 |
 |
Brick No120: How sitcoms get you laughing
By Matt Weston, Tuesday 14 December 2004
I am, I admit, a bit behind schedule today.
In the name of research I've been watching and re-watching
tapes and DVDs of some of my favourite sitcoms. And in a less
funny moment, our email server broke down.
The last couple of weeks, I've chewed over some pretty weighty
issues: from transparency & truth to secrets & lies. So I
thought I'd offer you some light relief today.
Question: what do you think about those laugh tracks that
play over TV sitcoms?
(Some people describe it as "canned" laughter, but as I'll
explain in a New York minute, that's not strictly right.)
Answer: If you're like most people, you don't like them.
They're intrusive and off-putting, aren't they? And they
are an insult to your intelligence (as if we need telling
when to laugh).
Anyway, don't only the weakest comedies employ them? Well, in a word: nope.
With the explainable exception of The Office - which plays
the silence for awkwardness - almost every classic sitcom
of the last five decades has been backed with a laugh track.
It's just that you only really notice a laugh track when (a)
it's faked, (b) it's too loud or (c) the jokes are lame.
Why laughter breeds laughter
And laugh tracks work.
They provide a subconscious cue, and prompt a semi-automatic,
semi-infectious response. In "Influence: The Psychology of
Persuasion", Robert Cialdini goes to town on the subject.
He cites numerous studies that have shown that laugh tracks
make test audiences laugh longer, louder and more often. RC
calls this an example of "the power of social proof".
"Social proof" simply refers to the fact that we do what other
people do. Laughter breeds laughter. And here's the small
business parallel - demand breeds demand. As Harvey Mackay
put it: "If your business is in demand, everyone wants it."
I've written before about how stimulating testimonials,
queues, and waiting lists can breed demand. (See Brick No54.)
But how do I square "canned laughter" with the last couple
of bricks on transparency and truth? Isn't it fakery?
Time for that explanation I promised earlier. Most laugh
tracks aren't "canned".
As Graham Linehan, who penned Father Ted, puts it: "[It is
a myth that the laughter is canned.] A sitcom with a laughter
track is filmed, in the words of Ted Danson, in front of a
live studio audience; how many people, I dunno, two hundred
say, but they're there. I know because I've seen them and
I've sat among them . . . the laughter you hear is the
laughter that was there."
The very same rule applies to testimonials (and other forms
of "social proof").
David Ogilvy once wrote: "Testimonials from celebrities get
high recall scores, but I have stopped using them because
readers remember the celebrity and forget the product."
"What's more, they assume that the celebrity has been bought,
which is usually the case. On the other hand, testimonials from
experts can be persuasive - like having an ex-burglar testify
that he had never been able to crack a Chubb safe."
Celebs give you "canned" testimonials. By asking real
experts to use and endorse your product, you stimulate bona
fide "social proof".
So the line I would draw is between simulation and
stimulation. Don't pay people to eat in your restaurant, but
do sit the customers you have in the window seats. By the same
token, don't make up testimonials, but do make sure you
collect one from every single customer you have.
Remember to sign up: back to top
|
 |
|
 |
|