Neuroscience And Advertising: How/Why Do Ads Work?
	found on Salon written by Philosawyer, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Mon 30 Sep 4:02pm
		"Scientists are looking more closely into the nuts and bolts of why advertising works," writes Philosawyer. "People know that advertising does work on the general public, even if they believe themselves to be immune from obvious propaganda. Neuroscientists are examining the how advertising succeeds in pushing our buttons by pulling the right triggers. A recent brain-imaging study sheds light on the mechanism that makes the mere presence of food alluring. When people were allowed to see and smell their favorite chow, a deep-lying brain structure called the dorsal striatum was activated and the subjects reported feeling hungrier. Notably, this neural circuit was different from the pleasure pathways that are tickled when people actually get to eat. "The dorsal striatum is being linked to addiction formation and to things that you learn and do almost uncontrollably," says Nora Volkow, the neuroscientist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory who led the study. "When it's active, it creates a very strong drive to consume food. This is a reason why [fast food] advertisements are so compelling, and why we are having an epidemic of obesity in this country." "Even if people already believe that advertising works primarily through sub-conscious manipulation, if scientists in the future are able to establish exactly how some advertising in actual practice short circuits rational decision making, it could be the basis for new regulation for reasons similar to subliminal advertising, which is not recognized to exist by the FCC and FTC, but if it did would constitute illegal deception. It brings up old issues of how readily people can be manipulated via visual and audio messages and how far it might be refined with increased scientific knowledge of underlying processes."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 45 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Victims-R-Us   by Anonymouse Savant       at Mon 30 Sep 4:21pm score of 1 helpful     This is a reason why [fast food] advertisements are so compelling, and why we are having an epidemic of obesity in this country A = B and C = D therefore A = D Apparently what we're having is a crisis in logical analysis in our soundbites. Actually, we are having a epidemic of obesity(tm) in this country because people consume more calories than they burn and then rationalize not doing something about it. Send money and I'll look for a neurological reason for this. Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuses. (R. Heinlein)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: Victims-R-Us   by Avumede       at Mon 30 Sep 5:14pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     Are you missing the logic? 1) Seeing food makes us hungrier then normal (according to article) 2) Advertisements show food 3) Everyone sees advertisements Therefore: 4) Everyone is hungrier than without the advertisements Then, given 5) A person who is hungrier more often will eat more food You get 6) Everyone eats more food Also 7) The more food you eat, the more obsese you get Therefore 8) Everyone is getting more obese Is there a problem with my logic? I'll agree with you that blaming the obesity epidemic on this alone is spurious, but it seems logical that it is a contributing factor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Victims-R-Us   by Mad Ogger       at Mon 30 Sep 5:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     1 is true. My dad taught me that when I was six, and he wasn't a neuroscientist. You forgot 3a. I don't see many ads. I realize that including myself in "everyone" is a bit of a stretch, but I don't think I'm that weird. 5a. Only if they're not exercising any control over their eating. 7a. Mostly, but if you ran an extra 4 miles a day, an extra Royale wit Cheese would be just fine. 8a. Oops. Here's the big problem. Not everyone is getting more obese, so some of your prior claims must be false, as I have pointed out. Actually, I don't totally disagree with you. But, since I view McDonalds et alia as evil incarnate, I'm hardly shocked or appalled. As demonstrated in Treehouse of Horror N, if you don't pay attention to the ads, they can't hurt you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Victims-R-Us   by toothless joe       at Tue 1 Oct 9:13am score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 2     Are you missing the logic? No, the problem is that your logic isn't substantiated in any way. 1) Seeing food makes us hungrier then normal (according to article) But this isn't a long-term thing. If I saw an advertisement last night and it made me hungry, this isn't going to affect how much I eat today. The vast majority of fast food advertising is about branding, not impulse buys. 4) Everyone is hungrier than without the advertisements Again, it's not like advertising permanently increases appetite. 5) A person who is hungrier more often will eat more food I don't buy this argument at all. Are you telling me that people are going to see a mcdonald's ad and decide to have 2 dinners? Are they going to order extra hamburgers because their dorsal striata are activated? 7) The more food you eat, the more obsese you get This is an oversimplification. If you consume many more calories than you burn, the more obese you will get. Activity level is crucial here. See the problem is that your logic isn't really backed up by anything. Watch what I can do: 1) People are working longer hours and fewer wives stay home and cook. 2) The fact that people are working longer hours means they exercise less. 3) The fact that they are exercising less means that they will grow more obese. and 4) Because they have more limited access to home-cooked meals, people will demand more fast food. 5) Since fast food is a growing market, companies will advertise aggressively to establish brand loyalty and ensure market share. Therefore, 6) People are getting fatter and the increase of advertising is a response to that. Notice that my conclusion is exactly opposite of yours: that people were getting fatter because of advertising. That's what happens when you toss theories around and draw conclusions without actually testing them. » born » tagged » tattooed » pacified »   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  The end of starvation!!   by sglover910       at Wed 2 Oct 11:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     >> Everyone is hungrier [with] than without the advertisements If this is true, then it follows that hunger is directly proportional to the quantity of food ads. Ergo, hunger will diminish if we restrict food ads. Ultimately, when food ads are banished, hunger will end. Malnutrition will be a memory. QED! Now, does anyone have an assertion we can use to fix this cancer problem I keep hearing about? An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  you just strengthened the victim arguement   by wicked_sprite       at Wed 2 Oct 11:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     If you were forced to watch this advertising I would agree, but you aren't. You are free to turn off the television. You are free to grab a carrot when feeling hungry. You are free to go for a run to burn the extra calories eating fast food may put on you. You are also free to blame your problems on something 100% in your control. Seeing the burger my co-worker is eating at her desk right now is making me hungry too. Should I blame her if I go get one myself? I'm not being unsympathetic. I've ordered a pizza sitting on my once too-fat ass after watching a commercial for one, but that was my choice. Blaming my weight gain on the freaking commerical would have done nothing to get me to the more athletic physique I have now. In retrospect, it's obvious to me that this IS a victim mentality, and in my opinion your post did nothing to disprove this. Most ads aren't very manipulative to those who realize, gee, they might just be trying to sell me something...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Victims-R-Us   by Avumede       at Mon 30 Sep 7:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Re: 3a. Are you sure? Try counting the number of the ads you see a day. Even if you don't watch TV, it's fairly huge. On the roads, on the net, at the ballgame, on t-shirts, on cars, etc. 5a. But on average, it should have an effect, no? And averages are what we are dealing with here. 7a. Yes, but can't we assume all else is equal? There's no reason to think people that ate more with also run more. 8a. Again, we are talking about averages.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Victims-R-Us   by Kardath       at Tue 1 Oct 11:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     3a. I don't see many ads. I realize that including myself in "everyone" is a bit of a stretch, but I don't think I'm that weird. Just to comment on this one item...wanna bet? Take a notebook with you one day and notch off every time you see an ad. Print, billboard, television, radio, etc. If you don't hit 50 before noon I'll be surprised. Just give it a try and see what you come up with.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: Victims-R-Us   by Avumede       at Wed 2 Oct 6:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Re: 1) Not a long term thing, yes, but since advertising is a constant in our society, it's fair to say that overall, we should be hungrier more often than without the advertising. 5) I'm not saying people will eat 2 dinners. I'm just saying that hungrier people eat more (if they eat at home, they'll have a second helping at their next meal, or eat a snack, if they go out they may order more). I don't think this is all that surprising. 7) There is no reason to think activity levels will increase the more people eat, therefore my logic holds. As far as your proof offered, I'd say your point 3 is shakey. After all, if people work longer hours, perhaps they will miss meals which may conpensate for exercising less. 4 is also a stretch of logic, you have not proven that fast food is preferred, as opposed to other types of food (microwavable, traditional restuarants, etc). The rest of your proof is not bad. Your conclusion is not opposite of mine (actually the conclusion in the article), since the opposite of that conclusion is "advertisements do not make people more obese". Yours is simply a different conclusion, and certainly both conclusions could be true.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  It's true, fast food advertisements are compelling   by Phobos       at Mon 30 Sep 5:40pm score of 1.5 succinct     ... they compel me to change channels.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Car Commercials are Worse   by Chachee       at Tue 1 Oct 2:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     At least fast food commercials allow you the luxury of being able to afford the product. Why the hell are there so many car commercials? Those make me change the channel. I guess I'm the only one who finds watching a family sedan zip along windy, country roads (where we all drive SOOO much) vomit-inducing. I swear they film all car commercials on the same strip of land somewhere, and 1 ad company does the ads for ALL the car companies...YAWN...BARF!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  In the rare occasion I Watch TV   by Nexzus       at Tue 1 Oct 7:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     I'll only watch three ads. The rest I zone out. The two Jack in the Box ads with Jarod from the Subway and Ronald McDonald, cause I think they're clever. And I'll always love Carl and Ray, the Blockbuster guinea pig and hamster. North American TV needs more ads like they show in Europe. There's a seven minute Nike commercial showing some wicked soccer moves with a new rendition of "A Little Less Conversation" in the background. That's a good ad. If the VP is such a VIP should we keep the PC on the QT? Cause if it gets to the VC, he could be MIA, then we'd go on KP   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  The real danger of advertising science...   by Conte       at Mon 30 Sep 5:45pm score of 2.5 astute     ...isn't being sold cheeseburgers and minivans. Mind-control technology like this (that is what it is, isn't it?) seeks to trump consumers' humanity and take rational thought out of the decision-making process. Being caught in an advertising war of ever more subtle manipulation in an increasingly saturated media environment really isn't my idea of a good time. What military applications will there be to this new leap forward in persuasion science? How many dictatorial regimes around the world are propped up by powerful propaganda campaigns run by nihilistic public relations firms? Better commercials are neither needed nor wanted. This is the psychological equivalent of thoroughly hacking into someone's computer. Many people develop serious problems by being overly misled and abused by advertising messages. Hiding madness like this under the mantle of 'science' is truly frankensteinian. Get your the torch and pitchfork. If America can make headway with anti-spam legislation, why can't we enact legislation like Germany and other modern countries that prohibits or strictly regulates psychological manipulation in advertising? Can we all at least agree that restriction is needed in marketing targeted at children?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: The real danger of advertising science...   by Leonois       at Tue 1 Oct 12:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     seeks to trump consumers' humanity and take rational thought out of the decision-making process. I thought it was irrationality, not rational thought, that defined humanity. Humans are more controlled by their lower brain than they are by anything from the higher brain like logic or rationality. It doesn't trump consumers humanity, if anything it reinforces it. Now, back to my previous thought before reading this article....mmmmmmmm Donuts.......   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: The real danger of advertising science...   by paul_holloway       at Tue 1 Oct 4:54am score of 3 informative   in reply to comment 4     What military applications will there be to this new leap forward in persuasion science? How many dictatorial regimes around the world are propped up by powerful propaganda campaigns run by nihilistic public relations firms? War in Iraq is being sold to the American people just as effectively as they are being sold anything else. The techniques are well known, and the US's consumer society means that the practise is down to a very fine art - both in terms of (1) the advertisers, and (2) the people, who have been trained to be pliant consumers. For example, 50% of Americans believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which is considered ridiculous by informed observers. But if you are buying your war using the same decision-making process that you use when deciding to go for a Big Mac or a Chicken burger then what do you expect? Don't imagine that this is something that will happen in the future - it is happening right now. "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: The real danger of advertising science...   by doogie       at Tue 1 Oct 10:39am score of 2.5 informative   in reply to comment 13     You ain't kidding that we're being "sold" US policy. To quote from the Sept. 9th Washington Post: An agitated Vice President Cheney, in a tête-à-tête with NBC's Tim Russert on Sunday, said it was "reprehensible" that people would think the administration had "saved" its ammunition on Iraq to bring it out now, 60 days before an election. "So the suggestion that somehow, you know, we husbanded this and we waited is just not true," Cheney said. Now where would people get such a cockamamie idea? Well, maybe from White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who made the case to the New York Times's Elisabeth Bumiller last week that they pretty much did what Cheney said they didn't do -- waited patiently and deliberately to launch a long-planned rollout. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," [Emphasis Mine] Enjoy it, 'till they tell you it will kill you...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: The real danger of advertising science...   by nackums       at Tue 1 Oct 6:48am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 4     "Mind-control technology like this (that is what it is, isn't it?)" No, that's not what this is. The research that seems to be the impetus of the article (which is yet another fine example of a journalist making larger claims than any self-respecting researcher would), the stuff involving the dorsal striatum, did nothing more than observe that "When people were allowed to see and smell their favorite chow, a deep-lying brain structure called the dorsal striatum was activated and the subjects reported feeling hungrier." Now, did Smell-O-Vision burst onto the market when I wasn't looking? I'm willing to bet that there is more than a bit of difference (neurologically speaking) between sensing a big fat cheesburger right in front of your face (with clear view of the textures and smells, etc.) and sensing a relatively feature-bereft 2 dimensional representation of said cheeseburger. This study (from what I can see) completely fails to take that into account. Advertising is not "mind-control technology." It is little more than formalized, stylized argumentation with persuasion as the goal. If you and I had an argument, and in the end you convinced me of your position's correctness, would that be mind control in any meaningful sense? 'Mind-influencing' would be a much more accurate term, but I guess it just doesn't have that hyperbolic, "the sky is falling" ring to it. "...this new leap forward in persuasion science" Let me say this again: this is no "new leap forward..." in any way. They freaking watched while someone looked at food. That's nothing earth-shattering. You're not going to wake-up tomorrow and say "you know what, I really want a Sausage McMuffin With Cheese." Your mind is nowhere near that simple. It's not an easy thing, and it's debatable whether it's even possible, to control one's mind, and it certainly doesn't happen from advertising. It seems to me that advertising's primary role is making the public familiar with things, which in and of itself is highly effective for a company, as people tend to gravitate to the familiar (as well as the strikingly novel...but novelty only lasts a very short time, by definition, thus the likely quick death of the Dell Dude). I guess it's appealing to many to consider advertising and politics forms of mind control, in that it makes one able to feel self-righteous in, basically, saying "fuck you man, I won't swallow your propaganda...I'm immune to it cause I'm a free-thinker," but while advertising is certainly manipulative and insidious (in that it's an amoral and systematic attempt to persuade people to buy/swallow a given product/idea, regardless of the products's/idea's actual merits), IT IS NOT MIND-CONTROL and the sky is not falling.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  I don't understand why they'd waste their time   by nmiguy       at Tue 1 Oct 10:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     studying this. Hasn't this already been covered by Pavlov and his dogs? Old news.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: The real danger of advertising science...   by Ayn Marx       at Tue 1 Oct 10:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Can we all at least agree that restriction is needed in marketing targeted at children? I call Ayn's Law, a derivative of Godwin's Law: As a [Plastic|Usenet|whatever] discussion grows longer, the probability of a plea of 'for the children' approaches one. Once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the children has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Mde_de_ondragon? WTF?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: The real danger of advertising science...   by Squeaky wheel       at Tue 1 Oct 10:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Why can't we enact legislation like Germany and other modern countries that prohibits or strictly regulates psychological manipulation in advertising? We don't enact this legislation because we value freedom of speech, even for those who are pushing products we don't like or want. Our society goes so far as to restrict the placement and content of certain advertising, such as pushing tobacco companies to target adult smokers (and no, it's not perfect, but the regulations are a start at curbing tobacco advertising messages aimed at kids). But what one regulator defines as "psychological advertising" might simply be persuasive. If we removed all psychological appeals, we wouldn't have much of an ad. No more subtly sexy people, no more jingles that get stuck in your head, no more loaded words or pictures that suggest you can be prettier, healthier, sexier, smarter, wealthier or happier if you just use this product. Don't get me wrong. I dislike advertising just as much as the next person. But I think regulatory interference is misguided - Adbusters does a far better job at kicking promoters where it counts. to expose your ass on paper terrifies some... and well it should   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  exactly   by kingraoul3       at Tue 1 Oct 12:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     this is why I'm opposed to neuroscience research under capitalism. Other than trying to cure brain diseases I guess. But as long as the fruit of the research is going to fatten profit margins rather than benefit mankind as a whole, we have no guarantee that any scientific advances will be put ot good use.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Mmmmmm...crap...   by Mad Ogger       at Mon 30 Sep 6:08pm score of 1.5 brilliant     In more ways than one. I can't believe I'm the only one that thinks "ugh, that looks sick" more often than not when I see a fast-food ad. Not to mention that I know very well that even if it somehow looks good, it isn't. The Salon article annoyed the shit out of me. I like to read about the amygdala as much as the next guy, but the article was just a mishmash. You don't need to be a neuroscientist to know that seeing food makes people hungry or that people like new things. That's just common knowledge, and scientifically it goes under normal psychology. It comes from the revolutionary method of paying attention to yourself and people around you. Neuroscience hasn't yet told us anything new about this that we can apply to everyday life. And if it did, we'd want to validate it with behavioral observation anyway. What's really offensive is the implication that a 30-second video of a slab of fat on a bun controls our minds. Why are so many people so receptive to the idea that we are the mercy of some brain structure or chemical? The shocking thing isn't that seeing food makes people hungry. Everyone knows that. Or that some brain structure is involved. Really? Next thing you know they'll tell me I wouldn't even have seen the ad at all if not for certain chemicals in my eye, or some crazy shit like that. The shocking thing is that "consumers" are willingly, even gladly ceding control over their own lives to bloodsucking parasitical dipshits living a thousand miles away that they'll never know. And you can't pin all the blame on a brain structure, because it's not present in every society.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Mmmmmm...crap...   by staph in the cath       at Mon 30 Sep 6:29pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 6     we're not at the mercy of our biology, but we are strongly influenced by it. It takes a conscious effort to resist the effects of today's pervasive advertising(for me, at least) virtually everyone will agree that propaganda is at least somewhat effective, and the attitudes and choices targeted by prop. are far more "important" than those which advertising aims at. If propaganda can help propel the nazi party to a democratically elected office, it sure as hell can help you decide to shove that burger down your throat   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Mmmmmm...crap...   by Ajax       at Tue 1 Oct 11:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     If propaganda can help propel the nazi party to a democratically elected office, it sure as hell can help you decide to shove that burger down your throat You dork, now you've got my signals crossed. Mmmmm...Luftwaffe... "Coca-Cola® and Armageddon® / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Mmmmmm...crap...   by joquarky       at Thu 3 Oct 6:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     You're assuming that we have free will [�ª].   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Wanna Super Size That?   by automaticvenus       at Mon 30 Sep 6:20pm score of 2.5 nuanced     There are many ways of fooling the brain: painting the interior of a restaurant red, for example, increases the appetite. Las Vegas, with its frantically-patterned carpeting to distract your eye continually upwards (slots, gaming tables), wouldn't exist if this wasn't possible. This is a reason why [fast food] advertisements are so compelling, and why we are having an epidemic of obesity in this country. Nice try, but the frame around the picture is missing. Part of the reason we are having an epidemic of both obesity and diabetes is not strictly due to advertising. Fast food companies have conducted numerous studies on the best locations for new franchises. Where? Well, that would be in low-income urban areas which happen to be the exact areas most stricken by these epidemics. In fact, some fast food companies have been labeled racist because of these tactics. I don't see them opening new franchises in the poshest parts of town. They're the new equivalent of crack houses in the ghetto. Having said that, advertising does play a role but not in the ad itself. What is important is where and when the ad is placed. It's the media buyers really that are the grand manipulators. Ever notice how when you watch a sappy TV movie or a human-interest story on the news that a commercial immediately follows which plays upon your emotions?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Re: Wanna Super Size That?   by jare2003       at Tue 1 Oct 10:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     I don't see them opening new franchises in the poshest parts of town. They're the new equivalent of crack houses in the ghetto I can't believe you just compared McDonalds to crack.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Wanna Super Size That?   by automaticvenus       at Tue 1 Oct 6:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     Granted, the comparison seems ludicrous on the surface; however, I was thinking of how blacks were allegedly targeted for CIA cocaine in reference to the epicenters of the obesity epidemic and what the "affluent get out of keeping the poor so fat."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  A few points...   by Djerrid       at Mon 30 Sep 10:14pm score of 1     From the article: For some reason economists are reluctant to accept the idea that advertising makes you want to buy something you didn't necessarily want before... I doubt they are that naive. Advertising is so powerful that it can get people to stop using one of the most addictive substances known: nicotine. It's not to be underestimated. Also, advertising is based on statistics. One ad has a low chance of convincing one person to do something, especially if they had no desire to do it in the first place. If I saw an ad for "lipstick for men," I wouldn't be the least bit inclined to getting some. For other men, it would have close to a 100% probability of getting them to buy it, but that is a very small group. Most likely, there are a number of men who would consider it. So, say, 1% of the male population are potential customers. Out of this 1% there is a spectrum of 1-100% probability of purchase. Each marketing technique (ads, product placement, availability, observed being used by others, etc.) will help bump that probability up by a few points. Eventually, after this comfortable-with-his-masculinity purple-loving guy sees the perfect shade as he is strolling through Macy's, that probability hits 100%. In the end, every individual has their free will to do whatever they want, but as a group humans are a lot more predictable, and therefore, exploitable. 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  I ain't buyin' it...   by Brian Jones       at Tue 1 Oct 7:24am score of 4 nuanced     ...because advertisers don't always spend their money logically. (Please excuse me in advance - I'm going to sound like a sales weasel for the next several paragraphs) Most of the (radio) ad buyers I've encountered are quite young - fresh out of college and mid-twenties, similar to the ever-hot 18-34 demographic. And even when you show these buyers the numbers that indicate that the biggest money is in the 35-64 demo -- people who spend their money on new cars and wine, as opposed to old cars and six-packs of beer -- it can be like pulling teeth to get these buyers to spend on the older demos unless the ratings are huge. That's because it's awfully hard to get a 25-year-old female ad buyer in Manhattan to understand what goes on inside the head of a 55-year-old man in a suburb halfway across the country -- other than his wicked thoughts of putting the blocks to a 25-year-old ad buyer, of course. Only recently has the lucrative 55+ market started to be tapped; until recently, it was mainly stodgy car brands like Cadillac and various pharmaceutical companies who showed up. Then there's the issue of the sheer number of messages somebody sees in a given day. Between advertising and more prosaic phenomena like traffic signals and road signs, the average American sees thousands. Which means the name of the game will remain repetition, and not some subliminal neurochemical manipulation. Which means the name of the game will remain repetition, and not some subliminal neurochemical manipulation. Which means the name of the game will remain repetition, and not some subliminal neurochemical manipulation. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Hyperliminal   by mrwarmth       at Tue 1 Oct 9:33am score of 1.5 compelling     The researchers chose a bad example to research (fast food advertising), since that advertising is clearly failing to fulfill its "manipulative" function. Most fast food chains are reporting declining revenue these days, particularly McDonalds. Advertising is in fact far more sophisticated psychologically than the article would let on. Advertising doesn't work in some Pavlovian sense strictly - i.e., by activating some center of the brain or other that automatically responds to a simple stimulus. The "neuroscience" theory can't explain for example advertising campaigns that hardly even show you their product, much less present you with images of it designed to elicit a neural response. The billboard advertising for Altoids is a good example of this. You never see the altoids themselves; you never see them being consumed; you never see their effects. Effective advertising subtly hijacks both your emotions and your rationality, and it succeeds by making the emotional seem rational. It also, at a deeper level, connects with your whole sense of self and identity. It is at the level of identity that advertising is focused today, since the building of brand identity now takes precedence over selling this or that product. In brand advertising, as opposed to product advertising, the goal is to get you to identify you entire self-perception with the brand, so that you see the brand as an extension not just of your needs, but also of your values and aspirations. Mercedes-Benz and Absolut advertising is a good example of this. So is most advertising for environmental causes. (Let's not forget that interest groups are heavily into advertising, and rely on the same psychological principles to make their advertising effective, as McDonalds or Burger King). My personal theory of effective advertising is that the advertising that is most effective is that which is most nearly like a person the audience would like to get to know. Take a very simple example: the hilarious Altoids billboard campaign that has been going on for a few years now. They are so damn funny that I find myself thinking of Altoids as a witty person I would like to know. Likewise, pick-up truck advertising is not about the product per se, but about a person you would either like to be or to know (the gritty, no-nonsense, hard working blue collar guy). In short, advertising is fundamentally identity centered, not impulse centered. Consequently, the concept of "manipulation" has to become much more refined and sophisticated than that of simply stimulating a particular need-center of the brain. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  My favorite TV ads   by doogie       at Tue 1 Oct 10:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     ...are those for Target stores. The most recent ones do not even tell you explicitly what they sell, or even that they're a store. They set a mood, and make you think (if you're their target, no pun intended) that you would like to shop there. Pure and simple. The bullseye logo, no words, no nothing. And saturation is the only way to keep it in my head. Wish there was a Target closer to where I live... Enjoy it, 'till they tell you it will kill you...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  If ad buyers are so young...   by BigBoote66       at Tue 1 Oct 9:38am score of 1.5 astute     ... how does that explain the staggering number of mattress commercials on both radio & television. I've never understood why I need to hear a mattress ad on every commercial break. I buy a mattress maybe once every ten years; amortized out, this comes to maybe $100/person per year if I'm buying some snazzy brand. I spend more than this on, well, just about anything (milk, computer games, winter coats, lawn care). The only explanation I can think of is that they are aiming at the elderly market that has trouble sleeping. -BbT   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Explanation: not everybody uses buyers   by Brian Jones       at Tue 1 Oct 1:29pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 18     Local businesses, something at the level of your local mattress retailer, generally don't use buyers. And plenty of local businessespeople insist on performing in the ads themselves -- which can be fantastic, horrible, or in the case of the late Tom Carvel, so bad they're good. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  My 2 cents...   by eduardo       at Tue 1 Oct 9:45am score of 2 informative     I worked for a very very major advertising agency - they do ads for one of the luxury car manufacturers, some of the big retail stores, etc etc. Something like 1 out of every 5 ads on TV is their product. They did not have an "evil culture management subliminal direction" deptartment. What they did have is a team of very talented musicians, artists, designers, etc. Their ads affect you almost the same way - though to a different end - that art does. For example, music has the ability to get underneath our skin and cause emotions. If we associate a certain tune with a certain product, then we relate our feelings for the tune with the product. To use 2 examples from ads that didn't come from that agency: Mitsubishy ads... they make you feel like that's the car for going out in. It always looks like the people are driving to or from the club. In the "Days go by" ad, the girl is doing a dance with her arms which makes me think of driving home from a club with my GF, on E. Good times, and without any outright subliminal manipulation, the ad associates Mistubishy with some of the most fun nights of my life. Chevy trucks, with Bob Seger's "Like a Rock." That song has that "strong independant male" feeling to it - I always loved that song because it reminds you of the kind of man one ought to strive to be. Bam, they put it in the ad - and all of a sudden you associate the trucks with making you the kind of man you'd like to be. Again, no subliminal advertising - but artfully relating your emotions to a product. Of course there're more subtle things, too. For example, the coca cola logo has these loops that might, in a subcontious way, resemble vaginas. A lot of magazine ads have these subtly phalic suggestions, especially for products like wine, where the bottle is covered in a pre-ejeculate type sweat and there's always a seductive woman ready to put it in her mouth. But all of these things, ultimately, come from art - from the designers understanding of human emotions and their ability to tie that to a product rather than a cold "scientist in lab coat" type evil manipulation. At least, in the agency I worked in, we didn't have such a department. And it was one of the major Madison Avenue ones. No time for spell check, gotta run J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Re: My 2 cents...   by swalve       at Tue 1 Oct 9:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     If I can paraphrase to test my understanding (management training), you're saying that good advertising does not try to create new emotions, that it tries to evoke old, good emotions and tie their product to those? "If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: My 2 cents...   by humanfly       at Wed 2 Oct 7:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     hmmm.. if I understand correctly, it's becoming normal for the clothing industry to seek out individuals who meet some criteria that defines these individuals as "cool", pay them a fee to wear your product. That way, in the same way a sheep will follow the leader sheep, once you get the "cool" sheep using your product the rest of the flock follows. I remember a certain cell phone company paying models to go to bars and pretend they were normal customers, use the cell phone. These sorts of things seem to be as close to "evil culture management subliminal direction" as you can get... what sort of actions would you consider evil culture management?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  I guess that Adbusters is right   by SteamboatDreamboat       at Tue 1 Oct 10:19am score of 1     Lately I've found Adbusters to be an overly cynical group that likes to shout about problems but tends to offer little in the way of solutions. However, one of their main contentions is that advertising pollutes the mental health environment. This is more evidence to show that they have hit that particular nail right on the head. Partly because of them I have shut my T.V. off, cancelled by advertising ridden magazine subscriptions, and have now turned to Plastic for my mental rehabilitation. My friends have noted a new spring in my step, a smile on my face, and a slight psychosis that terrifies children and household pets. Thank you Adbusters! And thank you Plastic! "When life hands you lemons, make coffee... and then you'll have the desire to make lemonade." --Jon Friedman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: I guess that Adbusters is right   by Tbola       at Tue 1 Oct 11:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 24     I wouldn't call them "right", but I do have to applaud their efforts. They use advertising techniques to try to sell an anti-advertisement message. It's a magazine I buy, read, and disagree with a LOT... but I keep buying the damn thing. I've also been known to DESPISE a commercial for a product, yet still purchase it, just because it seems more familiar than a product that I haven't seen advertised. My God - I AM a slave! Starve them out - block the A.I.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  The Sad Truth   by NiceLudo       at Tue 1 Oct 10:50am score of 1     The sad truth is that it is probably too late for Ronald Reagan. Any advances now in stem cell technology would take years to reach the public. Some people are making it sound as if it is hypocritcal of her to support stem cell research. As if she has changed her stance only in order to help her husband. I'm impressed that a woman of her age was able to re-examine her beliefs in order try and save other people from having to suffer as she has in the future. So it would seem that her only motive is in trying to save other people from watching their loved ones disintegrate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Effectiveness of Advertising   by savagesquirrel       at Tue 1 Oct 11:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Apparently advertising works to some extent when it's presented in a nice BOLD, black headline at the top of a small blurb on the article. NiceLudo is commenting on the wrong article due to this headline pushing his buttons by pulling the right triggers. Eh, it's time for an old-fashioned hippie ass-whomping!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  TiVo   by Gestalt       at Tue 1 Oct 2:19pm score of 1     "This is a reason why [fast food] advertisements are so compelling, and why we are having an epidemic of obesity in this country." I wonder if there's a correlation between healthy eaters and TiVo/ReplayTV/other PVR users. This would lend credibility to the above argument. Me, I'm addicted to television, but no longer addicted to food. The reason is that I loathe the idea of being advertised to. There was a point some time ago where I realized much of the activity that I spent my non-working hours doing was the end result of being coerced by advertising. It was pathetic, and a little bit scary. I had thought myself an independent thinker, but I certainly had not practiced my ideology. So, I bought a Tivo and started filtering all my media (I don't listen to the radio). In the year and a half I have had it, it's become my indispensible guardian against the most ruthless instruments of the soulless consumer culture. Of course, I'm not completely protected, since there's always product placements, those damnable banner-style ads on some networks, and of course, I still have to zoom through the ad breaks (which probably does something even more unwholesome to my subconscious consumer)-- but I've broken my addiction to salt, fat, and sugar. I'm no health nut, but I haven't eaten at McD's in months and months. It's also great when my friends talk to me about the wittiness of some advertisement, and I can gleefully tell them I have no idea what they're talking about. I gladly reject that part of our culture, it certainly was doing me no good. The plumber's pipes are the leakiest.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  Maybe this is a good thing.   by endquote       at Tue 1 Oct 4:39pm score of 1     So, if modern science finds that advertising works due to stimulating a certain group of neurons in the brain, how long will it be before someone comes out with an advertising-immunity pill, or you can get your build-to-order children gene-modded to not be receptive to them? Of course the big advertisers would lobby to make such things illegal, but it's an interesting idea anyway.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Is this ironic or what?   by sglover910       at Wed 2 Oct 11:35am score of 1     I'm supposed to get worked up about advertisers trying to get past my rational faculties, as described in.....Salon?!?!? They need to go back to things they can handle, like the prevalence of group sex among Bay area dot-com web lackeys. That was the kind of incisive reporting that made Salon what it is today.... An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Advertising is not a science.   by pylbug       at Thu 3 Oct 9:14am score of 1     Scientists are just keeping the grant money rolling in by picking a topic to which everyone can relate. Pictures of food can trigger hunger. Doesn't take a scientist to figure that one out. But the pictures don't put that food into your mouth. Impulses from your brain tell your hand to shovel those fries in. There's also a big, big leap made when you equate a survival impulse like hunger with a cultural impulse like wanting to buy a new car. Advertising cannot physically enter your brain. What these neuroscientists are observing is not a direct effect of advertising, but the indirect effects of an individual's physical ability to pay attention, absorb information, process it and recall it later. These underlying processes are different in each of us. Advertisers simply aim to trigger these processes with the lowest common denominator... Much like neuroscientists try to get more attention with a "finding" or report on a topic with which a majority of their audience (or Salon's audience) is familiar.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]