Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA22333 (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 17:54:23 +0100 Message-ID: <39194E9E.140F0A65@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:57:18 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB174@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> 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?).
Frankly, it was just a guess as I said. I think I'd have to see the actual study
and be familiar with the broader context to make some better educated guesses.
> 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.
Do you have an example of this - I'm not sure I'm with you on what you mean.
>
>
> 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.
I think this jingles thing is going to far. For one, music is a special case. I
think we would need to study how music sometimes gets stuck. Remember one thing
about music: it is primarily a connection to emotion, and it is the CONTEXT that
gives it its meaning. Hitler loved Wagner, so jews decided it must be fascist
music (Wagner's philosophy was indeed pro-fascist). But the jews were wrong --
music only expresses emotions, and the ideas come from context. (If you like, I
can draw this out, but an important proof of this is how music focuses the
energy of a listener so well that they can endure at a physical activity longer
than without music - such as in dancing, slave tasks - in the antebellum south,
etc.).
So it's quite natural that once the context is removed from a jingle over the
years, it's easy to forget the cognitive context. Why do some tunes loop for a
while? I think that may be at some deeper level that might be explained by some
temporarily faulty brain chemistry. But I don't know. I just think it's an
exception that shouldn't be generalized.
>
> > ----------
> > 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 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 - 17:54:45 BST