Do the rich have a better sense of humour?

I work in an industry renowned for bullshit artistry. We’re in the business of selling after all, and it’s our primary function to create and influence perceptions; perception, as we all know, is reality. While we’re at it, we may produce communication that is brilliant, concise and stands the test of time (some of it may even win a Loerie) but our purpose is to persuade, and that means presenting an argument rather than reflecting reality.

The current Cell C campaign is a great example of spin without substance, where promises of transparency were belied by the fact that the entire campaign was actually a carefully scripted stunt. (Have you visited a Cell C store lately? Been offered any of the free coffee they promised, or accessed the free internet? The people in the Rosebank Mall store told me that Trevor doesn’t listen to them; the store I visited in Morning Glen Mall last week did inform visitors that there was a Wi-Fi Hotspot present, but I could pick up nothing, so it appeared not to be working.)

Advertising is at least upfront (most of the time) about offering us what we desire rather than what we need. It’s also only part of an entire ecosystem of spin: PR, the media, events, consumer research, ambient and so on. Advertising and the media in particular rely on consumer insights, and for these we turn to researchers, who in turn must find ways to segment markets, label them and present them for sale to brand owners. Stereotyping and creating boxes into which we cram consumers is necessary because it is practical, and all of us do it in one way or another. Just ask a black diamond.

Still, every so often even my breath is taken away by the sheer disingenuousness of it all. At least, I hope the people in this article are being cynical, because if they truly believe this ordure they are offering to the ad industry, then a trip to Weskoppies might be in order. The article relates to the results of a survey conducted on behalf of a media owner, RamsayMedia, which owns such titles as Getaway and Car — the latter being responsible for a lot of brilliant, funny radio campaigns. It’s a study of the psychographics of South Africa’s wealthy and because this is an important market for anyone who handles strategy for brands that target the affluent, I read this with interest.

As it turns out, I was alerted to the possibility of bovine manure early on. The opening sentence informed readers that the name of the study was Crucial Research Engaging Affluent Markets (CREAM); personally, I’d prefer Very Opinionated Moneyed Individuals Titivating.

The study divides the wealthy in South Africa into the following segments:
• Ages 18-24, the aspirant, are “romantic and fun-loving” and earn around R18 000 a month.
• The well-off, aged between 25 and 34, are “adventurous and sociable” and take home R18 000 to R40 000.
• Ages 35-49, the affluent, are apparently “well-known for being practical, dependable and family-minded”, earn between R40 000 and R100 000.
• The “rich, mature and intelligent” are aged over 50 and enjoy incomes ranging from R100 000 a month and up.

(There’s no indication as to whether this is before or after SARS takes their cut.)

Fair enough; a lot of research segments consumers in this way. What really got to me was some of flummery that accompanied it. I’ll quote this paragraph in full because it’s too good not to relate in its entire magnificent awfulness:

“The study also revealed that wealthy people are humorous, which De Kock defined as a psychological process consisting of releasing excessive energy or tension, as per Sigmund Freud’s theory. De Kock, who wondered why wealthy and educated people would identify humour as such a priority when it comes to media consumption, urged marketers to take note of this trend — the more wealthy people are, the more humorous they are likely to be.”

Um, OK.

I’ll let you take a moment or two to allow that to sink in. The richer people are, the better their sense of humour.

The De Kock referred to, if you’re wondering, is the group content director for RamsayMedia, Brandon de Kock. I suppose he actually might have a point — the more wealthy people are, the more likely we are to laugh at them. Or something. Why poor Freud deserved to be included in that is a mystery not disclosed by the article. Also, never mind that humour is a key ingredient in advertising for any target market, no matter whether they live in a bog standard klinker brick somewhere in Jukskei Park or a matchbox house in Mamelodi — somehow, according to CREAM, the rich get to appreciate jokes more than the rest of us.

I don’t know about you, but I find that more offensive than most of the things that Julius Malema has said this year.

Far be it from me to criticise the research of others (disclaimer: in October, the agency I work for will be releasing the South African results of a global brand research study; I certainly don’t want this venting of spleen to be seen as pre-emptive sour grapes). I am sure that the results themselves are perfectly reliable; Bateleur is a reputable researcher after all, and RamsayMedia owns some very successful, desirable titles. Why they felt the need to set themselves up in this way is beyond me. I’ve posted the link to this article on Facebook and sent it to colleagues and everybody who has commented has found it laughable, even contemptible.

This kind of thing simply reinforces stereotypes that the ad industry is shallow and glib, lacking in substance and cynically indifferent to the way real people think and feel. While there are times when that is true, a lot of us have also realised that if we’re going to connect with consumers (and, yes, sell them stuff), we can’t buy into an idea that rich people value humour more. Seriously. Otherwise it’ll just be a case of Conspiring to Regurgitate Absurd Presumptions.