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.
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.
Originally posted by NewWorldOver
How can anybody from advertising claim that appealing to subliminal urges doesn't work?
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.
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."
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.
I'm curious about something. If subliminal advertising doesn't work, WHY is it illegal?
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
Thanks for waving your finger with your chin up in the air, but I'll stick to the accredited studies.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Note that the rude object you're trying to draw our attention to is purely a matter of interpretation.
Originally posted by Amaterasu
As a graphic artist, with experience retouching photos, I can tell that the female's back had been retouched.
For God's sakes, advertising executives have to pass courses where they learn how to play on human desires like sex, social status etc.
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
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.
Originally posted by Astyanax
'All communications are for the benefit of the sender, not the receiver.'
[edit on 30-3-2008 by Astyanax]