Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA20051 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:56:52 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D4F@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: taboos Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:49:56 +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
The problem is that we know that our senses take in huge amounts of data
that our brain normally filters out (that's why idiot savants can do
remarkable things, as its hypothesized, because they may have that filtering
mechanism switched off- so some can draw incredibly accurate pictures of
buildings after a short view of it, or play music perfectly after hearing it
once etc.). Perhaps one could tap into the reserve of sensory info that the
brain takes in but is filtered out of our conscious experience, and do
something with that, but there's a major problem with this in advertising.
What you're ideally trying to do with advertising is initiate behavioural
change (or maintain certain behaviours), but we understand so little about
this filtering process how could anyone construct something that taps into
it with any more than chance results (at this point)?
Besides which, what is normally regarded as subliminal advertising doesn't
tap this unconscious level, but tries to work on the margins of our sensory
capacity- e.g. the single frame of a product in a film. This is barely
enough time for the brain to register the image, let alone induce complex
attitudinal and behavioural change.
A far better example, might be something like product placement, where the
object is clearly and persistently in view, but isn't an explicit part of
the narrative of the advert/film etc. But of course there's nothing
'hidden' about product placement (hence it's allowed) yet I think this is
more the effect that people mean when talking about subliminal effects. Of
course, product placement doesn't work any more than any other forms of
promotional activity (that's not to say it doesn't work, only a lot less
than the advertisers think- and why they should be paid a lot less money!).
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Lawrence DeBivort
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2001 3:21 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: taboos
>
> Hi, Vincent. The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that a person has
> a
> threshold of conscious perception that depends on a signal strength
> greater
> than their threshold of unconscious perception. A person can be affected
> by
> a signal strong enough to meet their unconscious threshold but too weak to
> meet their conscious threshold. A signal too weak to meet either would
> have
> no effect on the person.
>
> One could easily imagine a situation in which a subliminal signal that is
> broadcast is picked up consciously by some, unconsciously by some, and not
> at all by others; the first group simply is more perceptive, attentive, or
> alert to weak signals than the others. So a subliminal signal might be
> 'caught' consciously by some, affect some unconsciously, and be entirely
> missed by others.
>
> - Lawrence
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 5:55 AM
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: taboos
>
>
> Again, urban myth in the sense that it works. In Bush's case, not least
> in
> the sense that people saw it- in other words it wasn't subliminal enough!
> But that's why it's a silly idea in the first place because it works on
> the
> basis that the less you are aware of the image/message being sent, the
> more
> powerful its effects on you. The logical endpoint here is by not showing
> anything at all you'll have complete control over people.
>
> Vincent
>
> > ----------
> > From: Lawrence DeBivort
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 4:51 pm
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: taboos
> >
> >
> > > Subliminal advertising is an urban myth.
> >
> >
> > Alas, it is not an urban myth. It was actively used for TV at least once
> > by
> > the Bush campaign in 2000.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > 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 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 17:08:38 BST