Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA21769 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 10 May 2000 16:40:42 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB174@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:38:45 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
What you're talking about is the long dead theory of two-step flow, where
the media have indirect effects on those who pay little or no attention to
the media, through their conversations with those who do (opinion leaders).
This doesn't work, because, as stated, those who are interested enough to
pay attention are more heavily influenced by other factors (e.g. when you're
actively looking to buy a car, do you buy the one with the best advert or
the one with the best finance deal?).
You're absolutely right that it is difficult, currently, to scientifically
isolate and measure media effects. That is precisely why I am concerned
that one aspect of memetics, the horizontal transmission of memes through
the media, are often used as self-evident examples, even by scientists, and
the scientifically minded, who spend a lot of time criticising social
science, the general public, and popular science writers, for not been
scientifica enough in their use of evidence for their views.
Memetics offers a reason why advertising jingles persist even when their
conscious use (I mean conscious in the sense of the people writing the
jingles) to sell products doesn't work. To the jingle meme, it doesn't
matter if the person receiving the jingle buys the product or not, in the
same way that it doesn't matter if the celibate priest fathers children, as
long as the jingle-meme, or the celibacy-meme can be passed on. As such
advertising and celibacy are passed on regardless of what their material
consequences are, if there are any.
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:20 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
>
>
>
> Vincent Campbell wrote:
>
> > Sorry, have I understood you correctly, that an advert for beer was
> aimed at
> > children? Why? I hope I'm not being too naive here, how does targeting
> kids
> > help a beer sell? I mean, OK, as with tobacco advertising, you're
> possibly
> > building a future market, but what about immediate sales?
>
> Because, like cigarettes, they are aimed at kid's first experiences -
> which tend
> to stick with them for years. Witness how many people still drink pukey
> Bud
> despite its terrible taste. Yes, they were targeting early adoloescents -
> because they can get beer! Sick but true.
>
> >
> >
> > I'd like to know exactly what study you're referring to, because what
> > interests me is the extent of non-attention to advertisments, and how
> that
> > is perceived as being related to purchasing. In several famous
> political
> > studies between the 1940s and 1960s (From Berelson et al, 1944, to
> Blumler &
> > McQuail, 1968), the largest sign of effects of political coverage of
> > election campaigns occured amongst the least interested and highest
> avoiders
> > of media coverage. The problem is that taking this argument to its
> logical
> > extreme is ridiculous, becuase it suggests that those who hid down a
> mine
> > not reading a paper, listening to a radio or watch TV were those most
> likely
> > to be influenced by the media.
>
> I suppose it could be that those people talked to those who saw the
> material.
> Hearing it from someone close to you is always more effective.
>
> > [Incidentally for everyone else who did pay
> > attention to the media coverage, study after study has shown that prior
> > partisanship, education, occupation etc. have statistically significant
> > influences on voting behaviour whereas the media have none]. The study
> > you're citing seems to me, without being able to closely asess the exact
> > content, the same basic flaw. Were the people who took least in from
> the
> > adverts the ones who bought most? What about the people who could
> remember
> > everything from the ads- did they buy more? If advertising "works" then
> > they should. Why did people buy the products, or rather what reasons
> did
> > they give?
> >
>
> All I know is that they were able to find out which people were actually
> exposed
> to particular advertising and which weren't. The group that was exposed
> were far
> more likely to buy the product regardless of whether or not they could SAY
> that
> they remembered the ad. I only saw the stuff written up in the Wall Street
> Journal in the past 4 years - probably 2-4 years ago. So the lesson to the
> study
> is, it's a lot of work to find out with science if ads actually work.
>
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Chuck Palson
> > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 9:04 am
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > > recognising jingles has got absolutely nothing to do with buying
> > > products,
> > > > and everything to do with recognising jingles!
> > >
> > > All joking aside, don't forget that I didn't remember the jingles
> after
> > > 20-30
> > > years, and I am not a smoker. But more important, you are ignoring the
> > > main
> > > point of the study on the relationship of buying habits to
> advertisements:
> > > advertising DID lead to buying - it was just that people could not
> > > VERBALLY
> > > associate the advertising with it. In other words, it wasn't important
> to
> > > do
> > > this, so they didn't. The brain, after all, is separated into modules
> (as
> > > studies in psycholinguistics shows), and there would not necessarily
> be a
> > > reason to have to tell someone else about the product you have decided
> to
> > > buy
> > > due to some advertising.
> > >
> > > > A more recent example would be the Budweiser ad with the frogs- Very
> > > > memorable, but did it really make people buy more Budweiser? Or,
> more
> > > > specifically, did it make people who don't drink, indeed have never
> > > drunk,
> > > > Budweiser, drink it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again - there is no way to know without following people around. But
> given
> > > that
> > > the frogs were aimed at children, and the children got a big kick out
> of
> > > them, I
> > > would guess that it did indeed have an effect. REmember that kids were
> far
> > > more
> > > likely to remember Joe Camel than Ronald Macdonald -- which was the
> > > original
> > > impetus for attacking cigarette companies. (in this case, you can use
> > > their
> > > ability to remember as a comparative measure).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > From: Bruce Jones
> > > > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2000 10:52 pm
> > > > > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> > > > > Subject: RE: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
> > > > >
> > > > > Could be .... but:
> > > > >
> > > > > Name that product:
> > > > >
> > > > > " ......... Tastes good like a .......... should"
> > > > > "See the USA in your ................"
> > > > > "Fresh from the valley of the Jolly 'Ho! Ho! Ho!
> > > ....................."
> > > > > "I'd like to give the world a ......... To keep it Company"
> > > > > "Listening to the voice of their master."
> > > > > "I like ....."
> > > > >
> > > > > And so on and so forth ... each is product specific.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Wade T.Smith [SMTP:wade_smith@harvard.edu]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 3:37 PM
> > > > > > To: memetics list
> > > > > > Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 05/09/00 11:04, Chuck Palson said this-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >But perhaps they were blind people just listening to TV.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought, _almost_ an assumption, that jingles and stuff, while
> > > > > > memorable in their own right, had nevertheless only a mild to
> > > > > > non-existent brand identification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Wade
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ===============================================================
> > > > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> > > Transmission
> > > > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g.
> unsubscribing)
> > > > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > > > >
> > > > > ===============================================================
> > > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> Transmission
> > > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g.
> unsubscribing)
> > > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ===============================================================
> > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> Transmission
> > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > >
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 16:41:10 BST