It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Subliminal Advertising - Always real or interpretation?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Nobody can deny that multi-nationals and countless smaller companies spend millions on advertising, and various placements in the media and even film.
I just read David Icke's "Tales from the Timeloop" (2003). It's undeniably most illustrated and convincing pages are on subliminal advertising (see Chapter 15 - "Manipulated Consensus"). It appears that the subconscious mind is open to all kinds of messages while the conscious mind is distracted. Technically, subliminal advertising is illegal and therefore effectively admitted, but such laws are open to interpretation, and they are therefore virtually useless.

For some further reseach I located a site which explains such techniques in adverts further. The site focuses mainly on tobacco and alcohol advertising, both of which are being regionally banned or restricted, however the techniques are probably used elsewhere. www.poleshift.org...

What shocks me is the constant trope of sexual gentalia (although the pics themselves are heavily interpreted, and never "literal" or pornographic), skulls, demonic faces, suggestions of bisexuality and homoeroticism, and a number of voyeuristic techniques. If this is all true, our subconscious is blatanly attracted to what moralists would normally call "satanic'.

There is a lot of truth shown, but how old are these ads, and does it still happen?
Why should women go for diet colas because of hidden breasts in the labels, and men for hidden phalluses if only a minority is gay? Or is the subconscious inherently bisexual? That really confuses me, because if true, then advertisers know something about ourselves that most people do not.

Any more detail on sublimal material, and how it works is much appreciated.




[edit on 23-5-2010 by halfoldman]




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman

For some further reseach I located a site which explains such techniques in adverts further. The site focuses mainly on tobacco and alcohol advertising, both of which are being regionally banned or resctricted, however the techniques are probably used elsewhere.


Could you post the site, please?

Alcohol advertising is still predominant in the U.S.



There is a lot of truth shown, but how old are these ads, and does it still happen?


It is not just in the advertising, it is also on the product/packaging itself...A pack of Camels, for instance, still has an embedded man/phallic symbolism within the actual camel illustration.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by sonjah1]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
oops double post by accident, sorry..

[edit on 23-5-2010 by sonjah1]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sonjah1
 

I have added the link in my op. Thanks for the speedy reply!
Most people could start at level two, although the whole site is quite entertaining, and quick.
Word had it here in South Africa that alcohol ads will follow ciggie ads to oblivion next year. Nevertheless that makes advertisers more cunning. In Australia I've heard that only brandless ciggies will be sold soon - and the taxpayer may have to compensate big tobacco for their legally lost brand imaging. www.news.com.au...
I've seen more and more big alcohol companies advertising "responsible drinking ads" that only have a small label as a socially conscientious "sponsor". So we see ads by SA Breweries like "Enjoy Responsibly" (duh, while drinking the very thing that makes you irresponsible), or "Buzzed Driving is drunk Driving" (especially while home blogging that is sooo relevant, by implication doing anything else buzzed is quite alright). Of course one would not try to be cynical about any positive social message, but one doesn't see the models or the cash of alcohol adverts pumped into "responsible" sloganeering - it seems more like a cop-out to put the onus onto the "informed user", rather than the product.
Some thoughts...



[edit on 23-5-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
From David Icke's "Tales from the Timeloop" (2003), p.407 (I've generalized some brand names):

At the website of Jim Hagart's Semi subliminal World, you can find subliminals highlighted in other (cola) products. They include distorted faces, "gremlins" and the usual sexual themes. ...the target market of (one cola) is overwhelmingly women and the subliminal use of women's breasts is an example of the technique of planting subliminals of women's sexual parts in ads aimed at women and men's in those targeting men. Being attracted to people of the same sex is taboo and the denial of the conscious mind hides the subliminal from view even more effectively, while attracting the subconscious to the ad. That's why they do it.


I mean that is a really surprising observation.
The statement reminded me of my BTS discussion on homoeroticism in film, which led increasingly to strange modern moments in cinema that hint at same-sex attraction when it hardly seems necessary. Not only that, but they seem to leave even the seasoned gay viewer in the dark.
The assumption from certain industries seems to be that what people say about their attractions is totally irrelevant to how they can be manipulated.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
You can take this for what it's worth. I am an independent commercial editor. I have been cutting tv spots for 30 years on local, regional, national and international level.

I have NEVER been asked or involved in use of subliminal techniques. Never.

Sure advertising employs powers of persuasion and the old adage "sex sells" might be true to an extent. (Hot blondes in a car or beer ad) But from my experience in the video world, I can assure you there is no conscience effort perpetrated on the tv viewing audience to control their brains and make them zombies. Sure spots are stylized, art directed and polished to make them communicate a message, feeling or brand image but not to program a viewer's brain involuntarily.

Sure there are motivational buzzwords and "calls to action" to entice a viewer to purchase a product or service, but nothing as nefarious as you might believe. Advertising is a science that calls on efforts to influence motivate and persuade. But so is the art of selling. In the worst case scenario I would imagine that it could be called "propaganda" if the claims made were untrue. But claims in commercials and infomercials must be substantiated and are enforced by FTC.

Sure I've read "Subliminal Seduction" by Key and know of the claims like nudity in ice cubes etc. (Primarily print media) and the technique of tachistoscope projection.(outlawed) I'm sure others will bring up Neuro Linguistic Programming etc. but trust me when I say there is no "black box" that we run tv commercials through to rot your brain and I am highly fluent with every type of video editing / compositing hardware and software out there. Hope that helps/ My .02¢

Subliminal Seduction

Subliminal Projection technique


[edit on 23-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Theres plenty of subliminals still around today, a lot of which are in music video's as well as advertisements.

I think it reveals a lot about the truth of what is actually going on.

I spoke to someone last night who was adamant that there is no such thing as subliminals, no wonder theres people upto their eyeballs in junk they do not need and such a rise in atheism. Quite interesting that a topic like this has popped up and if that offends anyone, tough because its true.

Ive noticed a lot of them with symbolism as well, heres a few small examples...








posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

So if its never done, then why did the Republican National Committee get caught flashing "Rats" in an anti-Al Gore campaign in 2000. Perhaps they were just clumsy? Well, I mean they were obviously clumsy.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Subliminal suggestion is still in use and can be in the eye of the beholder to a degree. But some things are very obvious. I even did a video of subliminal work in statues (that was not received very well) and while some were bold in their interpretation (more for comedic effect) others were plainly visible.

Camels were mentioned, here is an older pack of Marlboros with the background grayed so you can plainly see the subliminal. Which is commonly called two klansmen holding a banner that says "We came, we saw, we conquered." in latin. The logo has since been changed sometime in the 1990's to remove the "veni, vidi, vici" and add USA below the PM in the red circle.




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

So if its never done, then why did the Republican National Committee get caught flashing "Rats" in an anti-Al Gore campaign in 2000. Perhaps they were just clumsy? Well, I mean they were obviously clumsy.


I'm not sure. Believe it or not some of us do have scruples. I have declined cutting political ads (and tobacco promotional videos) for that very reason. Perhaps I should have emphasized it is not done within respected circles.

I am not familiar with that story and would relish any links. Thanks.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Here, in SA, the ubiquitous Lion Matchbox (itself illuminati symbolism according to some) is subject to the old pub-joke - cover the . of the lion with your thumb and the rest is persverse - or is it just reading too much into an image? Some see it, some don't.
(Finding it surprisingly difficult to link to an image of a Lion matchbox!)
www.fastmoving.co.za...



[edit on 23-5-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

There was lots of discussion at the time, even in the MSM, but for starters see:

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


To me, this isn't "real" subliminal advertising because the RATS was so overt, not hidden. In other words, I "consciously" saw the word.

However, I'm not sure if your previous post may have biased my perception because I was looking for the word. If had seen the political ad without knowing what was to be expected then maybe I wouldn't have seen the word, except at the "unconscious" level?


If they make subliminal advertising "illegal," but allow candidates to use it so blatantly... oh, the irony...but just the same MO I guess....



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

There was lots of discussion at the time, even in the MSM, but for starters see:

www.youtube.com...


OMG. You can't be serious.

It was a crop of the word bureaucrat. Looks like a sloppy "Live Type" Animation effect for Final Cut. It was a 4 frame "random fly in effect" IMO. Besides as someone pointed out, it was visible for a frame. Hardly qualifies as subliminal.

For reference:



Sorry, not trying to divert thread, just dispel refutable claim.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

Of course I'm not sure whether the u-tube or given link had already slowed it for demonstrative purposes, but thanks for showing the "Rats" that was flashed again.
I'm still waiting from 2 mods I U2Ued for word on whether it is permissable to show some other debatable links with supposed sexual imagery.
In any case, according to "true" conspiracy the democratic/republican split is manufactured, and such petty disputes help to keep that illusion of opposition alive. So it was probably made to be sloppy.
Nevertheless, just because "rats" was attached to another word doesn't mean anything either way - the hallmark of subliminimal stuff is that it appears somewhere in the liminal surface image or wording.

I cannot illustrate just yet, but I'd say it's often exposed on purpose and it has a novelty value in itself. That also creates a buzz.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Any more detail on sublimal material, and how it works is much appreciated.


Subliminal Research Project

There are studies that suggest that subliminals work but only in context to the individual...there are some interesting thoughts to be made on that topic if one considers societal entrainment of emotion/physiological reaction...trends, religion, politics et cetera...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 

Wow, thanks a lot, much info in this 2005 ATS thread (strangely couldn't find it in my searches, maybe because I focus on ads?).
I would agree that it cannot work for everybody, maybe just for people teetering on the edge of a decision between two similar products.
So, for a convinced vegetarian, no amount of dressing up a salami as a phallus is going to make a difference, for example.
I suppose it would dwell on aspects where critical thinking is lower, and that's the market that could be swayed between similar things. Perhaps it's that extra little push between similar brands that nevertheless makes a Dollar difference of note.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

In 1957, market researcher James Vicary claimed that quickly flashing messages on a movie screen, in Fort Lee, New Jersey, had influenced people to purchase more food and drinks. Vicary coined the term subliminal advertising and formed the Subliminal Projection Company based on a six-week test. Vicary claimed that during the presentation of the movie Picnic he used a tachistoscope to project the words "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Hungry? Eat popcorn" for 1/3000 of a second at five-second intervals. Vicary asserted that during the test, sales of popcorn and Coke in that New Jersey theater increased 57.8% and 18.1% respectively.

However, in 1962 Vicary admitted to lying about the experiment and falsifying the results, the story itself being a marketing ploy. An identical experiment conducted by Dr. Henry Link showed no increase in cola or popcorn sales. A trip to Fort Lee, where the first experiment was alleged to have taken place, would have shown straight away that the small cinema there couldn't possibly have had 45,699 visitors through its doors in the space of 6 weeks. This has led people to believe that Vicary actually did not conduct his experiment at all.

However, before Vicary's confession, his claims were promoted in Vance Packard's book The Hidden Persuaders, and led to a public outcry, and to many conspiracy theories of governments and cults using the technique to their advantage. The practice of subliminal advertising was subsequently banned in the United Kingdom and Australia, and by American networks and the National Association of Broadcasters in 1958.

But in 1958, Vicary conducted a television test in which he flashed the message "telephone now" hundreds of times during a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program, and found no noticeable increase in telephone calls.
*
So the laws against subliminal advertising were in reaction to a panic caused by a hoax...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 

Laws against a hoax - when did that ever happen?
Kinda like anti-marijuana laws based on "reefer madness" (and it's gonna make you an axe-murderer), or laws against blacks and gays because they were considered "diseased"?
Laws against having contact with ETs, although they don't exist?
Mmm, usualy when the NWO made laws they did so for a reason, not because a real danger to their hegemony doesn't exist.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


*shrug* not saying it was a unique occurrence... just pointing out that many people today still believe it was true, and half of the subliminal scares that are posted on ATS are basing themselves on this same filmsy "evidence"...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join