Were you stuck to the sofa then? Page 7

Quote: SlagA @ September 19 2009, 2:57 PM BST

The controversy still rages. The New Scientist reported in 2006 that there was strong evidence for subliminal imaging. And the beeb in 2007 reports subliminals have an unconscious effect even if the conscious mind misses them (which is kinda the whole point about subliminals anyway). It is this kind of suggestion to the subconscious that DB uses to get somebody to pick out a giraffe in a toy shop. It's shaping the thoughts of an individual to produce what appears to be free-will but is only the product of outside manipulation. The scary thing is the degree to which our freewill is actually an illusion and how easily we can hand it over to somebody else.

However, the biggest clue as to whether subliminals work in ads is that companies still resort to spending on subliminals which suggests they think it works and it's worth the money. Coke and Disney esp use these types of image.

Many companies associate their product with more basic needs on the pyramid of needs. This can be done consciously or unconsciously. Sex is unsurprisingly the word most often planted (e.g. Skittles Sexplosion along with pepsi's neon 'sex'). And sex organs or sex acts the most popular images (the Coke BJ in an icecube being the most famous). Here are some great examples interspersed with some not so great ones: http://www.artistmike.com/Temp/SubliminalAd.html

Here's a recent though sledgehammer example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnSssaGUneI

Ironic adverts (like the recent Alpen one) the thrusting asses, opening legs, etc, still link sex with the product. And this is a classic unsubtle Obama: http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/subliminal-messaging/2e9ee33ba3805216bdf0fba7ca7410a9

Agreed Roo, in that you felt an effect. I'm not going to say he's full of crap - he's too clever for that but he is using deception in his explanations. It's got to be a final series reveal behind the smokescreen. He's going to show how the seemingly magical is basically ordinary and easy to replicate if you know how.

And it wasn't maths for the lottery. It was a simple deception. Or else computer programmers and mathematicians would all be winning the lottery. But it was definitely psychology on the audience and the control group to give the appearance that his smoke screen was plausible.

View original

Most of the ads people use as 'proof' of subliminal ads are dubious and are often only seen because people were looking for something to find.
The majority of research into the affects of subliminal advertising have proven to have little to no affect on viewers.
EDIT: I just wanted to add that what is often perceived as a subliminal message is often a poor correlation between certain behavior seeming to be triggered by the subliminal message. Psychologists have a name for it: subception. Whether the effect works outside of laboratory experiments and whether the effect is strong enough to prod a consumer to buy something is uncertain.