My 11 yr old sister just watched "The girl next door" like a week ago...Jesus Christ!
It has all these sexual issues in it... lets see..penis size, popularity, breast size, sexuality...
I hate it. They feed this heap of shit and it makes kids think a certain way, act a certain way, its really horrible.
All these teen movies corrupt the kids.

You can't buy this kind of advertising... or can you?

Badges badges everywhere... the make of the car, the model of the car, the special edition of the car, the dealership... how many more badges need to be put on there?

Creating awareness is not necessarily 'reading'... I don't think awareness is an arguement - this whole thread from my understanding is about awareness. Something I have been aware of for some time now. This very thread is the reason I did a complete U-turn on society... I wanted to head to the hills to escape all this saturation. Ultimately, it exists and I exist, to hide from it is unreasonable - my struggle is to exist within it yet not get lost in it, this is my challenge.

This was another reason for me to run to the hills... it is very prominent in my area. But again unreasonable...

The heart and core of my own hunger - I share an affinity with your inquisitive nature, and I really appreciate being able to view your thoughts. Thankyou.

Shedding some light on how tightly media and advertisers make and create.

I stumbled upon this. I haven't read the whole thing but it's very interesting on first pickup.

Interesting statements about people arming themselves to not watch commercials and what the industry is pondering to do about that...

Trends like the TiVo effect are probably why companies like GM are becoming ever more annoying with their advertising tactics... like slapping badges all over their cars. I wonder what other kinds of companies are doing to combat the TiVo effect. Not all companies have the luxury of attaching big, extraneous hunks of metal to their product in order to advertise.

a few things going on in the industry at the moment...

Tivo has started "billboard ads" which when you fast forward will pop up another small computer generated ad. It only will do this if they advertiser has paid for it to Tivo, so it's not a blanket thing where it's on all adverts.

Cable channels are combating this in two ways. First is product placement endorsement. Direct placement within the show or even about the show. How much of Victoria Secret's Lingerie Show was commercial and how much was really show? Children's TV is very much one big long commercial advertising toys.

The second method is via the banner or bug adverts on the bottom 1/3 of the screen. I've got good information that those things that you see advertising the new hot show coming up next or next week, is going to start being normal product advertising. It's just a matter of time and acceptance.

Living The NASCAR Life
 

The brand loyalty of NASCAR fans is well-known, well-researched, and well-documented in the ad industry. Nascar fans are three times more likely than fans of other sports to buy products of sponsors. If NASCAR still exisits on the periphery of your consciousness, it will be encroaching quite soon toward front and center. NASCAR just ran it’s first prime-time race last night, covered flag to flag by FOX Sports. And it has sewn up contracts with suppliers of just about everything to be on the long list of NASCAR-licensed products.

…

http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/...20050418b.html

Living the NASCAR life
April 18, 2005

Matt Crossman
Sporting News


Just past midnight, in the wee hours of Friday morning, I started to doubt the wisdom of basing my entire existence on using nothing but NASCAR products. Bristol Motor Speedway is a long way from my house in St. Louis, and I was sick of driving, even though I was riding in style in a tricked-out 2005 Ford F-150 (official pickup truck). Making matters worse:

I was 530 miles into a 500-mile trip.

I was lost.

I didn't have a map.

And my cell phone was dying.

As I white-knuckled the mammoth truck through a switchback, I remained intent on proving my hypothesis: Over a race weekend, I could eat, wear, consume and buy nothing but NASCAR products.

It would be just like "Super Size Me," only without the health risks and weight gain.

I finally found my Best Western (official hotel), and the next day I started the NASCAR routine. For the next four days, my mornings consisted of putting on Old Spice (official deodorant), using an Oral-B toothbrush and toothpaste (official oral care products), shaving with Gillette (official shaving products) and putting on a NASCAR golf shirt and Levi's (official jeans). To answer your next question, Fruit of the Loom is a sponsor for Robby Gordon.

Because there is no official NASCAR milk and I didn't want to put Powerade (official sports beverage) on my Kellogg's (official cereal), I ate breakfast at McDonald's (team sponsor) every day. Leaving the F-150 at the hotel, I drove a 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo (official pace car) to and from the track.

If you learn nothing else from this story, learn this: I'll do anything for freebies. No, wait -- learn this: NASCAR is not what it used to be.

The days of the sport being solely sponsored by beer, automotive and tobacco companies have been gone for a long time. NASCAR's move to the mainstream was accelerated even further when Brian France became chairman and Nextel became the title sponsor.

It seems quaint that, a year and a half ago, a cigarette company was the title sponsor of NASCAR's top circuit. Nicorette is a sponsor now, and 1,100 companies are involved either with NASCAR or a team. Of those, 102 are Fortune 500 companies.

The cars steal the show

On the way from the hotel to the track on Friday, I filled up at R&S Sunoco (official fuel) in Abingdon, Va. Whatever bad mood lingered from the night before evaporated while I was at R&S. It sounds silly, but this five-minute stop (and two subsequent visits) brightened my trip. You know you've found a good place when the sign outside says, "Coming April 1, Free Gas. Inquire inside."

Raymond Hurd, the owner of the station, was impressed by my Monte Carlo. Did I mention it was painted like the No. 99 Busch Series Best Western car? Trust me; if you want to draw attention to yourself, drive a car that looks like a racecar.

The car represented my most blatant partisanship. Other than that, I didn't favor any one driver, unless you count my Tony Stewart belt, Mark Martin Velcro wallet and just-in-case Dale Earnhardt Jr. flashlight with Duracells (official alkaline batteries).

I drive like a maniac when I cover a race, just like golf writers whisper and baseball writers take steroids. To help, Hurd suggested places to open up the Monte Carlo. Abingdon is in the Appalachians, with highways full of twists, turns, inclines, declines and cops.

Because I would drive the 144-mile round trip from Abingdon to Bristol three days in a row, I needed to know about the local law. A cop wouldn't bust me in this fake racecar, would he? "Not unless he's by himself," Hurd said, "or with somebody."

Thanks, Raymond, but I'll handle the jokes around here.

My NASCAR-logoed vehicles were great icebreakers all weekend. The Ford F-150, customized NASCAR style by American Specialty Trucks, got this: "That's one pimp-ass truck, for real," from a tongue-ringed guy at a Chevron (team sponsor) in Indiana. Dave Baker of Fremont, Ohio, who saw me pull the Monte Carlo up to the hotel, told me he painted his wife's 1987 Thunderbird like Davey Allison's Texaco car. I gave two guys a ride to the track in the 99 car after they hooted at me. They said to call them "two nitwits from New Hampshire." As those Nextel (official series sponsor) commercials say: Done.

Fully vested

Friday was qualifying day, which doesn't get much attention at most tracks. Bristol is not most tracks. It's the Lambeau Field of NASCAR, only more than twice as big.

On race weekend, eastern Tennessee is a NASCAR petri dish. I was living the NASCAR life on a lark -- I mean, a Serious Journalistic Investigation -- but many fans live the NASCAR life, too, albeit on a smaller scale.

They wear drivers' shirts and hats and use the products drivers endorse. The result: endlessly ringing cash registers. NASCAR says the sport's average fan spends $700 a year on tickets and merchandise. And that's just the NASCAR stuff. Fans line up in front of drivers' merchandise trailers week after week.

NASCAR and the sponsors won't say how much an official sponsorship costs, but one source puts the figure at $3 million to $5 million. The numbers are elusive because sponsors don't want competitors to know how much they're spending. And NASCAR protects its privacy on these matters like a cornered Little E fan protects the last Budweiser (official beer) at the Sunoco APlus (official convenience store).

More is known about how much sponsors pay to be on cars. The cost varies depending on the team and driver, with more prominent teams drawing bigger fees. The major teams -- Earnhardt Jr., Stewart, Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson -- get up to $20 million each from their primary sponsors.

The sponsors pay those fees for exposure -- and access to fans' Velcro wallets. The fans' loyalty, to the sport and to drivers, is legendary. NASCAR says its fans are three times more likely to buy a sponsor's product over a nonsponsor's. "I will not drink a Coke," a Gordon fan told me. "If I go to a fast food restaurant and they do not sell Pepsi, I get water." When she buys gas, she rounds off cents at 24, Gordon's car number.

You won't hear me diss fans, but I will speak truth in love. NASCAR fans buy some stupid things. NASCAR has many official, licensed and sponsor's products that make the world a better place, such as the Domino's (official pizza delivery) pepperoni pizza I ate Friday. But there are a ton of items carrying the NASCAR logo that make you wonder.

Take talking NASCAR bottle openers, which are sure to cause the collapse of the U.S. economy. Talking NASCAR bottle openers are a lot like puffy vests, the kind made famous by Robin Williams in "Mork & Mindy." Just as there's absolutely no reason to buy a coat with no sleeves, there's absolutely no reason to buy a talking NASCAR bottle opener. If you buy either, you have too much money and you're just spending it willy-nilly. That kind of spending always leads to an economic crisis.

These boots are made for hawking

The Busch race at Bristol was rained out Saturday -- April in Tennessee is supposed to be lovely, but it was freezing. I never thought the weather would be so bad, so I didn't have a NASCAR winter coat. At least my feet stayed warm and dry, thanks to my Timberland PRO boots (Busch Series team sponsor).

NASCAR has no official shoe, and there are no major teams with a shoe sponsor. I had never heard of Timberland PRO's deal before, and neither had several NASCAR people I asked as I tried to find shoes.

Jim O'Connor of Timberland says it doesn't bother him that his sponsorship gets little attention; it's more important to him to leverage his NASCAR relationship with retailers. When Timberland PRO runs a big promotion, the retailer is more likely to give it prime space because of the NASCAR tie-in. Similarly, one of the goals of Checkers/Rally's (official burger and drive-through) is to attract franchisees through its connection to NASCAR.

Best Western also multi-tasks its NASCAR relationship. The company sponsors a Busch car, has business-to-business deals with other sponsors and runs numerous programs targeted at race fans, including a website (bestwesternracing.com). Says David Scholefield, vice president of North American sales and motorsports marketing: "You can't enter any sports marketing relationship and pretend to play."

Other companies use NASCAR to promote specific product lines. While getting ready for the weekend, I suggested to Levi's that my regular Levi's would suffice. A few days later, six pairs of Levi's Signature Series arrived on my doorstep.

Free chocolate, bad. Fruit, good.

Saturday brought the weekend's toughest temptation: free food in the media center. Cookies, brownies, all kinds of sugary goodness were laid out in front of me. But eating media center food violated the spirit of this story, so I came prepared to stand against the devil's chocolaty schemes -- with a NASCAR-licensed cooler full of Dasani (official water), Planters peanuts (promotional partner) and even fruit. Yes, NASCAR-licensed fruit.

Jack Bertagna works in sales and marketing for Castellini Group, owner of the fruit and vegetable license. One part of Castellini's NASCAR effort is to sell branded produce at every Wal-Mart Supercenter within 150 miles of a track on race weekend. Before the Daytona 500, during a late-night visit to a Wal-Mart, Bertagna found his bins of potatoes and onions nearly empty. Neighboring bins were full. An incredulous clerk pointed to the NASCAR logo. "The dadgum thing is working," Bertagna says.

If NASCAR-licensed fruit sounds like the new NASCAR, how about a driver shilling hair products? Garnier Fructis sponsors driver Brian Vickers. A Garnier stylist does Vickers' hair before every race so he looks good for appearances. So I had my hair done, too, and I spent the rest of the day finely coiffured ... and in fear that Cale Yarborough would find me and beat the crap out of me.

On Monday, I checked out of the hotel, paying with my Visa (official card). The return drive home went much better. I didn't get lost. The truck drew more praise, first at a Chevron in either Kentucky or Virginia (still no map -- NASCAR has licensed atlases; I was too dumb to get one) then at a Subway (team sponsor) in Illinois.

My driveway was the start-finish line. As I pulled in, I didn't take the checkered flag, and there was no celebration and no crew ready to welcome me. In that way, the end of living the NASCAR life was nothing like the end of a race. But in another way, it was exactly the same: I had a ton of sponsors to thank.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(more)

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke%5C21597.html

An obsessive loyalty

By David Harrison


NASCAR inspires its fans to collect every possible item connected in some way to their favorite drivers.

Like many NASCAR fans, James Martin was initiated early. He remembers sitting outside listening to the races on the radio with his father in Salem when he was 5 years old. His father died when he was 12, but by then, Martin's fascination with auto racing had taken root.

"That's one of the best memories I have is him and me hanging out listening to the races or him taking me to the races," Martin said.

Back then, races were less tightly controlled, drivers were more accessible and ticket prices were lower.

"Back then, one driver would wreck another one and the two would get into a fistfight in the infield and nobody said anything about it," said Martin, 29, who now lives in Vinton.

Still, Martin has remained loyal to the sport as it's grown into made-for-television family-oriented fare drawing millions of fans and turning top drivers into household names.

"I love cars," he confessed one day last week, as the area revved up for today's Advance Auto Parts 500 at Martinsville Speedway. "Just the roar of the engine and the intensity. Driving 190 miles an hour, you know, bumper-to-bumper, is wild."

It is people like Martin, people whose blood is cut with motor oil, that make up the bulk of the market for NASCAR paraphernalia. For some reason, NASCAR can inspire in its fans an obsessive drive to collect every possible item connected in some way to their favorite drivers, said Doug King, manager of the Caution Flag, a NASCAR memorabilia store on Williamson Road in Roanoke.

These include but are not limited to model cars, T-shirts, boxer shorts, jackets, caps, shoes, shoelaces, cereal boxes, board games, commemorative knives, car covers, life-size cardboard cutouts, framed photographs, rugs, bottles of barbecue sauce and soda cans. And if these items are slapped with the corporate logos of the car's sponsors, that makes them that much more authentic.
Die-cast model cars, a staple of any NASCAR collection, cost roughly $60 each but rarer models can run into the hundreds of dollars. Sales of die-cast cars and other NASCAR-licensed products hit $2.1 billion in 2004, said Andrew Giangola, NASCAR's director of business communications.

"It's booming," thanks to Internet marketing and distribution deals with drugstores, department stores and the home-shopping television channel QVC, Giangola said.
But NASCAR still trails the National Football League, which last year generated roughly $3 billion in sales of NFL-licensed merchandise, according to Mike May, spokesman for SGMA International, a Florida-based sports marketing trade association.

However, NASCAR drivers are more accessible to their fans than many other athletes, said King. And that, in turn, breeds the kind of loyalty that sells thousands of collectibles.

"They [the fans] can relate to these stars better than they can in some other sports and they can get closer to these stars than other sports," King said. The drivers, he added, "still remember who's paying their paycheck."
Martin owns about 60 model race cars at one twenty-fourth scale, some of which are exact replicas of winning race cars, complete with all the dents, scratches and tire rubs that were on the original car when it crossed the finish line. He also has 20 to 25 collectible action figures of drivers, NASCAR-themed jackets for him and his wife and other assorted items related to racing. He's working on gathering replicas of cars from the early 1980s.
"I'm trying to collect the ones me and my father used to see," he said.

Originally a niche sport for blue collar workers in the Southeastern states, NASCAR's popularity has since grown so that today it counts doctors and lawyers as fans, King said. But those blue collar roots have cemented the bond between fans and drivers, he said.

"It's part of the heritage," said Leo Ingram, 45, a Roanoke resident who's been following the sport for about two decades. "It's good old Southern heritage."

But Ingram has a more practical reason for his collection, which includes model cars, jackets, caps, commemorative knives and other items.

"Down the road, I got grandkids, and some of this stuff is going to be worth quite a bit of money," he said. "I see it as being a good way to finance college."

Shirley Williams, a 63-year-old widow from Bedford County, owns what may be one of the most comprehensive collections of NASCAR collectibles, mostly devoted to her two favorite drivers, Kasey Kahne and Bill Elliott. Her father introduced her to NASCAR and to the legendary Richard Petty when she was "a little itty-bitty thing" and she's been following Elliott's career since 1985.
"You accumulate a whole lot of stuff in that length of time," she said.

Highlights of her collection include 300 shirts, about 50 model cars, 30 jackets, a full-size replica race car with no engine, a glow-in-the-dark rug, pictures, clocks, mugs, hats, pins, shoes, shoelaces, a ball, a six-pack of Coke, a bottle of barbecue sauce, place mats, scrapbooks, notebooks, towels and a car cover. Most of these items are Bill Elliott themed.

"My son says Bill Elliott lives in this house," she said. "I couldn't part with nothing. It would kill me."
Her collection is so vast, she has to keep some of it in storage.
"I can't help it," she said. "I love my guy."
………………………..

NASCAR is more than a mere collection of related memes. It is a total way of living.

NASCAR is perhaps the first totally commodified environment.

It’s coming for us and it’s gaining ground…

Kudos on the fantastic thread, Art and everyone. What interests me about all this media savvy, is not so much it's broad scope individual successes, as it's penetration.

I'm talking about the fact that I can mention something like, The Quicker Picker Upper and _everybody_ knows what I'm talking about. This ubiquity is what really blows my mind! Like you could ask that of some ridiculous percentage (99%) of Joe Anybody USA and he'd be right on top of it, more or less, right?

It's just good old homogonized american life that we all know and love. We're all living minor variations of this tried and true, beloved and functional method.

Don't get me wrong, we the people are still squeezing some blessed life between these habitual operations.

But we all have this same information about these products, as well as our news, and we're getting it all from these ever-combining mega corporations. I believe this sort of information control and publishing led us into our big war.

I think an enourmous american population that all hears the same thing all the time leaves a very large hole in the idea of diversity of opinion. If we all know that Pert Plus is great, and all want an iPod but are of the opinion that those planes hit those towers because the people who did it 'hate freedom', we are grossly underinformed and led en masse in chosen directions.

Ubiquitous advertising, marketing, mass media in general are our eyes and ears on the world, and if we're ALL locked into this one perspective, we can't see anyone else's side.

Sorry to move this thread towards this delicate issue, but I see them as interlocked and at the more important end of the spectrum.

I didn't even begin to think about product placement on food shows. I did of course think of the obvious untensils, but not the food itself.

Something to chew on.... literally.

while I don't think it makes you smarter per se, it truly depends on the content. There's lots of mental junk food out there.

I read this awhile ago and am only posting it now. I do wonder at what point folks will decide that we are headed ineluctably toward a situation in which the title of this thread is the only way to describe the content of our experience.

It's just a short stretch from the implications of this story:

.................

Brain chip reads man's thoughts

The 'chip' reads brain signals
A paralysed man in the US has become the first person to benefit from a brain chip that reads his mind.
Matthew Nagle, 25, was left paralysed from the neck down and confined to a wheelchair after a knife attack in 2001.

The pioneering surgery at New England Sinai Hospital, Massachusetts, last summer means he can now control everyday objects by thought alone.

The brain chip reads his mind and sends the thoughts to a computer to decipher.

Mind over matter

He can think his TV on and off, change channels and alter the volume thanks to the technology and software linked to devices in his home.

Scientists have been working for some time to devise a way to enable paralysed people to control devices with the brain.

Studies have shown that monkeys can control a computer with electrodes implanted into their brain.

It's quite remarkable

Dr Richard Apps, neurophysiologist from Bristol University

Recently four people, two of them partly paralysed wheelchair users, were able to move a computer cursor while wearing a cap with 64 electrodes that pick up brain waves.

Mr Nagle's device, called BrainGate, consists of nearly 100 hair-thin electrodes implanted a millimetre deep into part of the motor cortex of his brain that controls movement.

Wires feed the information from the electrodes into a computer which analyses the brain signals.

The signals are interpreted and translated into cursor movements, offering the user an alternative way to control devices such as a computer with thought.

Motor control

Professor John Donoghue, an expert on neuroscience at Brown University, Rhode Island, is the scientist behind the device produced by Cyberkinetics.

He said: "The computer screen is basically a TV remote control panel, and in order to indicate a selection he merely has to pass the cursor over an icon, and that's equivalent to a click when he goes over that icon."

Mr Nagle has also been able to use thought to move a prosthetic hand and robotic arm to grab sweets from one person's hand and place them into another.

Professor Donoghue hopes that ultimately implants such as this will allow people with paralysis to regain the use of their limbs.

The long term aim is to design a package the size of a mobile phone that will run on batteries, and to electrically stimulate the patient's own muscles.

This will be difficult.

The simple movements we take for granted in fact involve complex electrical signals which will be hard to replicate, Dr Richard Apps, a neurophysiologist from Bristol University, the UK, told the BBC News website.

He said there were millions of neurones in the brain involved with movement. The brain chip taps into only a very small number of these.

But he said the work was extremely exciting.

"It's quite remarkable. They have taken research to the next stage to have a clear benefit for a patient that otherwise would not be able to move.

"It seems that they have cracked the crucial step and arguably the most challenging step to get hand movements.

"Just to be able to grasp an object is a major step forward."

He said it might be possible to hone this further to achieve finer movements of the hand.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4396387.stm

I can see that there are good intentions of those developing this technology but I wonder where else this could go...

My first impressions, as if we are not already saturated by the matrix, now we can 'plug into it'...

Although helping these individuals regain some control over the aspects of daily life in simple tasks, will we come to rely on this sort of technology to resolve moods or get quick fixes? Interesting.

Yes - it all seems quite inevitable to me.
As you know, I think it has always been thus.

There is still a great deal of attachment to the quaint notion of our individual liberty. I'm sure the all the "noble" struggles to oppose the psycho-cultural imperative will continue. It feels so empowering to think of oneself as a champion, after all.

it's really interesting to see just how much is at stake...

The question of course is how EFFECTIVE the manipulation is.

They might fill an add with all the sexual innuendo in the world, but I'm not a big believer in the subconcious. If you don't see it, you don't see it, and the effect is lost. This is a long thread and perhaps I missed some proof of these adds being effective, but there are limits.

If the media were 'in control' fully, Bush would not be president. Obviously most people can still make up their own minds despite spin and manipulation.

I think this is really interesting..

I enjoy seeing a movie that challenges me, whether it's the story line, the direction, the ending.. if it's something that's not familiar, it usually scores higher in my books.

If movie producers rely to heavily on a 'focus group', I wonder how much creativity will be stifled.. what if that focus group only has a limited perception of what they wish to see in a movie? Are these focus groups, consisting of only a few people, merely perpetuating something that has been introduced and has been successful in the past?

Goetz's careful direction of these groups also imply that the focus group can be manipulated.. who is actually the director/creator of a movie?

good critical thinking.

I've been part of these growing up and still attend some of them here in NYC.

They fill a theater with a diverse group of people, they try to get age/sex during a prescreen when distributing tickets. During the movie, someone is walking about watching the reactions of people, taking notes, sometimes after the show, they have a questionaire, some multiple choice, some open write in. Sometimes they have full cuts of the movies sometimes with special effects (Flight of the Intruder had some blank screens with (Insert Special Effect Here - and a description of the effect), sometimes different cuts for different groups. When I saw The Marrying Man, it was something like 3 hours long and some of the funniest parts of the movie didn't make the released version.

Sometimes they hold back a hand picked group to ask even more questions.
.
But sometimes, the screener is just for creating "word of mouth buzz"...

product placement mind control
 

One of the ways in which we may honor those celebrities we worship is to fill our lives with the products they fill their pretend lives with. The more we know about the unreal world of our celebrity gods and goddesses, the more we are able to aspire to inhabit the media visionary heaven which opens up to us during the miraculous manifestations we are so privileged to receive as divine transmissions from the temples of our faith:

.......................................................
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...ck=1&cset=true

Probe of Stealth TV Ads Sought
An FCC official urges his agency to crack down on lax disclosure of fees for product placement.


May 26, 2005

Alarmed by "covert commercial pitches" sneaking into TV news and entertainment shows, Federal Communications Commission member Jonathan S. Adelstein on Wednesday called on the agency to investigate hidden advertising.

Although Adelstein took particular aim at on-air personalities who tout products without divulging that they are paid endorsers, he went an additional step by criticizing the lack of full disclosure in the pay-for-plugs proliferating in scripted and reality TV.

Adelstein lamented the practice, in which advertisers pay to get cars, cellphones, soft drinks and other products prominently featured or mentioned in shows.

"This is becoming so prevalent that people can't escape it by even taking a bathroom break," Adelstein said. "It's OK if the broadcasters do this, but they need to inform the public that it's being done."

Failing to disclose payments, he said, violates a 78-year-old FCC rule requiring broadcasters to clearly identify who provided "valuable consideration" to shows. Adelstein also took a swipe at his agency, which is charged with monitoring the public airwaves, for being lax in enforcing the regulations.

Adelstein's comments mark the strongest words yet from an FCC commissioner about the lack of disclosure in product placement. The Democrat's remarks came in a speech to the Media Institute in Washington and in a subsequent Times interview. Whether other commissioners would support his call for a crackdown was unclear. Network representatives declined to comment.

Advertisers increasingly count on integrating products into shows to reach viewers using digital video recorders, or DVRs, to skip past their traditional commercial spots. The product placement market is expected to swell to $4.2 billion this year, according to Connecticut-based consulting group PQ Media, up from nearly $3.5 billion last year.

Networks are practically hanging "for sale" signs on their most lucrative programs, so much so that the topic was a running theme last week in New York during the kickoff of the TV industry's annual sales drive.

Fox Sports announcer Joe Buck joked to advertisers that he would happily hawk their products during Fox baseball broadcasts, just as he did during the 2003 World Series. During Game 1, Buck chatted with Robin Williams, who was in the stadium watching the game. Viewers were informed the comedian was using a cellphone from Sprint, one of the telecast sponsors.

"Think it up," Buck told advertisers last week. "I'll try it. I have absolutely no pride."

At the presentation for the WB — owned by Time Warner Inc. and Tribune Co., owner of The Times — actress Amanda Bynes said the characters on her comedy "What I Like About You" were becoming increasingly familiar with real-world products.

"This season we found out, like, they eat Pringles and use Herbal Essence shampoo," Bynes quipped. "Next season, we hope to find out what cellphones they're using and what cars they drive."

But Adelstein bemoaned the practice as part of the "bottomless pit of commercialism in today's media." He said that when viewers were left uninformed it amounted to illegal payola.

"Everything from Coke to soap is subliminally hawked in TV programs," Adelstein said. "In today's media environment, product placement has moved beyond Coke tumblers prominently displayed at the judges' table of 'American Idol.' Now, products have even seeped into plot lines."

These days advertisers pay as much as $2 million an episode to get their products featured on NBC's "The Apprentice."

Adelstein said networks needed to go further than inserting a fleeting mention of a paid sponsorship in a show's closing credits, which is how the practice is often handled. On Fox's "American Idol," for example, the closing credits quickly note that Coca-Cola, Ford and Cingular Wireless are paid sponsors.

"A disclosure that appears on screen for a split second during the credits in small type that no one could possibly read without pausing their DVR — and pulling out a magnifying glass — could not possibly qualify," he said.

Gary Ruskin, executive director of the nonprofit Commercial Alert, applauded Adelstein's remarks. His group filed a complaint in 2003 about product placement that the FCC has yet to rule on. Commercial Alert asked that payment disclosures come at the beginning of a show and on screen when an embedded image appears.

"The whole television industry has moved to stealth advertising," Ruskin said. "It's dishonest advertising that sneaks by our critical faculties and plants messages in our brains when we are paying less attention."

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Featured goods

Here are some recent examples of brand-name products being integrated into television shows.

• Teams competing on NBC's "The Apprentice" were required to design a bottle and marketing campaign for Pepsi-Cola North America's new soft drink Pepsi Edge.

• On Fox's "The O.C.," a couple planning a vacation looked up their mileage on AmericanAirlines.com.

• One of the main characters on ABC's "Desperate Housewives" accepted a job at a mall as the spokesmodel for the Buick LaCrosse.

• An episode of the WB's "What I Like About You" revolved around two characters entering a contest to become the new Clairol Herbal Essences Girl.

• On CBS' "Survivor: Palau," tribes used Home Depot tools to construct bathrooms.

Sources: Times research, IAG Research

more on that advertising creeping into shows via product placement...

Ah, I disagree...

I think believe that you can think for yourself. And easily so. The basis behind which is to only accept input in two forms... educational and entertainment. Note that informational does not exist. In this sense, educational input is that which is a basis for further questioning. Any logistical thinker who believes they know an absoulte answer is not thinking logistically. All knowledge is only as valid as the supporting data. And supporting data changes, not only with the political winds, but also with new data. Therefore, what you know is only what you allow yourself to know... and even that should be taken with a grain of salt. If everything else is entertainment, and is not used in any way to shape or form your life, knowledge or opinions, then you do not leave a door for those who would to control your thoughts.

The most knowledgeable people are those who do not believe, but question. Philosophers make the greatest teachers. If you do not question what you are told as fact, then you are a sheep. If you believe nothing at all, you are nihilistic. If you question what you are told, and believe only what you are satisfied to beleive, you are enlightened. I choose the later!

well I found an ad and immediately thought of this thread so I'll post it here...

http://bb.bebo.com/bb/large/20050822...458852355l.jpg

I was shocked by this ad but I guess Diesel uses the sex thing a lot in their ads. It definitely catches your attention..

I find it interesting that overseas there is a LOT more nudity in advertising and people thing nothing of it.
Here in the states we equate nudity with sex and equate sex with "WRONG" and "BAD FOR THE CHILDREN"

But a naked body over there is a beautiful piece of art... and naked body here is "POLLUTION FOR OUR CHILDREN'S MINDS"

and people who complain about these things also use children way too often as their arguement. What about the children, what about the children. well... what about them?

If we condition them to think that nudity=sex=bad THATS the way they are going to think.

If i child grew up with nuidty all around them, it wouldnt phase them at all.

You can walk down a street in austria or germany and see breasts 50 feet high and luminous on a sign.

Here.. people freak out if they have animated nudity on family guy.

I have to remember that just the masses themselves can induce mind control. Groups of people have been influencing my thoughts these days more than normal.

Yes - it takes most of a whole unique lifetime to make a dent in the unstoppable force called "peer pressure."

Then there's "social pressure."
I always find it amusing how self-described "rebels" think they avoid this one.

"Cultural pressure" is a nasty one too. Even worse is "subculture pressure."

*
Just a few examples of the many subtle commands we are very uncomfortable admitting we have succumbed to.

Nonconformity is the most difficult kind of conforming to watch.

Cynthetiq - thanks for reviving a great thread. This one's always good to go back to.

Do we succumb to cultural and societal pressures as the result of being brought up as 'good little obedient children', feelings of guilt if we rebel (might hurt someone's feelings, don'tcha know) or fear of being singled out?
I had a recent conversation with my mother about how, when she would go to my school conferences, she heard the same thing from first grade through seventh about me: "she's a very bright child, but very quietly, she does exactly what she wants, when she wants-she's rebellious in her own way and she doesn't apply herself to do as well as she could".
Obedience to peer pressure, cultural pressure could be measured in degrees. Of course, we don't walk the streets naked, but then there are those who think wearing a store's name across their chest is a status symbol. Do people drink Budweiser because they truly like it or feel the need to support their favorite driver or because their friends drink it?
For the past few years, red hair has been the color of choice. Growing up, it was just another reason to be singled out. Those of us with varying natural shades of red now look like nothing more than part of the mass fad and I know that I, myself, have to answer with a 'no, I DON'T color it' quite often and get the sometime urge to go pitch black or bright purple just to go against the grain a bit.
Ask someone why they chose what they did, and you get the 'because I liked it', but I don't feel that's the whole truth. It should be more of 'well, my friends have it, so, I liked what they did and I did it too". /me shudders

My 9 year old son had me beaming with pride after this conversation:

[Logan watching TV] "Dad, why can they do that?"

[Me]"Do what, son?"

[Logan]"Make that commercial like that"

[Me] "I don't understand what you mean"

[Logan] "well, I have that toy that they were showing, and it doesn't do any of that stuff. It isn't even fun"

[Me] "You already know the answer. What did we say that TV commercials are?"

[Logan] "People trying to make you buy something that you really don't need"

[Me] "Does that mean they can tell lies?"

[Logan] "I guess they can, because that commercial was a big fat lie."

I have spent time with both of my kids trying to explain advertising to them and they now have a basic understanding that Media will stop at nothing to bring you over to their way of thinking. I know that lots of people still don't consider that 'mind control' but it sure fits all the definitions that I know.

I don't quite get a lot of these arguments. I don't try to be a rebel or work consciously to be different. I'm also not a "product of my environment" so much. I grew up with not a lot of money in a single-parent home. My dad was an alcoholic with a drug problem. My mom was a smoker with a drinking problem. Both worked blue-collar jobs as best as they could get. Neither went to college.

I, however, excelled in school. I thought for myself. I don't smoke (well, my hookah and occasional cigar, but not addiction smoking) or do drugs or even drink more than a drink or two a week, and not even always that. I work in a white collar job making decent money and trying to keep my family in the best working order it can be in.

I'm more or less the utter opposite of my parents, and so far in my life I've gone a completely different route. I see commercials on TV. The only thing they provide is either a) entertainment for funny ones, or b) annoyance for stupid ones. I don't buy, even subliminally based on commercials. I don't go out of my way to avoid it, but it just doesn't happen. If I need a new watch, I go to the mall, check out some stores, look for a watch I like. I don't go to store 'x' and buy watch brand 'y' because it was on TV, or is popular, or costs a lot. I buy what I like to look at. If it costs $5 and is made of cheap plastic (none of them are, but..) then great. If it costs $500 and I can afford it and it's what I want, then great! If I get it at the jewelry store or Meijer or Walmart makes no difference to me.

People like to blame advertising for their "bad" decisions, to go to McDonald's or drink Coke or whatever. Why is that? Because Americans, IMHO, either can't think for themselves (what this thread seems to be about) or can't take responsibility for what they do (what I believe is more accurate). Suing McDonald's for making you fat? Are you kidding me? If a commercial makes you go buy a Big Mac mega sized with an extra side of chicken nuggets, and you get fat... that's because you're too stupid to take care of yourself, not because McDonald's advertising is that good. *boggle*

What about sex on TV? As was noted early on in this thread, in Europe there are shows and commercials with naked people. It's art, it's beauty, it's natural. They also have far less (statistically) sexual-related crimes for the most part, and far less taboos on natural phenomena such as sex and nudity. Crazy! You mean people are actually BORN naked? It's a sin I tell ya! *grumble* But this is how Americans feel (even the "liberals" often have this view). Sex sells? Are you serious? So some sexy hot blonde chick talking about her tampon is going to make Tampex the next Microsoft or ExxonMobile? Guys don't buy them... and not all girls have bi-tendencies. Sex is jsut the status quo for commercials these days. I doubt there's any real evidence that it sells much of anything. It probably started with a few companies pushing the envelope to be different... now everyone does it and it's lame, not appealing.

Do I think most Americans are sheep? Yeah, probably! We've learned to not take reponsibility for ourselves or our actions. We tend to blame the government for our misfortunes, big business for keeping us poor, and other countries for dragging us into conflicts. I don't think you can have "mind control" without a sound-working mind in the skull.

Yes, we are sheep, at least those who don't make the conscious effort to not fall into traps.
We are a country totally pre-occupied with labelling. You're goth, you're yuppie, you're this or that. And commercialism preys on that. You're not hip if you're not wearing this or driving that. We have Jenny Craig, Curves, Bally Fitness, LA Fitness, Nutrisystems and carb fear, yet we're the fattest nation on earth. We have Aeropastale, Hollisters, Eddie Bauer, American Eagle and Abercrombie labels across our chests and over our ass cheeks, yet we bitch about money. Housing developments are nicknamed 'McMansions' and we go broke trying to buy a new beige house with the two-story foyer. There's only one thing these things have in common: a label that states 'status'.
Being someone who has all her life been called 'different' has its advantages-the main one being that my kids aren't falling into the trap of label-status. My daughter is just as rebellious against that as I am; other kids call her 'goth', but she's unique, definitely not the media-controlled version of it and gets mad over the labels.
I believe it was in this thread, I asked Artelevision why did he buy the truck he bought when there are cheaper ones: the simple reply: aesthetics. This should be our sole reason to purchase anything we need; its utilitarian and personally aesthetic reason. But sheep don't do that-they'd rather go into debt buying the BMW or fully loaded minivan, the beige-sided house and the latest style in sneakers and bitch about their money woes(there's a really good commercial about that, btw, just can't recall what it's for) than make the conscious decision to NOT follow the herd and be even more selfish by doing for themselves and their contentment while staying within their means.

fuckin' sheeple........


i drive a piece of shit 87 4x4......it has like 5 different colours on it,full of rust and is ugly as hell.

you think i care?.............fuck no!!!

when i do need a new one......it'll be one that i utilize in what i do everyday,not cuz of some some commercial tryin to sell thier product.

don't even try that shit with me...........i don't even watch tv anymore cuz "wait there's more.......you can get a....."

.........fuck off.


if people wouldn't give a shit of what other people think of them...they won't buy into this materialistic fucked up world we live in.


i feel really sorry for the next generation and younger kids...the poor children are getting hit the hardest......vulnerable minds and.....these fuckers just keep stuffing it down thier throats.

my kids are allowed a minimal amout of tv time.....i want them to get the hell outside and expierience life first hand.

go do something,learn it on your own....no need to let someone tell you how "it" should be.


i'm done


"do your chores now kids"

My fourteen year old daughter wrote this today as a school assignment. Yay, Catherine! :icare:


As a middle school student, I notice trends everyday of my life. Everyone looks like each other. Personally, I don’t get why anyone would want to follow trends, to be just like everyone else in school. School is drowning in sameness and the same thing over and over is boring. It’s like an ocean. How would you feel being surrounded by the same boring water for who-knows-how-long? That’s sameness. It’s a disease and apparently, it’s spreading quicker and quicker. I would rather be immune to it.
There’s so many ways to describe sameness; robots, dolls, etc. But one thing is for sure-I blame pop culture and Paris Hilton.
Everyday I walk through these halls. Every day, I see girls trying to be like the idols they see on TV or hear about online. They show off bodies that half the time should be kept to themselves. All the the time they should be kept to themselves, but don’t try to flaunt what you don’t have. Girls try to be just like Paris Hilton. They dumb themselves down, wear belly shirts, and skirts that would be better off as scarves of some sort. If I have to drown in a sea of sameness, couldn’t it at least be a more interesting sameness? I’d personally not like to enter school doors to an army of knock-off Paris Hiltons.
The guys in school are another story. Either they are all wearing giant shirt and baggy pants or polos.
A part of the Paris Hilton-pop culture trend is brand name-boys’ and girls’. Abercrombie, Hollister and American Eagle are brainwashing my peers, as well as all the other preppy mall stores or overly expensive companies. The way kids adore it is, actually, pretty depressing.
I’m sure they all have their reasons for following the trends. I only wish they were reasons worth hearing about. Apparently, if there was a war between originality and belonging, belonging would crush originality, judging by the majority of the kids.

Thanks ng.

This is a wonderful piece.

I wonder how she came up with these ideas?

I'd like to believe many other kids are critically evaluating things.

*

(I must also imagine she still participates in her own versions of peer-pressured style and behavior. I've never met anyone who doesn't.)

Many valid points have been raised here. Personally, I have not watched tv in 11 years, I listen to the radio only for storm warnings and ignore all sections of the paper with the exception of the funnies and the coupons my dear old mom saves for me. I have no need for senseless advertising nor do I desire to hear people crucifying someone for something they may or may not have done. Instead, I curl up with a nice book, do some crafts or continue to remodel my home.
I am one of those sick twisted individuals who can not wait for the world as we know it to go to *insert unpleasant place here* in a handbasket just to watch the masses and see what they do.
Just my 2 cents.

Not to toot my own horn, but I think she came up with those ideas through my influence. I too was the unique one, not catering to any specific look or group. The only difference between me and her is I was ostracized and extremely shy. She is accepted and very outgoing.
It also helped that we were never in a position to say 'ok' just because she and her brother wanted something. Two years ago, she DID want the namebrands until the little light went on and she, through my explanation, realized that that $25 tank top with 'Aeropostale' across it is no better than the $5 one at Walmart-why would I shell out money so she could advertise that company? Yes, she agreed, I won't be a walking billboard.
Her style is quite unique compared to those she is friends with and her circle of friends is extremely diverse, from the 'tomboy' to the 'rich girls' and everything in between.
Catherine now abhors namebrands across her chest; she'll buy plain jeans on sale then do things to them at home, whether draw in marker on them or rip holes and prefers simple black shirts, maybe with small designs. I've heard her music, ranging from Billy Idol to Emo to rap. She'd rather read than watch tv;she devours books like cookies.
She gets called 'goth' at school which upsets her-she happens to be extremely fairskinned with almost black hair and prefers dark clothes, but labels make her angry and she's far from the 'goth' criteria.
It can't be easy for any 14 year-old now. Namebrands, celebrity idolization,
100 cable channels of commercials, the internet, all bombarding them with ideas of what they 'should' look like or 'should' act like. Thirty-plus years ago, no one wore a brand across a hoodie, now they expect you to pay dearly for it. We had magazines and movies. That was it.
I'm proud of Catherine's ability to withstand media pressure and do exactly what she feels is right for herself and I will continue to nourish that level of thought in her.

I love this thread!

What does it imply...to be different?
What does it imply...to be the same?

Aren't prisons, office buildings, asylums, graveyards, factories, bars, restaurants, hotels, neighborhoods, hospitals, salons, brothels, studios, universities, movie houses, etc...filled with "strange", "different", "unique" individuals? What does this say to the various adjectives we assign people?

Is Rebellion inherently positive/negative?
Is Conformity inherently positive/negative?
Is Inspiration inherently positive/negative?
Is The Mundane inherently positive/negative?
Is Vanity inherently positive/negative?

:crazy:

Good questions. Thanks powerclown.

I can't answer them.

For myself, I know the problem is that I can do nothing other than delude myself and participate in enough socio-cultural illusion and conformity to survive in this world. I suppose the issue has to do with the degree of self-critical awareness we can bring to bear on the subject at hand...

I do not see a way out of the situation though.
It seems to me the problem is with our brains and the way they work - or don't work. They are engines of self-delusion.

I don't think any can be inherently or absolutely positive or negative. Rebellion to what degree, for example? Not wearing red on Valentine's Day (I always hated those types of things) or total rebellion against authority?
A degree of conformity is needed in the business world and academia; on the other hand, working in an office of grey-suited, metal rimmed eyeglass wearing people would probably cause some insanity to set in. ;)

As someone who was always pointed out for being 'different', it's a mental tug of war in many ways of wanting to remain unique going against the desire to be as 'beautiful' or as 'talented' as those around me. And I find that when in one place too long, the 'uniqueness' begins to grate on some, when in the beginning, it was an attribute.
But who or what am I different from? Why are some people labelled 'weird'? And many times by those who could be considered equally 'weird' or different.
The struggle to find uniqueness from the masses is probably inherent to most of us. The problem lies in media telling us what's different, and us buying into that formula because we're only given so many choices to show our 'uniqueness'. I kind of like my daughter's take on it-buy the stuff that's there, take it home, and creatively destroy it to match our vision(I've done it with my car). From sneakers to jeans to tshirts to cars, taking what is offered and making it uniquely our own is a good way to start.

I wrote out a longer, rambling paragraph, but I'll just post this for the sake of the spirit of this compelling thread. Suffice it to say that bringing people's "blind spots" to their attention usually elicits an uncomfortable emotional response.

One last question if you please: What about those in charge of Mass Media, those who "dream the dreams"? Are they exempt from this type of control, or no?

Thanks ART.

I think it's a matter of personal preference and taste...I've always enjoyed projecting the appearance of "conservative-ness". There is something intriguing to me about playing to the largest common denominator. When I see someone trying to be "different", my first thought is "This person is simply the same as the others in trying to appear different." For me, I get a thrill in discovering something cool and interesting behind the ordinary and mundane exterior. This goes for other things beside people. Ordinary looking restaurant serving great food, super-comfortable, unremarkable looking shoes, a simple, elegant photograph, a killer old fishing rod. Discovering the wolf in sheep's clothing, so to speak.

I sort of do the same thing, but not consciously in order to 'project' and thereby influence a first impression. I do get many comments from friends, knowing my avocation and commenting that no one would ever guess what I do by just seeing me in public, but not because I play myself down-more that I play myself UP when engaging in it.
A good example of what we choose to project is what car we choose to drive.
I chose one not even available at dealerships at the time; it had to be ordered and waited on for months. The choice was a mix of pure aesthetics and cost. Only after receiving it did I find it to be totally fun and utilitarian as well. There was little if any advertising for it then. (I found it in an auto guide)
Belonging to a group made up of about 98% bikers has shown me a LOT about appearance vs ingrained, influenced perceptions and how erroneous those perceptions can become. Leather-vested, covered in MC patches, riding huge Harleys in groups of 50 or more gets most people thinking 'outlaw',
people to be 'feared'. Marlon Brando in "The Wild Ones", when asked, "what are you rebelling against?", replying, "What've ya got?" You don't think 'lawyers, accountants, IT guys, cops', but in reality, that's who they are.
I believe it's GMAC that runs print ads that show people in various walks of life dreaming of a car totally unlike their outward appearance; the 'biker dude' wants a minivan, the old lady wants a Corvette, etc.
I think the hardest part of dealing with perception is rejecting what has literally been beaten into our brains by media influence and 'they' continue to do it right down into the news. Would it be as newsworthy if some Godfearing middle Americans took to countering fanatical anti-military protestors or is it more newsworthy because the ones that are doing the countering are leatherclad gruff-looking bikers? Would Paris Hilton be on tv at all if she was a slightly overweight brunette with a Harvard degree?

advertising on my eggs.... jeez.

the puns are just tiresome already...

I think someone's got scrambled eggs for brains on that one....
The paranoid would just freak opening a carton of eggs to see a dozen eyes staring back at them (giggle).
I think they should do this instead: Implant a die with the CBS eye into their chickens' vaginas or whatever chickens have and as the eggs develop and pass through, they're stamped with the logo. Think of the time saving!!

I was thinking it'd be even better if the eyes glowed in the dark, but you won't likely see egss in the dark much. Still, pretty funny thing to envision...

An entire US Election season passed and not a single new post here in MM/MC. How sad. Let's get back at it because there is truly no better example of Mind Control than the US Political Process!

Did anyone notice the upped ante on the Mud-slinging ads this year. This year, for the first time I can remember, I saw commericals that were 100% hack/slash with no positive affirmations whatsoever. I'm sure there have been a few before but I couldn't get over the fact that so many political commercials now don't even advertise their candidates - they just tell you what a slimeball/douchebag the other guy is and then let our wonderful bi-partisan system take control.

I really watch very little TV and take no printed news media but I still couldn't get away from it. Now that the internet has become a primary news outlet for many people, it is more difficult than ever to avoid getting 'paid for' notions of who should be elected and who should not. Having said that, here is my question:

How do you stay 'fair and impartial' and avoid being swayed by paid advertising? Is there such a thing as an 'unbiased' opinion in this day? Do you research your own candidates? Do you trust certain groups to feed candidates records to you? Do you vote for a candidate if you don't know the difference? Basically, I am interested in how you form your opinions on voting more than the actual politics.

a blog I started reading had this and found this nytimes article because of it:

Interesting I'll have to pay attention to how many "brands" I speak during the day. Being with a media company we talk brand all day long...

Interesting. I never noticed if I do that or not. Then again, I work retail, so maybe I do there.
In one of my graphics classes, the teacher claimed we are hit with over 1,000 brand names/advertisements a day, from the coffee on your desk to a keychain. Sneakers, coffee cups, the local candy store, that little leather patch on your jeans....

I didn't ever think about this... quite interesting insights.

hmmm interesting to see yet another article about kid fears...

Now this is a really interesting article from the NYTimes.com

Making defunct our humanity feels necessary if we are to survive our inequities. It feels like an assault vector against which the only defense is really transcending one's own dynamics, as though the soul is merely a collection of adaptive systems too well quantified for safety.

This sounds curiously like doublespeak: Could it be zen?:D

I hate it when advertising "works" on me. Usually food ads are the most effective for me. I see an ad for some new sandwich at a fast food place and just have to try it. Luckily the actual sandwich usually bears little resemblance to the one in the ad so it usually only works once. The best example was once I saw an ad on TV for Kit-Kat bars and I was actually walking out the door to go get one when I realized that I was totally responding to the ad, and I'm not all that crazy about Kit-Kats anyway, so I went back and sat down. Fast food ads or even the Food network are death on me when I'm hungry.

Hence their massive profits? But we can't outlaw making money until we come up with an alternative. Since you had the strength to go sit back down, I'm thinking there is hope!:lol:

i really need to get a life

You explore instead.
The realm expands and flows.
get a copyright.

Heh...

I thought I'd repeat my position on the basic questions above.

Because the collective power over decades of scientifically sophisticated research and billions of dollars of privately-funded consumer-behavior-motivation studies are overwhelmingly more powerful than any single human individual's ability to defend him/herself against the onslaught, we are in no way able to make decisions for ourselves in any sensible way. This is because our self images, behaviors, and relationships are wholly molded by these gargantuan powers of manipulation.

To disagree and claim some ability to resist or detach oneself from the influence of external decisionmaking is to appear simply naive and dangerously uninformed.
As for free-will - it is something with which we flatter ourselves and wish very dearly that it might exist.

...our self-images, behaviors, and relationships are wholy molded by ourselves under the influence of the outside. Think individual packaging, sir! Manipulation rarely works unless you let it!
Cloacas.

yes, but more often than not, you don't realize you are being manipulated.... that's the point of this thread. If you think you aren't susceptible to being manipulated, you're fooling yourself.

Yes, ma'am, I am fooling myself. Thankyou for clarifying that.
I only wish I'd get manipulated more often and more effectively.

I don't think that it is possible for the average person to be manipulated more effectively. Our entire society screams the Battle-Cry, "We are unique, We are special!" Then after asserting our uniqueness, statistics show that we go and buy all of the things that we are told we HAVE to have in order to be unique, beautiful or special. Some are more resistant to this manipulation than others, but no one is completely impervious to it.

I see it kind of like the old church adage about Satan. "The greatest trick Satan ever pulled was convincing the world that he wasn't real." Well, the greatest trick that media has ever pulled is convincing us that we are free-thinking and unique. You know, snowflakes and all of that...

I was reading and article the other day about Apple and the motto, "Think Different" being contrasted by the idea that it's really "Think Like Steve Jobs." What interested me about this article was recently I saw the 1984 commercial again, and they play that to be the IBM crowd, but in my mind I see the Apple followers, blindly following Apple.

Oh, what a tangledweb we weave...

I'm sure our individual packaging gives us uniqueness, at least. According to 562 we don't even make up our own minds, and I think we can't help but.
The entertainment we get out of others becomes part of it, of course, but I don't think you can claim that our thinking all comes from the outside...

M&M Mars Changes Its Marketing to Kids
 

In today's Star Ledger:
Rest of Story
A nutritionisted commented: "It would be very good if they could get away from the adorable M&M characters."
I've eaten M&M's and other candies since I was a toddler. My first memory is being handed a sheet of candy buttons while sitting in my stroller(I was about 18 months old).
While Saturday morning cartoons are normally inundated with commercials touting junkfood, it is ultimately the parents who buy the stuff and make the decisions about what goes into their kids. I just got home from grocery shopping. This is the snackfood list: 4 boxes of cupcakes, 3 bags of cookies, 3 boxes of brownie mix, 2 containers of jelly hearts, 2 containers of ice cream. I will eat a lot of this and it will probably last this family of four about a week. I am aware they are not healthy choices-I didn't need a commercial to make me buy them and the lack of said commercial is not going to prevent me from doing so.
I also don't get the cut-off age of 12...so a commercial aimed at a 14 year old won't be seen by younger kids?

Ourcrazymodern?

You've reinvigorated the discussion and thank you for that.
I'm sure you and many others with interest in this subject will find some value in reviewing some sizeable portion of the large amount of material that buttresses my point of view:

http://www.regainyourbrain.org/regai...les%20list.htm

The article about Bhutan and the impact of introducing television to that country is....I was going to say disturbing, but it's not surprising.
Kind of makes me question what's civilized about civilization...here was a nation, for all intents and purposes, as civilized and enlightened as one should be without outside influences and tv comes in and it all goes to hell....

Good contributers to this thread,

As a result of several server changes and a crash or two, some of the initial material in this thread is incomplete.

Here is a piece with the original argument:

http://www.artelevision.com/styrofoa.../blogindex.htm

The rest of the source items I used to construct the original version of the thread are here:

http://www.artelevision.com/styrofoamheads/index2.htm

cut and paste...no work?....xoxoxoo

bobby,
after several melted drives - from lightning strikes, I can only slowly recreate the relevant items.

There is a large volume of material referenced in this thread - most of it is still online.

Neuromarketing
 

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/20...euroz_0129.jpg

Here's a link for those of you who are convinced that you're stronger than the 8 billion bucks of private research money spent annualy on influencing your behavior:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...580370,00.html

The Coke/Pepsi experiment is a good one - indicating we favor things more for brand loyalty than for their intrinsic qualities.

The entire issue presents many articles on the human brain and mind. And it presents up-to-date information.

No matter what your position on all this, I think you'll find it a fascinating issue...

You know... "metathinking" (thinking about how we think).


***************************************************************


Here's a cool example of a subliminal quick cut.




After the first two shots we are inside a high-rise apartment looking out from behind a beige couch.

For an instant, there's an unclothed leg and a bare arm slouching, slinking, and dangling sexily over the edge of the couch. They are almost the same tone as the couch.
Our attention is diverted and we view the Ford Edge vehicle swiftly moving past their front window.

After that, we're back to the straight commercial narrative.

fascinating article...
thanks art!

Marketing is the home of modern day poetry.

There is more truth in this statement than one cares to address directly.

Poetry is meant too swat the emotions and offer a ne perspective on an ideal that might otherwise be not readily available to the audience.

What commercilization does is basically the same thing, but it seeks to not utterly confound and leave you thinking, yet rather always leave a lasting impression that can be triggered time and time again.

http://savemanny.blogspot.com/2007/0...e-is-fake.html
perfect manipulation....

Everything you see is fake

another good vid about manipulating video via editing choices

voluntary curbing on marketing to children or more media manipulation for perception?

This advert is unique in these annals.

Very illuminating, I think.

Quick Method of Getting Up to Speed on this Thread
 

The following page URL contains an additional overview of this subject and links. =
http://www.subliminal-message.info/

I have presented the view that advertising and consumer culture is nothing more than a collection of liminal and subliminal attempts to influence our behavior; these attempts have been entirely successful; and we are mere automata.

Opposing points of view by good members here take up just about 50%$ of the thread as well.

Your thoughts?

This thread is one of my favorite ones ever posted on any internet forum I've seen. :D

I have a question for you all -- do you think this mass media thing is inherently negative? I mean, sure it can be bad in certain contexts. It can also be entertaining. It can also be very fascinating to think about how it shapes our lives. It's also an insight into our collective psyche, relative to where you're from and what types of media has influenced you.

I've learned to recognize propaganda from a relatively early age. I really tend to associate that with mass media mind control. I guess the bad part of it can come from when people don't realize they're being taken for a ride. For me, it can be fascinating and totally hilarious at times, too.


Also it can be nostalgic:

(Compilation of 80's TV commercials -- I remember almost all of them, reminds me of my childhood)

I love seeing that shit again!!


(Hello Ladies!)
Smoking sure is sexy! A sure winner!!
http://img.waffleimages.com/9040ce54...hioned-ad3.jpg




(Watch, Ride, and Report!!! Completely ridiculous, but I actually had seen this poster on the Brunswick line (DC-area light rail in Maryland))
http://www.mdrails.com/images/marc_marshal.jpg


Does anyone think that sometimes the mass media intentionally goes over the top, either a) just to see who falls for it; b) maybe for a purpose that appears to be legit, either political or monetary -- whatever theirs may be; or c) just for comedy purposes? Is their intention really to take advantage of us, harm us, or perhaps provide entertainment for the people who "get it"?

It really seems to me that a lot of the creators of this material almost know what our different reactions are going to be beforehand.

If I was in mass marketing, I think I'd go for the comedy option just to see how much I'd get away with. Remember, 9 out of 10 doctors smoke Camels!

Thank_You_F_H,

As it is an 8 billion buck annual business - (privately (corporate) funded research into behavioral modification - focused on the single goal of influencing consumers, I do not see such a thing as "over the top" in relation to media - unless it's understood it has been an over-the-top-business for years and decades.

Again, I find the saddest and most counterproductive situation to be the fact that individuals persist in believing they can be free of media influence in some way - i.e. that one person can withstand the onslaught of billion buck behavior mod research....

As evidenced by some comments here - there are many very good people who hold this (virtually impossible) belief.

As for whether we live actual lives or live within thoroughly mediated realities and mindsets:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Your comments are much appreciated.
Thanks,
Art

The tactics of media are so inclusive that we actually use what the've taught us. Even having garage sales, we know enough to saturate the neighborhood with ads.
I work for a photography studio. A good part of the business is school and sports leagues photography; my boss does portraiture. We recently including flyers toting her half of the business into the packages going to the schools. There's no way we would get 1,000 families coming in, but if we get even 10 as a direct result of those flyers, we did well. Since she has a degree in marketing, she knows full well the impact of saturation; that even if someone doesn't immediately react, now it's in their head that "Hey, XXX studios might be able to do this.....". And that's the crux of mass media-to make us think that we're not reacting when, in fact, we always are.
I notice that grocery stores always put up some major named product on their endcaps with "Sale" signs....yet more often than not, those sales are more money than a competitor's. I'm cheap enough to take a look at the competition, but more likely than not, many just grab the endcap product as an afterthought. Mission accomplished.
Another smart move: Things like Coke Points. I like both Pepsi and Coke, even RC, but what do I buy? Coke....and their points are only 3 per cap and the items are cheezy for anything under 1,000 points. So we buy more Coke.

Subliminal Advertising
 

The problem with modern day marketing is to not be melo-dramatic, but to utilise subtle techniques that become gradually repeated as a running commentary without the consumer being consciously aware of it occurring. So most people give the response that ' I am not taking in by advertising', 'I have my own mind, my own opinions.' This is true, but it is not just a matter of time spent with these media tools, but the way in which it is delivered. The proof is in the pudding. Why else would the advertising slots in between the SuperBowl final, or the World Cup final be most expensive, because thats when they can double or triple their profits. A good book to read is, 'Can't buy my love', cant think of the author off the top of my head, but it also addresses how alcohol, cigarettes, and other valuable commodities have been manipulated in society, just take the difference of the public opinion on cigarettes just twenty years ago, and now....it is not about the knowledge that it is unhealthy, it goes much deeper. Governments could apply the same techniques to alcohol, obesity and oil, but where the money in that!:no:

Every so often I go on an extended hunt for mind-influence-related material - I enjoy sifting through results to the very last returned page. Using Google, it can take 40 pages or more to turn up something entertaining and/or insightful. YouTube, being less ad stuffed, takes a few clicks on the subject of mass media mind control to discover something interesting. The problem is they are generally less significant. So it's a six-of-one deal.

In any event... The last few posts here are moving us in this direction, so...

I'll enter some of my own noteworthy recent finds from various sources to inspire us to continue the hunt...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Vy7h97AOsw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Vy7h97AOsw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


The real nature of this thread is more exploratory than decisive. Some examples are patently absurd (yet interesting still). Some however are truly mind-manifesting, and so forth.

A close reading of this thread indicates I'm not promoting a narrow definition of the term "subliminal." I use the word to delineate the fact that a large part of what we experience (actually the largest part) is perceived unconsciously.

So it's not always about looking at an ad or any other piece of propaganda and discovering hidden messages or meanings. Many times it is simply the kind of implicit messages that are being received., to wit: The many implicit messages relating to our perception of men and women.

The following story focuses on the "offensive to women" aspect of ads but an ad that is offensive to women is also offensive to men. Stereotypical males are often portrayed in the ads and the woman-as-sex-object theme objectifies male sexuality as well. All in all though, the story plus the photos accompanying it are illuminating.

*
text follows:

Quote:
I was reading an article on MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17490782/site/... /)on Dolce & Gabbana having to pull some of their ads because womens' groups thought they were inappropriate and, one in particular, promoted rape. Knowing D&G as I do, I've seen their ads through the years and don't think much of them because, well, it's D&G - their ads follow along in the mode of Helmut Newton and other "risque" photographers. Or am I being too tolerant? I'm not really sure.

As I read further in the article, there's also an interview with Kim Gandy of NOW and a link to the ads they promote as "Offensive To Women" (http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/offe... ). Now, I'm all for more realistic models being used in advertising and fashion and don't like blatantly abusive ads - but I'm not sure I'm offended by each of these ads. I'm going to hold off saying anything more specific until others have weighed in - and that's my question: are these ads really offensive?

I would certainly say that some are stupid - and, yes, the Calvin Klein ad just makes me want to feed her. But, beyond that, are you offended by these ads? Is it really about ads that are offensive against women or more about the fact that, for the most part, Madison Ave. treats us like we're drooling morons? I've seen some advertising that might be pretty offensive to men too (including a similar one with all men from D&G). Are they getting upset over nothing? Or over the wrong thing? Or are they correct in labeling these as offensive? I'm curious to see what other women (and men too!) think.
End Quote.

*

The images can be found here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/AZBlue/6

I would certainly say that some are stupid - and, yes, the Calvin Klein ad just makes me want to feed her. But, beyond that, are you offended by these ads? To an extent, yes, but it's the nature of the game. The ads are meant to provoke and therefore bring the product to the subconscious. It is not unlike the child who acts bad to get attention because acting good got him nothing.
Is it really about ads that are offensive against women or more about the fact that, for the most part, Madison Ave. treats us like we're drooling morons? Both. "Let's get these spending stupid males to think buying our product will make them cool. And everyone knows cool guys treat their women like shit. Real women like that.:rolleyes: I've seen some advertising that might be pretty offensive to men too (including a similar one with all men from D&G). Are they getting upset over nothing? Or over the wrong thing? Or are they correct in labeling these as offensive? My view is that they are offensive to everyone, women because of the overt submissiveness/subservient role they're placed in and to men because it's assumed that that is what is desired from them. But, like the quote says, when all else fails, insert sex.
This all makes me sound prudish, something I could never be accused of. But, I find that ads such as these, that don't even attempt to be subliminal, are an insult to any reasonable adult. But, here we are, talking about them, so, really, they've accomplished at least partly what they set out to do. 1 point=media.

two women - one crotch
 

We3 happened to notice this sub independently. It's an ON flyer we recently received. As it fell out of the Sunday paper, I glanced at the bottom of the ad and read it as a spread-leg open crotch shot. After a moment I realized there were two ladies involved. The image is so posed that I must hypothesize that it did not just slip by the professional photographer who chose it from hundreds of shots, the art director who selected it as the front cover image, the ad execs who had it pinned to their walls, and the editorial staff who does something for a living.

Later sus was walking by the flyer - it was draped over a hammock - as flyers sometimes are. Its lower edges were prominent and she mentioned her first reading of the image, which was the same as mine.


http://www.artelevision.com/images/t...girlcrotch.jpg


*

I have hundreds of this sort of images. It's always fun to see a new one and pick it out from among the thousands of images that pass our eyes each week.



Now that we're a bit farther down the page, here's the most curiously posed detail section of the ad:


http://www.artelevision.com/images/t...tch_detail.jpg

Of course it's intentional. I've learned from my new line of work that every single minute detail is looked over and looked over again and while some things "might" get missed, odds are what's left is intentional. Whether it's to get one to do a second take when seeing the ad-which I am inclined to think-or to get a chuckle in the production room, I don't know....
Guess I'll have to look at the ads in the Sunday paper a little more closely, just for such things.

im liking this thread just as much as the "subliminal messages in advertising" thread you had years back.

i guess its pretty much the same thing, here. but point is, im liking it.

SSJTWIZTA , Thanks.

Your insights are valued. How do you come to terms with the daily doses of manipulation we are exposed to?

I think we can help each other by sharing ideas on how best to keep our minds free of all this - at least as much as it is possible to be.


*

In other words, how best to contribute to the RESISTANCE?

Well thanks, art.

I have not one idea as of now. But then again im lacking sleep and feeling rather brain dead.

my first thought is:
simply ignore it.

but thats not very effective, now is it?

oh, i almost forgot.

i found this quite interesting. Is this actually an advertisement?

the only thing that comes to mind seeing this is "no way."

This isn't a perfect fit, but I think this text:

The Society of the Spectacle, by Guy Debord back in 1967.

I believe it's totally in the spirit of what ARTelevision calls THE RESISTANCE, as is the greater idea which The Situationists followed - and led directly to punk.

Beware, heavy concepts (many radically leftist) and vocabulary (much Marx terminology regarding political economy, etc) are deployed therein.

As ever, your mileage may vary.

Oi!

i need to read that after i catch some Z's

Derren Brown (wiki bio) is an expert in NLP and other manipulative techniques and uses them as an entertainer in the UK.

This following video (~7mins) is from a show glorifying him, so take it with a fair amount of salt if you would like to comfort yourself with it, but to anyone moderately interested in psychology, it shouldn't be surprising.

Subliminal Advertising

To me, I think that we as individuals are exposed to this unconscious manipulation almost every waking second of our lives not just when we're conscious of our exposure (lets skip the memory-organising aspect of sleep which doubtless reinforces the messages).

We need to carefully select the propaganda we want to expose ourselves to and attempt to rebalance the propaganda that we are conscious of our exposure to.

Question everything.
Read and watch nakedly propagandist material from sources which are in opposition to those you are aware of your exposure to.
Stop believing in absolutes.

Before you buy or buy into anything, question even your own motives.

I think living in a country without understanding the language at all can give you some clear breathing space after some time, too. (i've done this - by accident, not design - for most of my adult life)

Sounds taxing, but there's a lot of effort that goes into our manipulation, so it stands to reason that there's no quick fix to it.

(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you. *bites nails down to wrist*)

Thanks, tisonlyi.

DB is one of my favorite dudes using NLP in the media to expose mass-media techniques.

*

Here is a set of images. The first is taken from my buddy Cynthetiq's journal. The second is a detail of the ice cubes and drink glass. The third is the same image with highlights I quickly added to zero in on what I noticed upon inspection of the scene. The third is an animated gif of the previous images in sequence.

http://www.artelevision.com/images/t...Beam_Girl0.jpg

http://www.artelevision.com/images/t...eam_Girl02.jpg

http://www.artelevision.com/images/t...eam_Girl03.jpg

http://www.artelevision.com/images/t...mGirl_anim.gif

Isn't this akin to finding the face of Jesus on a piece of burnt toast?

Even if the image is actually there and was placed there intentionally, do you think that such vague imagery has an effect on purchasing?

sapiens, thanks for your sensible comments.

My intention here is to simply show the images - point out the possibilities - ask the same types of questions you are asking. These are the general positions I've taken throughout the thread. I'm fine with people making up their own minds - based on their own knowledge, research, experience, insight - and their reading of this thread.

Given my MFA training and experience working within art, ad, and marketing contexts, I have experienced these techniques being commonly known, discussed, and often employed. They are also frequently dismissed as paranoid fantasy and/or ineffective at best.

An image that has been created as a part of a million-dollar-plus media campaign has been pored over for weeks. It has been pinned to the walls of many professionals (from art and production people to consumer researchers, marketing reps, and corporate execs) well-trained and well-paid in utilizing techniques to influence consumer behavior in every way.

No matter what one decides one sees here, this is in no way similar to a random image found in burnt toast.

Probably the most interesting thing to me about the topic in general is just what occurs in our lives that can be termed "conscious," "unconscious," or "subconscious" activity.


To make categorical statements about the veracity of particular claims of intentionality really doesn't interest me. I enjoy pursuing the subject and have been engaged in this study for decades. I find it alternatively amusing, entertaining, fascinating, and potentially illuminating. I present the material in the hope that it may hold some similar interest for others.

Art:
Regarding the ad you posted, I don't really care about the intentionality of the advertisers either. I wouldn't be surprised if advertisers manipulate images in such ways. I would be surprised if such subtle stimuli impacted consumer behavior. I've seen studies suggesting that priming people with images just below the level of conscious perception (very briefly) can affect people's conscious judgments of the valence (positive or negative) of following ambiguous image (Murphy & Zajonc, 1993). Such effects don't typically last much longer than the experimental session. I haven't seen convincing research that suggests that you can actually affect consumer behavior with such types of information. (I haven't read through this entire thread in a long time. So, someone might have cited something. I would welcome such references). The fact that the images are pored over by people who get paid a lot of money to influence consumer behavior doesn't convince me.

That said, I don't doubt the impact of mass media on our psychologies. For example, Kenrick & Gutierres (1980) demonstrated empirically that viewing images of attractive women affected men's judgments of their commitment to their long-term mates. Other studies have found that looking at pictures of attractive women changed men's reported career interests - biasing them toward higher earning careers (I don't recall the reference off the top of my head). Other studies I'm familiar with (and I'm sure others are as well) have suggested that unrealistic body images presented in the media affect women's perceptions of their own attractiveness. If brief exposure to such images has effects, what kind of effects can we expect from constant exposure throughout our daily lives? So, I do agree that mass media can have rather insidious effects on our lives. Generally, I also think that media education by parents might help to inoculate kids against some of the effects.

A little off topic, but regarding your interest in what occurs in our lives that can be termed "conscious," "unconscious," or "subconscious" activity. Have you ever read The Illusion of Conscious Will by Dan Wegner. He has a done a lot of interesting research on the effects of thought suppression - making a decision to avoid thinking about something actually increases the frequency that people think about the suppressed topic. His book covers conscious will more generally. I especially like the research he cites that suggests that when you reach for a can of soda on a table the areas of the brain responsible for controlling the motor movements involved are activated before the areas of the brain responsible for making the conscious decision to grab the soda. How that relates to the coke ad, I'm not sure.

sapiens, that was the kind of thoughtful response I hope for when posting here. Thanks! It adds just the sort of critical-thinking dimension I would encourage we develop for the express purpose of staying as media-manipulation resistant as possible. I'm a bit more along the way than you in deciding that the billions of bucks spent on private corporate (and "secret" governmental) research into the fine points of how to influence and manipulate our consciousness and behavior have achieved stunning success. I see evidence of it all around me in the culture in general, in my friends, and in myself.

Yes, I admire the work of Daniel M. Wegner. I've quoted at length from his research in other venues where I publish. As to what it may have to do with public and private applications of the science of behavior modification, I'd say that if the conscious mind can be effectively demonstrated as bypassed in the processes of behavior, then a more powerful kind of control is achievable.

I was reading the NYTimes and found this article. It really is interesting to know that Brim was killed. I didn't know it, but I did know the brand and just suspected that it wasn't available in my markets. But I know the brand very well, I can even see the coffee cans in my head.