Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

RegisClass1985 · 05-25-2010, 10:47 PM

About once a year I do a Google Search on "The Brunswick Affair" to see if anybody else was taught about the as I recall it, 1964 investigative reporter who exposed the technology. This is the first Google Search to lead me to somebody else asking the question as to whether it is urban myth or not. The account posted on your website(Brunswick Affair in 2003...wow am I late in finding this post) sounds 98% accurate with the research I did for my Sociology course in 1982 at a small Jesuit College in Denver, Colorado. My short research paper (12 pages as i recall) cited about a half a dozen published magazine(Newsweek, People, Time and others) articles that i accessed at our small library. The articles reported the bizarre buying habits of a number of consumers in one region of the U.S. back in 1962-1964. The commonality was indeed that they all owned Brunswick television sets and yes, after dismantling one of them, the only part the tech couldnt ID, was a small device that emitted something (I cant remember) during commercials, that had too good of an effect on the viewers' buying habits. In 1982 it sounded Sci-fy to me, and the story has rattled around in my head ever since. After graduation and a two year mission trip to Central America where I lived with no TV, I returned to Colorado in 1987 and discovered that when I was visiting my parents and younger siblings, when we would watch TV together, they would pay attention to the show and during the commercials they would try to engage me in conversation. But it was then, during the commercials that I just couldnt carry on a conversation with any of them, at least not until the commercials were over and the show was back on. But then they were glued to the show and wouldnt engage me until the next commercial. It kind of freaked out my sister and she said that I seemed "mesmerized" (sp) when the commercials came on. So, my paranoid guess, is that the technology, whatever and however good it was, was toned down more subtle but had a definite impact on the viewer with regard to paying attention to the commercial, if not overtly influencing the buying habits of a significant percentage of the viewing audience. Think about it....why else would Doritos or Monster pay $2.3 mil for a Super Bowl advert??? Because they work...maybe not as good as the 1962 Brunswick TV, but let's face it, the only purpose of TV or radio is to entertain so that viewers and listeners will patronize the advertisers. Remember the scene from "A Christmas Storey" when Ralphie had his Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder ring as he sat next to the family radio awaiting the clues to solve the secret message? The program if you remember, was sponsored by Ovaltine. Ralphie decoded the message and as soon as he did, the young buck was outraged that the answer was, "Drink more Ovaltine!" Oh the commercialism...kind of like Charlie Brown Christmas when he is so pissed off at how commercialized Christmas had become. So, as futuristic or whacked as it might seem to some of you who responded to the "Brunswick Affair" post, I don't think it is so far fetched that such a technology has influenced our buying habits. I wish I could have found more info and/or more articles on the B.A. but the reporter/researcher abruptly stopped publising his articles in 1964 if I recall...no follow up articles to be found. Totally X-Files-ish. Thanks for the ink and the space. Anybody else out there familiar with The Brunswick Affair of 1964? It is perplexing phenomenon.

05-25-2010, 10:47 PM	#38 (permalink)
RegisClass1985 Upright	My 1982 Regis College Sociology Unit on Subliminal Advertising/The Brunswick Affair About once a year I do a Google Search on "The Brunswick Affair" to see if anybody else was taught about the as I recall it, 1964 investigative reporter who exposed the technology. This is the first Google Search to lead me to somebody else asking the question as to whether it is urban myth or not. The account posted on your website(Brunswick Affair in 2003...wow am I late in finding this post) sounds 98% accurate with the research I did for my Sociology course in 1982 at a small Jesuit College in Denver, Colorado. My short research paper (12 pages as i recall) cited about a half a dozen published magazine(Newsweek, People, Time and others) articles that i accessed at our small library. The articles reported the bizarre buying habits of a number of consumers in one region of the U.S. back in 1962-1964. The commonality was indeed that they all owned Brunswick television sets and yes, after dismantling one of them, the only part the tech couldnt ID, was a small device that emitted something (I cant remember) during commercials, that had too good of an effect on the viewers' buying habits. In 1982 it sounded Sci-fy to me, and the story has rattled around in my head ever since. After graduation and a two year mission trip to Central America where I lived with no TV, I returned to Colorado in 1987 and discovered that when I was visiting my parents and younger siblings, when we would watch TV together, they would pay attention to the show and during the commercials they would try to engage me in conversation. But it was then, during the commercials that I just couldnt carry on a conversation with any of them, at least not until the commercials were over and the show was back on. But then they were glued to the show and wouldnt engage me until the next commercial. It kind of freaked out my sister and she said that I seemed "mesmerized" (sp) when the commercials came on. So, my paranoid guess, is that the technology, whatever and however good it was, was toned down more subtle but had a definite impact on the viewer with regard to paying attention to the commercial, if not overtly influencing the buying habits of a significant percentage of the viewing audience. Think about it....why else would Doritos or Monster pay $2.3 mil for a Super Bowl advert??? Because they work...maybe not as good as the 1962 Brunswick TV, but let's face it, the only purpose of TV or radio is to entertain so that viewers and listeners will patronize the advertisers. Remember the scene from "A Christmas Storey" when Ralphie had his Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder ring as he sat next to the family radio awaiting the clues to solve the secret message? The program if you remember, was sponsored by Ovaltine. Ralphie decoded the message and as soon as he did, the young buck was outraged that the answer was, "Drink more Ovaltine!" Oh the commercialism...kind of like Charlie Brown Christmas when he is so pissed off at how commercialized Christmas had become. So, as futuristic or whacked as it might seem to some of you who responded to the "Brunswick Affair" post, I don't think it is so far fetched that such a technology has influenced our buying habits. I wish I could have found more info and/or more articles on the B.A. but the reporter/researcher abruptly stopped publising his articles in 1964 if I recall...no follow up articles to be found. Totally X-Files-ish. Thanks for the ink and the space. Anybody else out there familiar with The Brunswick Affair of 1964? It is perplexing phenomenon.