Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA26698 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 May 2000 15:51:52 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB180@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: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:49:44 +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
To respond to this specific point-
> 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.
Well, Richard Brodie's response to one of my comments on the complexity of
audiences' interaction with media content, on this list, is a good example.
You want proof that primal factors sell, he said, look at the rows of
romance novels in bookstores. It is that kind of simplification of the
media's social role that scientist's sometimes rather loosely use, even when
criticising others for their lack of scientific process. The point being
that research shows that audience interactions with media, even romance
novels, is more complicated than anyone thought. Although I'm not saying
he's wrong, only that it's a rather throwaway comment, that some people have
spent a rather long time thinking about (I believe Janice Radway has written
about romance novels, although I don't know what she says, or if it would be
useful in our context).
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:57 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
>
>
>
> 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 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 : Thu May 11 2000 - 15:52:52 BST