. It was the last commercial in the whole Super Bowl. Although the literature stated that humor is an essential ingredient of an advertisement and has a profound effect on building brand recognition (Khan & Khan, 2013, p. 22), the Coinbase ad saw record-breaking numbers without the use of humor.

The Lays ad had humor and it was the only one of the three most recalled that used humor. This ad checked many of the boxes from the literature review. It used celebrities and humor (Hatzithomas et al., 2018). When Seth Rogan marries a ghost-zombie that supports the incongruity theory, which says people laugh when they are surprised (Khan & Khan, 2013).

Research Question #2 was supported. The results indicated that recall of the product is connected with humor (Khan & Khan, 2013; Kim et al., 2012; Meyers, 2000; and Yoon, 2016). Eisend (2018) said that humor was also tied to recall if the humor wasn’t too distracting from the product.

Research question #3 asked “Do people react differently to violent humor in Super Bowl commercials compared to Super Bowl commercials with nonviolent humor?”

The literature review stated that if people didn’t understand the violent humor, the violence turned them off (Hatzithomas et al., 2016). This was supported by the results. The Hellman’s ad came in second for recall, so participants must have understood that the violence was meant to be funny, and they liked the ad. However, participants were also asked “Did the violence make any of the commercials more memorable?” 70.1% (n=61) of participants said no. 29.9% (n=26) said yes. But the Hellman’s ad came in second for recall, so maybe something else in the Hellman’s ad made it memorable, not the violence which people understood to be funny. Pete Davidson was in the Hellman’s ad. He is a very well known comedian who is on Saturday Night Live, and he showed up in the end of the ad. That might be what made the ad memorable, not the violent humor. People commented on that, “Shoulda hit Pete harder.” The literature said that the use of celebrities, violence, and humor all impact ad likability (Eisend, 2018). The Lays ad, which was the most memorable, had celebrities and humor. The Hellman’s ad had celebrities, violence, and humor. The difference between the two ads was about 4%. Participants found the Lays ad, which had minimal violent humor, but celebrities and humor, funnier than the Hellman’s ad, which was all about violent humor but also had celebrities. 30.4% (n=28) strongly agreed that the Lays ad was funny. 26.1% (n=24) strongly agreed that the Hellman’s ad was funny. 27.2% (n=25) agreed that the Lays ad was funny. 23.9% (n=22) agreed that the Hellman’s ad was funny.

Participants found the Lays ad, which had minimal violent humor, funnier than the Hellman’s ad, which was all about violent humor. 30.4% (n=28) strongly agreed that the Lays ad was funny. 26.1% (n=24) strongly agreed that the Hellman’s ad was funny. 27.2% (n=25) agreed that the Lays ad was funny. 23.9% (n=22) agreed that the Hellman’s ad was funny. These are small differences, but they are still differences.

The literature review stated that if people didn’t understand the violent humor, the violence turned them off (Hatzithomas et al., 2016). This was supported by the results. If Participants understood that the violence was meant to be funny then they liked the ad. The use of humor without violence scored better on recall and perception. Advertisers need to be cautious and calculated when using violent humor.

Limitations

The videos for this study were hand-selected, so future researchers might test the same hypothesis using different examples of violence and comedic violence. In this case, the researcher tried to select the most relevant examples. People may only like advertisements because of someone specific such as Paul Rudd or Seth Rogan. The same issue could work against advertisers, for example, people weren’t too fond of seeing Pete Davidson in a Hellman’s commercial this year. A study with greater resources could include multiple examples of humor and comedic violence in order to collect more generalized data. It also would have been useful to include a question about whether or not participants consumed alcohol during the social nature of the event. This is important to note because participants may have a foggy memory of certain aspects of the broadcast. It wasn’t due to the ads themselves. This is completely unavoidable, it's the nature of the game. This is something that advertisers will have to consider. Lastly, respondents were focused in the New England area and may not be representative of the general population viewing the Super Bowl.

Click the button below to navigate to the Key Findings