Comments on: Back to the 50s: The Age and subliminal advertising http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/back-to-the-50s-the-age-and-subliminal-advertising/ now with extra source Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:10:19 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Stephen Downes http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/back-to-the-50s-the-age-and-subliminal-advertising/#comment-6305 Stephen Downes Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-6305 Good question, Harry. I can only conclude that the use of this "rapid cut" technique was about graphic style: some young producer or editor trying to be "edgy" but ending up being smart-arsed or silly… but not sinister.<br /><br />This wasn't "subliminal advertising" - nothing like it. The sponsors whose logos appeared in the so-called "subliminal" flash frames were conspicuously acknowledged verbally and visually in many other parts of the broadcast. Announcements and ads in the commercial breaks conveyed a lot more persuasive content than a “subliminal” static logo ever could. So there was nothing hidden about the sponsors' paid commercial interest in the broadcast, and no covert message... just a logo.<br /><br />It’s also clear that it was Ten’s production people, and not the sponsors or their agencies, who came up with the “rapid cut” approach.<br /><br />Sorry to disappoint, but not everything that advertisers do is calculated to persuade or manipulate people. Most of the time, advertisers struggle just to get viewers' attention. And they get lots of things wrong. Why, for example, have some viewers seen a particularly offensive 4-letter word in a Bendigo Bank ad where people spell out the word COMMUNITY? I'm certain that wasn't what the advertiser intended!<br /><br />Peter - on my reading, the ACMA rejected Ten’s “good faith” defence because it did not show “sound judgment”, because of the commercial (not artistic) context and because the logos were inserted deliberately, not inadvertently. The Code proscribes the technique regardless of intent – there was no finding of an intention on the part of Ten to brainwash people or exert mind control, despite what one of the complainants asserted! If you haven't already, you can read the full ACMA report at http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310623/ten_reports_1958_1959_1960_1961.pdf Good question, Harry. I can only conclude that the use of this “rapid cut” technique was about graphic style: some young producer or editor trying to be “edgy” but ending up being smart-arsed or silly… but not sinister.

This wasn’t “subliminal advertising” - nothing like it. The sponsors whose logos appeared in the so-called “subliminal” flash frames were conspicuously acknowledged verbally and visually in many other parts of the broadcast. Announcements and ads in the commercial breaks conveyed a lot more persuasive content than a “subliminal” static logo ever could. So there was nothing hidden about the sponsors’ paid commercial interest in the broadcast, and no covert message… just a logo.

It’s also clear that it was Ten’s production people, and not the sponsors or their agencies, who came up with the “rapid cut” approach.

Sorry to disappoint, but not everything that advertisers do is calculated to persuade or manipulate people. Most of the time, advertisers struggle just to get viewers’ attention. And they get lots of things wrong. Why, for example, have some viewers seen a particularly offensive 4-letter word in a Bendigo Bank ad where people spell out the word COMMUNITY? I’m certain that wasn’t what the advertiser intended!

Peter - on my reading, the ACMA rejected Ten’s “good faith” defence because it did not show “sound judgment”, because of the commercial (not artistic) context and because the logos were inserted deliberately, not inadvertently. The Code proscribes the technique regardless of intent – there was no finding of an intention on the part of Ten to brainwash people or exert mind control, despite what one of the complainants asserted! If you haven’t already, you can read the full ACMA report at http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310623/ten_reports_1958_1959_1960_1961.pdf

]]> By: Harry Goldsmith http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/back-to-the-50s-the-age-and-subliminal-advertising/#comment-6306 Harry Goldsmith Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-6306 "Media Watch said “the jury is out on how effective (subliminal advertising) actually is in getting people to buy things.” In fact, countless scientific studies over four decades have found, again and again, that the technique has no measurable effect on consumer behaviour. But it seems hundreds of scientists don’t actually constitute a “jury” in the eyes of Media Watch or, indeed, The Age."<br /><br />I don't know whether "sublimal advertising" works or not, but the obvious question is, if it doesn't work, why use it? The question is so obvious, that the author should have provided the answer.<br /><br /> “Media Watch said “the jury is out on how effective (subliminal advertising) actually is in getting people to buy things.” In fact, countless scientific studies over four decades have found, again and again, that the technique has no measurable effect on consumer behaviour. But it seems hundreds of scientists don’t actually constitute a “jury” in the eyes of Media Watch or, indeed, The Age.”

I don’t know whether “sublimal advertising” works or not, but the obvious question is, if it doesn’t work, why use it? The question is so obvious, that the author should have provided the answer.

]]> By: Peter http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/back-to-the-50s-the-age-and-subliminal-advertising/#comment-6307 Peter Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-6307 Yep, subliminal advertising is indeed currently a crock. However I don't have the hubris to suggest that 20 years from now someone won't work out 'the trick'. There's at least now a law on the books that lets broadcasters know if presented with the possibility that maybe they shouldn't do it.<br /><br />ACMA also definitely rejected the 'in good faith' defence that that channel Ten raised ("We didn't mean anything by it, it was just artsy") - Ten acted in a calculated and 'bad faith way' driven by an its overarching commercial arrangement. <br /><br />Just glad we won't be subjected to two frame commercial blips inserted into anything and everything.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Peter<br /><br /> Yep, subliminal advertising is indeed currently a crock. However I don’t have the hubris to suggest that 20 years from now someone won’t work out ‘the trick’. There’s at least now a law on the books that lets broadcasters know if presented with the possibility that maybe they shouldn’t do it.

ACMA also definitely rejected the ‘in good faith’ defence that that channel Ten raised (“We didn’t mean anything by it, it was just artsy”) - Ten acted in a calculated and ‘bad faith way’ driven by an its overarching commercial arrangement.

Just glad we won’t be subjected to two frame commercial blips inserted into anything and everything.

Regards

Peter

]]>