Trashy commercialism

Catastrophe is a bit too strong a word to be included in a discussion of advertising regulations, but I see where you're coming from. My main concern here is subliminal advertising -note, I'm focusing on "deceptive" advertising as opposed to advertising that is considered invasive, mainly because the first is easier to set a definitive view of (and often more overlooked) and the second is really self-explanatory. Various forms of subliminal advertising are still in the media currently, including hypnotic writing, and while I believe that at the moment they are present in tolerable forms and amounts, I also believe that regulations should be placed and enforced to discourage more serious infractions.

Way back in the 1950's an advertising expert named James Vicary employed a new method of advertising he had dreamt up, and using a special device he flashed the words "Drink Coke" and "Eat Popcorn" onto the screen during a movie showing. Of course the sales for each of those products leaped. The FCC has since introduced laws against this sort of advertising because they deemed it "deceptive", but its' slightly tamer counterparts are still around today, most notably in print advertising. A few examples follow:

This one is fairly easy, but just in case: That model's hands sure are treating that bottle with the proper care. Perhaps hE's beiNg sImply Safe?

Or how about this innocent ad for feminine napkins? Keep in mind that I'm just including this because it's immensely creepy.

Nothing wrong with it, but... is that a splotchy, bloody Elton John face below her waist?


And finally, the ever ubiquitous word.


It's easier to see when enlarged.



S-E-X.


It's also here (besides the fact that this one looks like a penis, complete with urethra):


And here:



The point I'm trying to illustrate here is that these sorts of subliminal messages are registered by your mind, but not on the fully conscious level. Most of them simply catch your attention, or subtly attest to the effectiveness of the product. I'm perfectly okay with these -well, not perfectly okay, they creep me out, but I accept them as fair- and I will not make any noise about them because they're where they belong, in the advertisements. My fears for the future are that these sorts of tactics will make their way out of the advertisements and into more public mediums. I don't want them on the television, where my viewing of them is somewhat less voluntary, or on billboards, where my viewing the ad is entirely invountary. More so, I don't want these tactics being used to advertise more serious topics; liquor and cigarettes are fine, political candidates and social viewpoints are entirely innappropriate for this sort of thing.
Can you imagine a smeer campaign using this stuff?
That's a hard question to answer. just like any socially condemnable behavior, punishments and boundaries are hard to develop.
As such, I can't expect exact boundaries to be formed, but I'm calling for simply more fleshed out boundaries to be formed. Currently, there really is nothing stopping the strategies I put forth earlier to move into other aspects of our society. T-shirts subversively advertising the Democratic party, books quietly telling us to kill.
It's hard to tell. But I never said I knew exactly where to put a stop to things, just that putting limits on them is necessary.


Man, that took me a while. By the way, pretty much all of the images in this were provided by my good friends residing HERE.
GO THERE. FOLLOW LINKS!
Heh. Kidding, of course.

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

Great post Herod. I agree i may have gone a bit over the top with some of my claims for advertising-effectiveness, but i do wish the likes of Yods would accept the potential a bit more (and that the likes of Djangi wouldn't try to remove completely what is, after all, a natural human activity - deception)

When we take into account: the emotional content of music and colours, the "invisible" writing you've described, contextual spin in overt voice or text, misdirection, and the over-all principle of topic-linking (i.e. link coke with the spirit of football, or what have you - link McDonald's with family-values etc etc)...we can see how these techniques alone can be used in combination to affect the thought-processes of the unwary. (which, amongst children certaintly, can be tantamount to "brain-washing" - or brain-"forming/structuring" more accurately). Synergy etc means we can get "attacked" from many angles. And the unfortunate thing is that even ignoring ads etc isn't always enough, as some things don't require direct visual/conscious concentration to slip in to your head. I find enjoying spotting the elements while resolving not buy the product helps Just enjoy the ingenuity without paying them for it (coz ingenius admen should be employing their talents elsewhere for the most part IMO)

When you add physical manipulations like "natural"/"healthy" smells and tastes in food, in-depth analysis of consumer weaknesses and preferences that can be re-steered, environment sculpting (i.e. everything from kiddies playgrounds using their preferred animal-role models, to malls that put people in a semi-hypnotised state thru lighting, music and arrangement)

There are more nefarious techniques out there for human-mind manipulation - but most of them can't be or aren't used in adds at the mo.

Incidently Yods, billboards can be very affective. Bored kids in the back of a car on long journeys have practically nothing else to look at. I mentioned at the beginning of this thread how ad-men very cleverly got round the legislation that stopped them fom portraying actual attractive human-scenes to sell their product. Bastards (i fell for it - the first cigs i asked for in a shop/thought about were the ones they "directed" me to)

On that level, definitions of acceptable and unacceptable accentuations of the human survival trait of deception (thru new-ish technologies etc for the most part) are a NECESSITY i think, if we wish to maintain the idea of buying products coz they're "good" products.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

That's precisely what I'm arguing for--some sort of moderation.

Again, you are distorting everything I say by taking it to an extreme. Sorry, Yoda, but your "worst case scenarios" simply do not add up. As I have already pointed out, governments do and should legislate against annoyances. Examples are the California state regulation of email spam, British govt. ban on rural advertizing (see link above), legislation against street littering, noise pollution, indecent public exposure, grafitti in public places, etc. I'm not saying that the government should act as an "overprotective parent," but it does have a role to play in terms of regulating public annoyances. Advertizing definitely qualifies as a potential public annoyance. As Herod noted above, some degree of regulation of advertizing is definitely desirable. Question is where does one draw the line.

I think that statement applies equally to yourself, judging from the comments you have made above.

Yes, you did point that out. And I replied to it, explaining why I think they're different.


...and it seems abundantly clear to me that pushing the line back "severely," as you are proposing, is a terribly impractical idea that will do plenty of harm for a relatively minor good.


I don't see how. I've dealt directly with what you've said.

My points stand in regards to your bizarre attempt to use the drug trade to discredit commercialism, as well as your strange assertion that you have an inherent right to view the natural world the way you please. Also, if you'd like, we can shift the thus-far unanswered economic questions/challenges to another thread...though I suspect you'd be more comfortable leaving your accusations unexamined.

Anti-spam laws leave a lot to be desired, but I'd rather have something than nothing. I don't think you can just let advertizing go--if you do, our society would be deluged with advertizing. There has to be some form of regulation when it comes to advertizing. And doing so in no way implies I have to reliquish my right to complain about the economy--there is no connection. Littering may be a physical thing, but it also happens to be annoying! I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

In no way does that statement qualify as an assumption that can be understood to be taken by everyone. Like I said, certain forms of commerce is criminal, which contradicts your statement. Littering and public nudity definitely infringe on people's rights--the right to live in a clean and safe environment, for example. The same principle applies to regulation of billboard advertizing--it infringes on the right of people to live in an environment in which one doesn't have to put up with some trashy commercial screaming "BUY! BUY! BUY!" in your face all the time!

The problem with a commercial drug deal is not just the drugs. Sure, the drugs are a part of the equation--besides being illegal, they are harmful and addictive. But drugs, in and of themselves, do not constitute the drug trade. You can ban drugs, but the drug trade continues. Why is that? Because the problem is how far some people go in order to make a profit--in order to make money. They would go even as far as selling potentially lethal and poisonous drugs to children. The same applies to such things as the cigarette and alcohol industries. Cigarette ads have been banned for a reason--the reason being the inescapable link between cigarettes and lung cancer. The pharmaceutical and food industries are regulated by the FDA for the same reason--to protect the citizenry from corporations that might peddle inferior products that might be harmful to one's health. I don't think "ugly" is totally subjective. Saying that implies that beauty is totally subjective, and that is an absurd statement. Ask pretty much anyone and I am sure that most people would agree that a commercial billboard blocking a scenic vista is ugly. A house on a hill is usually not ugly (unless the house is ugly)--usually it adds to the scenery, if the architecture is tasteful. Sure, I can complain if your house blocks my view of the scenery--I have the right to complain in a free society. Question is, what can I do about it. If you own the property, probably not very much! But I can still complain. No, I am not dense and the data rarely proves me wrong. You only say it does, and your statements tend to be biased, presumptuous and completely erroneous, I'm afraid.

Getting away from the technical jargon, which really proves very little in the long run, let me make my case in as simple terms as possible. Industries are not hiring people en masse. For that matter, they are not laying off people en masse either, as they have steadily been doing for the last couple of years. That is a heartening trend, I guess, but hardly ideal. What I see as positive economic growth is, very simply, a dramatic creation of jobs in the market to the extent that industries begin dramatically increasing production and hiring people in substantial numbers again. I hope this constitutes a simple and lucid enough description for you to understand. I don't think I'm squirming out of any corners here--I've made my case in simple, non-technical and understandable terms. Incidentally, when you resort to statistics and technical jargon, that strikes me as an attempt on your part to pull the wool over my eyes and conceal the true economic situation. So, again, let me repeat so that there is no room for misunderstanding--what I see to be positive economic growth is a dramatic expansion of the job-market accompanied by a dramatic increase in production and consumption. That is just not happening under the current administration.

Being a little premature in your statements, aren't you?

This, I can agree with. Subliminal advertising is another animal entirely. But, as you already pointed out, you can't really get rid of it altogether. I think what rabid anti-commercial opponents are missing is that painting it as undesirable is only half the battle...you also need a plausible form of regulation which doesn't bind business.

Even so, the fact that concession sales went up doesn't mean that we don't have a choice...just that some people are very suggestible.


A good point...though I think society is offsetting these things naturally, WITHOUT government intervention. Case in point: the word "rats" in a Republican campaign commercial sometime around the last election (if I'm remembering correctly). It was never shown that it was intentional (they claimed it was the end of the word "bureaucrats"), but it was STILL given loads of attention.

Throw in the fact that technology today allows Joe Schmoe to go frame-by-frame, and I think we're taking care of the problem ourselves, at least somewhat.


That's exactly my point, though: that most of this advocacy is idealistic, rather than practical. There's not much point in saying we need to change something if we can't realistically do so. That's not to say that there is no potential balance, of course.


Interesting site...though, really, a lot of it is stretching like mad. It'll go to incredible lengths to show us that "hey! The reflection in that ice cube kinda looks like an upside-down shoe!" but gives no reason as to why an upside-down shoe would cause us to buy the product in question. I do believe in subliminal advertising, to some degree, but methinks webpages like that are a shade paranoid.

Well, see my response to your claims above. I still believe you're wrong.

I don't see how the idea is impractical--esp. considering I haven't proposed any definite course of action. I have only called for some form of reasonable regulation of advertizing. And the benefit is far from minor. Again, it is about the right of the citizenry to live in a clean and safe environment without some marketer screaming "BUY! BUY! BUY!" in your face all the time.

If you don't see how then you must be incredibly dense yourself! Your points have already been discredited above. I have made no assertions that I have the right to view the natural world any way I please--I have stated that everyone has the right to be exposed to the inherent beauties of nature and not having it blocked off by ugly, repulsive commercial advertizing. I have already responded to your unreasonable accusations, so it follows that your statement is completely unfounded--another example of your own propensity to arbitrarily level unfounded and completely absurd, far-fetched and extreme allegations against me, which I really don't have the time or patience to address repeatedly. It's kind of like dealing with a madman who repeatedly slanders me--it's your prerogative, I guess, to rant and rave to your heart's content--I just don't have the time or patience to address each of your ridiculous rants individually!

Ahhh, at last you admit subliminal advertising can be problematic! (altho i was bombastic about it previously, the point is....just coming up....). Tho i think you should remember that we are ALL almost certainly "suggestible", if in varied ways. Hypnotism (for example) and subliminal influence can take hold or fail to for various reasons i believe (personal, possibly even neurological varience - it's hard to say exactly why sometimes - tho in some cases it's almost certainly coz of strong belief systems already in place which won't permit the believer to act in certain ways. Our core values can protect us possibly. Hallelulia [sp??!], but that's more for direct hypnotism)

I might have relayed a few too many of the potentials of hypnosis to subliminal et al (but those things in themselves are just fascinatingly potent - and voice-overs attempt related things for a start - not to mention other, sometimes related, techniques in magic, relying on attention-grabbing to allow the secret stuff to go on )

But again, sound point - we're struggling to think of a way to regulate the potential problems with the "sciences" of thought/action-influence via advertising (their main aim these days - beyond simple brand recognition, i'd say). In the little systems of industrial accountability i envisage, a small team of experts checking all the ads doesn't seem THAT far fetched. Again, depends on any jumps in technique that the consumer must "suffer" thru first as a group, which make indivdual assessment a bit less useful (i.e. would we as indivduals always know what to look for - and is their a mechanism for complaining about/preventing such things?)

Awareness is key. Many things get slipped in peripherally. [EDIT: incidently - did any of the Derren Brown series get shown state side? He's a type of psychology-non-magician if you like. i.e. he does loads of amazing apparent mind-reading and physical-via-mind manipulation, but never claims it as magic. If he didn't you'd be tempted to "believe" - WooOoooO He did the make-everyone-in-a-mall-put-their-right-arm-up thing by putting a repeating announcement over the tannoy for half an hour (he says malls put people in a semi-hypnotic state anyway - so they're perfect for him). And he did an absolutely hilarious periphary-information-insertion trick on a pair of ad boys. Absolutely priceless stuff]

Regulation of business has been empirically shown to hinder econoimc growth. Severe advertising regulation ("severe" was your word...seems to me any calls for "moderate" regulation now would constitute backpedaling on your part) would, obviously, impose significant restrictions on business. Ergo, the regulations you've called for would present a detriment to economic growth.

That's not to say you can't still have a healthy economy...but it won't be as healthy.


No, it doesn't. The "crime" part of the drug trade is the drugs, not the commerce. Therefore "commercialism" itself is not a crime. Drug use -- and some perpetuation of drug use -- however, is.


You can claim that it OUGHT to be a right, but it isn't. You keep going on about the trampling of rights which simply do not exist. This is a common Liberal theme: entitlement.


Yes, to make money. But we don't punish them for the "making money" part, we punish them for the fact that they do so with drugs. Remove the making money, and it's still illegal. Remove the drugs, and it's not. Which leaves us with one inescapable fact: commercialism, in and of itself, is not a crime.


Exactly: you can complain, but you have no right to do anything about it...nor should you, because the world does not owe you that view.


The data constantly proves you wrong. It has in regards to veterans funding, unemployment, the cost of the war in Iraq, the deficit, and contributions to the Republican party. Not ONCE have you ever made an economic claim which I have disputed, only to have you produce statistical evidence to contradict me. That HAS happened the other way 'round, though...a number of times.


I find it interesting that, to you, facts are something you "resort" to, rather than something you base your beliefs on in the first place. Maybe you'd be more respected around here if you didn't form your conclusions before looking into the matter.

You've tried to call the data to your side a few times (mangling it horribly. twice, in the case of unemployment statistics), but as soon as you're convinced it goes against you, you try to save face by discrediting even the most formal of statistics...even if these are the same statistics you've tried to use in your favor in the past.

Babble on about "technical jargon" all you want, but everything I cite is remarkably straightforward. If I were trying to pull the wool over your eyes, I wouldn't be costantly trying to talk you into looking these things up to see for yourself.


"Dramatic" expansion is a fine criteria for identifying "dramatic" growth, but not for identifying any kind of growth.

I'll ask yet again: by "production." do you mean GDP? Or are you referring to a vague economic measure which does not exist?

Let me qualify that statement: a supremely incompetent, ineffective and corrupt bodyguard. In fact, I would argue that we would be far better off firing or retiring this bodyguard. It does not seem to know what it is doing--either that, or else it is blatantly deceiving us.

Why do I make this claim?

a) The threat: the "bodyguard" claims to be protecting us from a threat of some sort. What exactly is this threat? The "Axis of evil"? Doesn't exist--pure fiction and rhetoric, nothing more. Al Quaeda? Largely defeated already. Iraq and Saddam? Never even proven to be a threat in the first place--in fact, clearly established to be a case of outright deception on the part of our "bodyguard."

b) Performance: the "bodyguard" has been demonstrating time and again that its policies seem primarily to be motivated by selfish interest and profit. It is doing little or nothing to address the real problems with society: economic woes and poverty, social injustices, crime, etc. Its policies have been largely deceptive--it seems to be more intent on terrorizing the "protected" populace into submission by perpetuating a fictitious threat than really protecting them from anything. The policies of this bodyguard are routinely infringing on the civil liberties and rights of the "protected" citizenry--more like "Big Brother" than a "bodyguard". Privacy is being routinely intruded upon, innocent citizens have been routinely arrested and detained on no real grounds other than suspicion, discriminatory and unjust policies seem to be thriving. The "bodyguard" seems primarily to be motivated by personal profit--more like a "mercenary" than a "bodyguard"--judging from its dubious and half-hearted policies to redress the economic situation. Moreover, it attributes its failures to its non-intervention policy. The truth is that the "bodyguard" intervenes in the affairs of the citizens precisely where the intervention is uncalled for and fails to intervene when and where it is required--which, again, suggests inexcusable incompetence on its part.

The truth is that the "bodyguard" seems, to me, to be acting more like an autocratic dictator or Egyptian pharaoh. It is engaging in a course of action that is blatantly deceptive, autocratic, unjust, commercially motivated, driven by selfish interest and just plain corrupt.

Like I said, we would all be far better off if we just fired the "bodyguard". The problem is not so much the so-called "threat" that the "bodyguard" is supposedly protecting us from. The problem is the "bodyguard" himself--because the "bodyguard" is a sham, a deceptive liar, a corrupt authoritarian disguised as a "bodyguard."

This post is wholly out of place; it belongs in a different thread on the topic of governmental effectiveness. The bodyguard analogy is to analogize just what government should be. Whether or not it lives up to that in all areas is another matter entirely.

So, by that token, you would dismiss worker safety issues, FDA approval, pollution regulation, etc., all of which, by your claims, would constitute regulation of the economy and endanger the health of the economy?

While I don't deny that drugs are evil, the crime here is not simply the drugs--the crime is the extent some people are willing to go simply in order to make money--the crime is, in fact, commerce. What motivates the drug trade? The obscure and arbitrary desire to perpetuate drugs in society? No--what motivates the drug trade is COMMERCE--the desire to make MONEY off drugs. Same principle applies to the flesh trade, the cigarette and alcohol industries, dangerous cost-cutting measures in any industry, etc. It all boils down to the desire to profit, to make a quick buck, to make money--COMMERCE. Commerce is at the HEART of MOST CRIME! Most crime is, ultimately, a commercial enterprise--most crime is ultimately motivated by the desire to make money. As such, certain forms of commercialism are most definitely criminal.

Okay, so let me get this straight--people do not inherently have the right to live in a clean and safe environment? According to you?

We punish them because they try to make money by unscrupulous means, case in point, dealing in drugs. In essence, we punish a certain type of commerce as a crime. As such, certain forms of commercialism are, indeed, criminal, while most commerce is certainly undesirable.

Sure, I have the right to do something about it if I can. I certainly have the right to enjoy that view, as does everyone else. And the world has no right to take that view away from me.

A ridiculous exaggeration, if there ever was one. You may have posted a few statistics to supposedly call my claims into question, but you ignore my refutations to your claims, arbitrarily dismissing them. I admit to having conceded to your claims on a couple of occasions--mainly because I didn't have the time to corroborate all your elaborate claims. But you have far from made a convincing case in most of your claims--not, at least, in my mind, even if you might succeeded in convincing yourself admirably!

Again, you have succeeded admirably in distorting my words--a habitual process on your part. What I said was that statistics and technical jargon are something that YOU (i.e. not I) resort to. I certainly base my beliefs on facts. You, on the other hand, use a form of deception, i.e. misleading statistics and technical jargon (which really distort the facts) as a means of concealing the truth.

I think that I have made some pretty impressive citations to prove my case on several occasions. All you seem to be capable of doing is making fallacious claims about me to undermine my credibility. Your choice of words is purely subjective and completely judgmental. They hardly address the issues and, rather, only reflect on your own inherent biases and contemptuous attitude. Like I said, the unemployment statistics belie the real gravity of the situation--on paper they make it appear as if things aren't so bad, whereas production has taken a dramatic dive in the past couple of years and people have been laid off from their jobs in droves. And when I speak of production, I refer, very SIMPLY, to the manufacture and distribution of commodities--goods and services--in the market. I think that is pretty straightforward--assuming that you have the wit to understand what I mean.

There has been little or no growth at all--forget about dramatic growth. Sure, the stock-market has been rebounding slowly and the job market has been experiencing a trickle of improvement--but it is still far from desirable. And it appears to me that whatever improvements we have seen of late have been incidental to government policies rather than in any way associated with them. Regarding what I mean by "production," see above.

My point is valid, nonetheless. I just had to comment on your pathetic choice of words, incidentally! I.e. the government is like an extremely corrupt, incompetent bodyguard!

My choice of words was spot-on; it illustrated my point perfectly. The fact that the analogy may or may not apply to every aspect of government doesn't matter, because we're only discussing one.

Your post is off-topic and irrelevant to this discussion. Grow the hell up.

I sense a touch of hostility in your use of language. I wonder why!

Probably because you want very much for me to lose my cool, the way you have a dozen times on this forum. For more information, see the red dots below your avatar.

Oh, wait, I was supposed to say that it's because I'm threatened by your highly accurate criticisms, wasn't I?

"The red dots below my avatar" . . . which displays the tool tip text "Django is utterly loathed"! LOL! What is that supposed to be? Another attempt on your part to make me unpopular? Who makes these completely arbitrary and subjective assessments anyway? Obviously you do, Yoda! Hence the "little red dots under my avatar" are simply your way of telling me how much you dislike me! Well, I'd say the feeling was mutual, but then that would mean admitting that I am so immature as to resort to likes and dislikes when it comes to debating the issues. Also, this reveals that you are, in fact, biased in your attitude towards me when it comes to discussing the issues--a bias that is only too apparent in your words, incidentally!

I guess I see where you may be coming from, although I'm not sure I see where you're going.
Should we eliminate commerce? How?
How could we develop a society where money isn't considered to be worth breaking the law for?

This argument seems to be moving away from regulation of advertising and into a more philosophical territory.

Let me pose a question to all of you that might better focus the debate: We've all agreed (I believe, excuse me if I'm being presumptious) that some amount of regulation is necessary, so at this point are we simply arguing to what degree?