Still don't believe in subliminal advertising?? Watch this.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Yeah that's fine, I agree that they do try to put in subtle things. The end of this video, from MediaWatch was great, but that's because MediaWatch is a remotely reputable source unlike the rest of the video's dubious content.

I just think assuming subliminal messages are everywhere leads to insane conclusions and this video really drove that point home for me.

It's a case of form follows function. I'm looking at a pen right now, it's extremely practical, you don't get much more practical than a pen. It writes, that's about it. Yet the people who made this video I'm sure would start screaming "Oh my god, phallic imagery! Subliminal messaging!".

It seems like if the people who made this video had their way we'd be going to extreme lengths to make sure nothing looks like anything remotely sexual in any way, shape or form. I mean, what is their definition of sexual anyway? Apparently anything straight is, apparently so is a circle.

So until somebody invents a way to design things that don't utilise straight lines or curves, apparently we're being subliminally controlled by 'arousing' images. Righto.

Yes sex is used to sell but as I said earlier it's usually quite blatant when this is occuring. Yes subliminal advertising exists and as the MediaWatch video showed, is in use illegally in some places. However there's a difference between identifying subliminal images that are really there and simply taking shots at the dark, or seeing apples in a bowl of oranges.

That's my 2c. I wish this was just a link to the final MediaWatch section so we could've skipped the insane middle man.

i just watched the video, and i didn't notice anything strange at all!! i'm going out now to get some kfc, smother my self in olay total effects and possibly buy a new toyota yaris!! anyone coming??


lol, i'm only messing, subliminal advertising and messaging has been going on for the longest time, it is even a technique used in hypnotherapy, where if you a feeling down or something you can have subliminal messages of happiness etc inserted into your viewing, it always amazes me that people still don't know this is happening! i hope the waking of the masses is excelerating!!

Doh.

Most of the images in the OP video were inspired by a rubbish book called Subliminal Seduction that came out about twenty years ago.

I worked in advertising at a very senior level for nearly 25 years. Doubtless that makes my testimony suspect in many people's eyes, but nevertheless I am here to tell you that subliminal advertising is a crock.

Do you know why? Not because it's illegal or immoral, but because it doesn't work. That was pretty well established by the middle of the 1970s, some years before I got into the business.

The art directors would have a good laugh about the 'sex embeds', since they never put them there in the first place.

personally the video was a bit of a stretch for me, shapes in a game being the shape of cereal? Even the Dodge logo thing was pretty out there, have you looked at the front of a Ram, its that shape and because it happens to be the shape of a female reproductive system? come on....I own an Advertising Agency and though some things do relate specifically to other objects, I never have clients asking us to create advertising or logos to look like what is being implied in this video. Sure they may want a feeling to be provoked, but thats advertising. I was also noticing the "T" in the ATS logo looks a little like the shape of the female reproductive system also.....hmmm?

Originally posted by Astyanax
I worked in advertising at a very senior level for nearly 25 years...

I am here to tell you that subliminal advertising is a crock.

Do you know why? Not because it's illegal or immoral, but because it doesn't work.

How can anybody from advertising claim that appealing to subliminal urges doesn't work?

'Subliminal' advertising is just a dirty word to some people. It makes advertising sound underhanded - well it is .

As a 25 year veteran of the advertising business do you really think it's a 'crock' to appeal to base instincts in the viewer? Highly doubtful.

You must know as well as anyone else that sexuality, social status, safety and even spiritual symbolism are all used to influence the viewer...
these things are suggested to the viewer through imagery and words.

Are we now debating whether the imagery and words are subliminal? Well it's obvious that subliminal methods are used.

So I guess the argument is whether subliminal messaging is effective at all? Again - seems like a moot point. Whether it's effective or not advertising continues to use highly advanced psychological suggestions on the viewer...

reply to post by Astyanax


I encourage you to take a look at this web page. The advertisement is pretty benign on the surface. However the author of the page wasn't so sure. He has come to some pretty big conclusions! (puns fully intended).

Subliminal advertising

I would encourage you to approach your art directors and ask them why they haven't been a part of this type of advertising. It certainly exists!

Under the Influence

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
How can anybody from advertising claim that appealing to subliminal urges doesn't work?

I am drawing on a quarter-century of personal experience, which you do not possess, as well as a rather extensive body of psychological research, which I fear you may not have read. I was, for some years, an 'account planner'. Look it up.

As a 25 year veteran of the advertising business do you really think it's a 'crock' to appeal to base instincts in the viewer? Highly doubtful.

Can you point out where I said this? Or explain how such appeals are necessarily subliminal? Are you, as I suspect, confusing 'base instinct' with 'basic instinct'? Could we be having a Sharon Stone moment here?

You must know as well as anyone else that sexuality, social status, safety and even spiritual symbolism are all used to influence the viewer...

And it is quite possible (although I would not swear to it) that you are well aware that this is the case with all art, all literature, all speech and song, indeed with all human communications, including your own. 'All communications are for the benefit of the sender, not the receiver.'

these things are suggested to the viewer through imagery and words.

And grandmothers occasionally require instruction in how to suck eggs.

If you wish to disprove what I say, post some evidence. Here's some to be going on with:

Subliminals: Science or Myth?

Subliminal Advertising Leaves its Mark on the Brain

Dr Bahrami said: "This is exciting research for the scientific community because it challenges previous thinking – that what is subconscious is also automatic, effortless and unaffected by attention. This research shows that when your brain doesn't have the capacity to pay attention to an image, even images that act on our subconscious simply do not get registered."

There: a straw for subliminary enthusiasts to clutch at. But frankly, I wouldn't trust it to save anybody from drowning.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by solo32_98
Seen and laughed at it oodles of times. I's Exhibit A for subliminal advertising paranoiacs. Note that the rude object you're trying to draw our attention to is purely a matter of interpretation. Some people have dirty minds. The headline of the ad is pretty dirty too, but that really is no excuse for people seeing unmentionable objects next to the poor girl's backbone.

'Ask my art directors'? Before I became an account planner I was a creative director, and a copywriter before that. Twenty years of working hand-in-glove with art directors. There's not much an art director does professionally that I am unaware of.

You have been lied to, my trusting friend. Not by art directors, but by Bullock, Packard and the other paranoiacs and hucksters who publicize this kind of nonsense.

Subliminal advertising is standard practice for print publications. So much so that in a college public communications class, we had to design subliminals into advertisements for a class project.

Death and Sex are apparently the two most popular themes. If you pick up any magazine and look at the full page glossy ads, you will nearly always find skulls in the ice, naked women in the clouds, a grim reaper in some tree bark etc. Oh wait that was my ad for class but the stuff is there. Well the subliminals are easier to spot in the glossy high quality print ads, over the black and white ones, but they appear in both types.

The thing is though, they are allowed in print advertisements, because a person can take the time to find them, so supposedly that makes it okay. The same is not true for TV media, and is quite illegal. The awards show would have drawn heavy FCC fines if it had been broadcast in the states. Of course this type of advertising still occurs, but we aren't bombarded with it all the time, at least not so blatantly on TV. Sadly the free advertisement these companies receive as a result of this stunt was far more valuable than any fines imposed, if any were imposed at all, in Australia.

As someone else stated, the original video lost me at the video game shapes. Those are such common shapes, it's like saying hula-hoops promote cheerios. Ridiculous...

Although the Dodge Ram was quite illuminating.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I's Exhibit A for subliminal advertising paranoiacs. Note that the rude object you're trying to draw our attention to is purely a matter of interpretation. Some people have dirty minds.

Pffffff. Just never mind all that quarter century experience and psychological research jargon.

If you think a blatant phallic object only appeals to people with 'dirty minds' you have zero capacity in the psychology department my friend.

Thanks for waving your finger with your chin up in the air, but I'll stick to the accredited studies.

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm curious about something. If subliminal advertising doesn't work, WHY is it illegal?

reply to post by whitewave

I'm curious about something. If subliminal advertising doesn't work, WHY is it illegal?

First of all, is it illegal?

It is banned in the UK and Australia, as well as in some other places where politicians have seen fit to pander to the paranoia of ignorant voters in hopes of getting their reward at election time. Banning subliminal advertising is a win-win move for pols: it earns them votes without costing them a thing in terms of contributions from business and other special interests. The people who count all know sub-lim doesn't work anyway, so they couldn't care less whether the politicians ban it or not.

In the USA, subliminal advertising is not illegal, although there are certain restrictions:

We sometimes receive complaints regarding the alleged use of subliminal techniques in radio and TV programming. Subliminal programming is designed to be perceived on a subconscious level only. Regardless of whether it is effective, the use of subliminal perception is inconsistent with a station's obligation to serve the public interest because the broadcast is intended to be deceptive.

- Federal Communications Commission Record, 2001

reply to post by NewWorldOver

Thanks for waving your finger with your chin up in the air, but I'll stick to the accredited studies.

Well, won't you share them with us, then? I already asked you to.

How much do you know about the picture you're so sure contains a subliminal embed? Did you see the original advertisement when it appeared? Could you vouch for the fact that the phallic 'embed' you 'see' was actually there at the time (back in the 1970s by the look of it)? Can you demonstrate that the image was not airbrushed or photoshopped afterward by someone trying to make a spurious case against subliminal advertising? Can you even prove that this ad ever actually appeared in the media?

Come on then, show us what you've got.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Note that the rude object you're trying to draw our attention to is purely a matter of interpretation.

As a graphic artist, with experience retouching photos, I can tell that the female's back had been retouched. When you try to make that phallicly shaped area make sense in the whole body, you get a girl with a rather weird knot all along the right side of her spine. I could see where shading was added. I could tell.

So whether you think it is open to interpretation or not, from my experienced eye I say this was, indeed, deliberately painted in.

Spots before my eyes

Originally posted by Amaterasu
As a graphic artist, with experience retouching photos, I can tell that the female's back had been retouched.

I've had some such experience too; like I said, in this thread or somewhere else, I used to be a creative director in big ad agencies.

Now let's see: as a graphic artist, you will be fully aware that almost every image used in advertising is 'retouched' to a greater or lesser degree.

You will also be aware that, at a screen resolution of 100ppi or whatever it is nowadays, even fairly coarse details tend to get lost.

Then, remember that what you are viewing is the digitized, pixellated onscreen image of a four-colour screen-printed magazine page showing a photograph shot on film and then retouched and rephotographed by a film scanner at the colour separator's shop or printing press. I firmly question whether anyone, graphic artist or not, can really be sure of anything, given the transcription errors inherent in that many-staged process.

Finally, even granting that you can be sure of what you are seeing, you cannot be sure that the 'retouching' was not done by the person who posted the image on the internet to support his claims about subliminal advertising.

reply to post by Now_Then
Now then, Now_Then,

Do you really believe

1. that men find anatomical drawings of women's internal reproductive plumbing arousing?
   
   
2. that men carry, deep in their subconscious minds, an archetypal image of an anatomical drawing of the female human reproductive system analogous to similar images of phalli, breasts, the female form, etc?
   

Such would have to be the case if the Dodge Ram claim were true.

It isn't, of course. However, it is true that some marketing types believe this mumbo-jumbo. I remember a country manager for BAT (that's the company that makes Benson & Hedges cigarettes) once expounding admiringly on the 'phallic' connotation of the upward-pointing white triangle on the Marlboro pack. He was an idiot, of course, as his successive failures later proved. I believe he's retired to South Africa now.

reply to post by NewWorldOver

For God's sakes, advertising executives have to pass courses where they learn how to play on human desires like sex, social status etc.

Hi again, Young Atlas.

Could you please provide some reference or other evidence for this statement?

And while you're at it, could you please post some of those 'accredited studies' you mentioned earlier?

I know I'm being a bit a pest, but you did call me a liar right off the bat, and I think people who make accusations like that should be able to prove them.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Dr Love
Sure enough, that is three naked women, two sitting, facing away, and the other standing up facing towards me. Good catch.
Peace

Oh damn!! The vid is no longer available!! What the heck happened???? Is there any other way I could see those 'three naked women, two sitting, facing away, and the other standing up facing towards me.'???

No cheers this time!

Originally posted by Astyanax
Then, remember that what you are viewing is the digitized, pixellated onscreen image of a four-colour screen-printed magazine page showing a photograph shot on film and then retouched and rephotographed by a film scanner at the colour separator's shop or printing press. I firmly question whether anyone, graphic artist or not, can really be sure of anything, given the transcription errors inherent in that many-staged process.

Finally, even granting that you can be sure of what you are seeing, you cannot be sure that the 'retouching' was not done by the person who posted the image on the internet to support his claims about subliminal advertising.

Ok, I doubt that the model was misshapen. And in the pic, she really is, suggesting some photoshop work. Also, the shading does not look natural - it's slightly the wrong color, again evidence of retouching.

I will grant you that I have not seen the original print item, and therefore cannot tell you where in the process the retouching was done. But my issue was not with WHO did the manipulation, but simply that it had been done.

As to the likelihood that it was done in the original ad, I'm going to give it an 85% probability that the poster was NOT the photoshopper. 15% says it was. I give it these probabilities because I have seen exactly such things in real print ads. But I cannot fully discount that it was an "afterthought."

Originally posted by Astyanax
'All communications are for the benefit of the sender, not the receiver.'

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Astyanax]

Does that include screams of terror?


edit; Humour me, i find such unfounded statements such as the one you used to be wholly ignorant of the truth of the matter.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Throbber]