Evo, ja sam uspela da iskopiram i prebacim, pa koga zanima, neka pročita.
SHERI J. BROYLES
Subliminal Advertising and the Perpetual Popularity
of Playing to People’s Paranoia
Every 20 years, subliminal advertising pops back into popular culture.
August Bullock (2004a) is the most recent ‘‘advocate’’ with his book The
Secret Sales Pitch: An Overview of Subliminal Advertising. This paper
reviews nearly 50 years of research on subliminal advertising and comments
specifically about Bullock’s more recent publication. The literature
repeatedly shows that most effects are only obtained in highly
artificial situations, and no research has shown an effect that changed
attitudes or impacted purchasing behavior.
What is commonly thought of today as subliminal advertising began in
1957 when a movie theater experiment subliminally directed the audience
to ‘‘eat popcorn’’ and ‘‘drink Coca-Cola.’’ David Ogilvy, founder of the
international advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather, noted that ‘‘nfortunately
word of [this] found its way into the public prints, and provided grist
for the mills of the anti-advertising brigade’’ (Ogilvy 1983, 209).
In a movie theater in Fort Lee, NJ, psychologist and marketing
researcher James M. Vicary claimed to have conducted a six-week study
in 1957 that involved showing movies while at the same time projecting the
words ‘‘eat popcorn’’ and ‘‘drink Coca-Cola’’ on the screen for 1/3,000 of
a second. The claimed results of increased sales of popcorn and cola were
widely reported in numerous news media stories. Though the study was
never reported in a scientific journal and had no control group, it fit a popular
paranoia of media power such that it caused a public outcry concerning
psychological manipulation of consumers, which was immediate and widespread
(Moore 1982). When a major research company and several academic
researchers failed to replicate the original results, Vicary
eventually admitted that he had invented his experiment’s results in an
effort to revive his then-failing research firm (Gray 2000; Rogers 1992–
1993; Rotfeld 2001). His admission was widely covered in the trade press
of the period, yet despite the ‘‘experiment’’ and results having been an
Sheri J. Broyles is an associate professor of advertising at the Department of Journalism and Mayborn
Graduate Institute of Journalism, University of North Texas, Denton, TX (sbroyles@unt.edu).
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2006
ISSN 0022-0078
Copyright 2006 by The American Council on Consumer Interests
392 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
exposed hoax, the concept of subliminal advertising continues to be an
issue today.
In fact, the issue seems to periodically rear its ugly head with renewed
vigor. In the 1970s and 1980s, Wilson Bryan Key wrote a series of books—
Subliminal Seduction: Ad Media’s Manipulation of Not So Innocent
America (1972), Media Sexploitation (1976), and The Clam-Plate Orgy:
And Other Subliminal Techniques for Manipulating Your Behavior
(1980). Most recently, August Bullock, a self-proclaimed disciple of
Key, has been touting his own book, The Secret Sales Pitch: An Overview
of Subliminal Advertising (2004a).
Over the years, advertising scholars and psychologists have published
a plethora of studies on the possibilities of subliminal communications and
persuasion. Yet, regardless of the actual research findings, the general public
apparently believes subliminal advertising exists, that it is actively used
by advertisers, and that it is an effective business tool for generating sales.
A review of the nearly 50 years of subliminal advertising research is
needed, especially in contrast to the newest popular speaker and author
making what is for him a profitable assault on the advertising business.
THE BACKGROUND ON SUBLIMINAL ADVERTISING
The study of sensations and perceptions in psychology can be traced to
Fechner and Helmholtz in the late 19th century. From that line of research
emerged an area of study—subliminal perception—that has become a controversial
issue today. While there was some interest with so-called dirty
words experiments in the 1940s, it was in the 1950s with Vicary’s hoax that
attention focused on the commercialization of subliminal perception, that
is, subliminal advertising (Bloomquist 1985).
Part of the controversy of subliminal advertising concerns the misuse of
the word. In psychological terms, ‘‘limen’’ is the threshold of consciousness.
Therefore, a subliminal stimulus, by definition, is below the level of an
individual’s conscious awareness. However, awareness and consciousness
often are used interchangeably (Hawkins 1970). For example, ACTMEDIA,
a company that sold shopping cart signage, claimed such signs act in a
subliminal manner (Schumann et al. 1991). There is, however, nothing
subliminal in this signage; perhaps, the signs are not noticed by the
consumer (awareness), but they are in no way below the threshold of
consciousness.
Another example involves marketing via the Internet. Privacy advocates
have suggested that subliminal advertising is used in profiling consumers
(Simpson 1999). ‘‘But the advertising industry says there is nothing
WINTER 2006 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2 393
subliminal about marketing based on online profiling. While consumers are
targeted using information collected secretly, there aren’t any secret messages
in the appeals themselves’’ (B10). Yet another example is what has
been called the ‘‘new subliminal advertising’’ where a niche market can be
targeted without alienating mainstream audiences (Kanner 2000). However,
a rifle in the background to appeal to National Rifle Association supporters
or a rainbow-colored reflection in a glass of beer to appeal to gays
and lesbians may be subtle, but it is not subliminal.
Another example that caused an uproar was seen in the 2000 presidential
election with George W. Bush’s anti-democrat/bureaucrat ‘‘RATS’’ ad
(Della Femina 2000; Garfield 2000; Melillo 2000; Rotfeld 2001; Teinowitz
2000; The Wall Street Journal 2001). What Gary Gray (2000) notes about
the Bush ‘‘RATS’’ ads is true of many so-called subliminal examples: ‘‘If
you can see it, it does not qualify as subliminal .’’ (9).
Another way the word ‘‘subliminal’’ often is misused is to mean ‘‘suggestive’’
or ‘‘sexual.’’ Wilson Bryan Key’s first three books—Subliminal
Seduction, Media Sexploitation, and The Clam-Plate Orgy—proved popular
and have fueled the subliminal controversy by focusing on embedded
symbols. That is, photographs have been airbrushed or otherwise manipulated
(or embedded) with sexual or other arousing stimuli in ambiguous
portions of the ads. Key continually suggests that virtually all of the advertising
for some products employ subliminal stimuli (Bloomquist 1985).
One example from Key is that he maintains that 99% of ads for alcoholic
beverages use subliminal embeds (Wells, Burnett, and Moriarty 1992), and
he claims that the letters S-E-X are baked into both sides of each Ritz
cracker. As he repeatedly asserts that major advertisers and their agencies
try to seduce consumers at a subliminal level, he finds S-E-X hidden in
a picture of ice cubes, and extensive lascivious imagery in the picture
of clams on his restaurant placemat. He reasons that ‘‘advertising agencies
would not spend billions of dollars collectively on advertisements using
such techniques if there were no basis for using them’’ (Bloomquist 1985).
Yet, Key provides no documentation for any of the effects that he attributes
to embeds other than his allegations that they exist (Moore 1982;
Rosen and Singh 1992). As noted by Rotfeld (2001), ‘‘Of course, anyone
might spot all types of buried’ images in pictures, but you can also find
them in clouds, cow pastures, the Chicago skyline and the dot patterns of
acoustic tiles. This does not mean people intentionally put the pictures
there, or that the pictures cause people to buy products’’ (153). In hundreds
of pages on the subject in multiple books, Key does not find a single individual
who admits to, or even accuses others of, being involved in subliminal
embedding. Haberstroh (1984) investigated Key’s Ritz Crackers
394 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
allegation, concluding that charges of S-E-X embedded on Ritz crackers in
particular, and of subliminal advertising in general, are ‘‘preposterous,
absurd, ludicrous, laughable’’ (Haberstroh 1984; also see Haberstroh
1994 and a review of Haberstroh’s book, Lantos 1996).
Still as an argument of faith, numerous people have read Key’s books or
listened to his speeches and are not open to counter arguments about the
existence of subliminal embeds. They are all so convinced that they see
things in ambiguous areas of pictures regardless of whether hidden messages
were actually inserted. Yet, the more important question is not
whether subliminal advertising exists but rather whether it could be an
effective advertising tool.
RESEARCH USING SUBLIMINAL TECHNIQUES
Much of the research concerning subliminal advertising focuses on
whether there is an effect on consumers (Moore 1982). Vokey and Read
(1985) noted that some advocates of subliminal advertising have accepted
the fallacy that presence implies effectiveness. That is, merely demonstrating
the existence of a subliminal message is a sufficient argument for its
effectiveness. However, studies that have used subliminal techniques and
embeds have not been able to elicit the desired behavior. Several studies
followed Vicary’s theater hoax of 1957.
One study by DeFleur and Petranoff (1959) used television to test subliminal
persuasion. In this five-week experiment, no evidence was found
that subliminal messages had the slightest effect in persuading the mass
audience, even though the actions to be carried out were simple (continuing
to watch a news program following a movie with subliminal suggestions)
and routine (purchasing a certain food product after exposure to subliminal
stimuli). In another highly controlled buying environment, George and
Jennings (1975) used a slide projector to subliminally superimpose
Hershey’s Chocolate over a meaningful background (a movie). They found
that no one bought the candy in a 10-day period following the experiment.
Several studies have employed embeds in controlled situations to test for
effects. Kelly (1979) used two dummy magazines, one with embeds and
one without. The portfolio of ads with subliminal embeds did not produce
significantly greater recall of brands or illustrations than did the control ads.
Vokey and Read (1985), using vacation photographs, embedded the word
sex, a nonsense syllable, or no embed. When tested both immediately and
two days later, the photos embedded with sex were no better recognized
than the pictures in the control conditions. To specifically test Key’s
premise in a simple, well-controlled manner, Gable et al. (1987) placed
WINTER 2006 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2 395
deliberate embedding on one of two sets of photographs of a camera, pen,
beer, and food. They found no significant preference between photos of
products with embeds and those without. A study by Rosen and Singh
(1992) placed embeds on actual print ads for lesser-known brands of
two products, liquor and cologne. Their dependent measure had four levels:
attention to the ad, change in attitude, behavioral intention to buy, and 24-
hour recall. No statistically significant effects for embeds were found at any
level of advertising effectiveness that they measured.
One study that has repeatedly been cited in the literature showed that
a simple subliminal stimulus could be associated with arousal of a basic
drive such as thirst or hunger. In that study, Hawkins (1970) found
increased thirst ratings followed subliminal exposure to the word Coke
compared to a control group exposed to a subliminal nonsense syllable.
However, when Beatty and Hawkins (1989) were unable to replicate
the study, they concluded that Hawkins’ earlier results were due to Type
I error; that is, the null hypothesis was rejected when in reality (the population),
it should not have been rejected. If you test something often
enough you will get an unusual sample whose random variation will yield
a seeming effect; in this case, we have a single significant finding that no
one could repeat or replicate, not even the original researcher. In effect,
their original study yielded a false positive.
Cooper and Cooper (2002) also found an effect when in two wellcontrolled
experiments participants became thirstier after exposure to verbal
and pictorial embeds in the TV show The Simpsons than those in a control
group. However, those results might also be summed up by what Moore
(1982) said almost 20 years earlier. In his review of subliminal perception,
subliminal advertising, subaudible messages, and embedded stimuli,
Moore stated that although subliminal perception does exist, the subliminal
stimuli are usually so weak that potential effects are easily nullified by other
competing stimuli. While some studies showed a weak emotional response
to subliminal stimuli, no evidence exists to suggest that subliminal advertising
is effective in persuading consumers to buy products.
After reviewing the literature (Bloomquist 1985; McDaniel, Hart, and
McNeal 1982; Saegert 1979; Zanot, Pincus, and Lamp 1983), researchers
have concluded that no empirical evidence exists to demonstrate that any
subliminal advertising technique has an effect on changing attitudes or an
impact on consumers’ purchasing behavior. ‘‘The point is simply that subliminal
directives have not been shown to have the power ascribed to them
by advocates of subliminal advertising. In general, the literature on subliminal
perception shows that the most clearly documented effects are obtained
only in highly contrived and artificial situations’’ (Moore 1982, 46).
396 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Two researchers have written overview papers of the research in subliminal
advertising. Theus (1994), citing 128 references, extensively
reviewed psychological, physiological, and behavioral (choice) response
research. The last is of the most interest to advertisers. She concluded
in her summary that ‘‘research on brand choice behavior, per se, seems
to be subject to little or no influence by subliminal suggestion’’ (282).
In a meta-analysis of previous research, Trappey (1996) also concluded
that ‘‘the effect of subliminal marketing stimuli on influencing consumers’
choice behavior or selection process is negligible’’ (528). That is, it is a big
leap from the psychology lab all the way to the grocery store.
Such research, which overwhelmingly rejects the effectiveness of subliminal
advertising, has not, however, persuaded the general public (Rogers
and Smith 1993; Zanot, Pincus, and Lamp 1983).
BULLOCK’S NOT-SO-SECRET SALES PITCH
August Bullock, an attorney, has no stated credentials in advertising,
psychology, or marketing. His is more of a layman’s approach. His interest
in subliminal advertising dates back to his reading of Key’s (1972) book
Subliminal Seduction. In his book The Secret Sales Pitch: An Overview of
Subliminal Advertising (2004a), Bullock says, ‘‘I discovered a copy of
[Key’s] book in San Francisco around 1975 and immediately became
engrossed in the subject. I began collecting my own subliminal examples
.’’ (11–12).
Bullock’s theory (2004a) is based on what he calls the Ambiguity Principle.
In his words, ‘‘The essence of subliminal advertising is ambiguity [his
emphasis]. Subliminal messages are most often delivered’ with words or
pictures that have more than one meaning. Both meanings are perceived
unconsciously, but if one of them is psychologically threatening, it is
repressed. The viewer is only aware of the nonthreatening interpretation’’
(179).
The Secret Sales Pitch is composed of seven chapters and two appendices
with annotated notes and references at the end of the book. Numerous
color ads printed on good quality paper are used throughout the book. Following
are some examples to illustrate Bullock’s (2004a) analyses of what
he perceives to be subliminal elements.
Bullock spends several pages analyzing a Benson & Hedges ad (Bullock
2004a, 13) where a woman in a low-backed evening dress is being held
close to the man’s body. The copy reads, ‘‘If you got crushed in the clinch
with your soft pack, try our hard pack.’’ This message has an obviously
sexual connotation—not a subliminal one. The penis, however, that he
WINTER 2006 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2 397
suggests has been airbrushed (embedded) into her backbone is a matter of
interpretation. To others, it just looks like light reflecting off her back during
the photo shoot. However, Bullock (2004a) states, ‘‘.subliminal messages
of this kind have been commonly used in all forms of media for the
last five decades. You probably have been exposed to millions of them in
your lifetime’’ (14). The implication is that advertisers are placing embeds
in ads, however, like Key before him, he offers no proof.
In another chapter, Bullock shows several magazine covers, the first
being Health & Fitness Journal (Bullock 2004a, 37) with a woman in
a string bikini sitting behind a man on a motor scooter. As he notes,
the sexual content of the picture is not debatable. But it is not subliminal
either. It is obvious. He points out that ‘‘the woman’s right hand is massaging
the man’s genitals’’ [his emphasis] (38). Yes, they are resting
around his waist as one would do when two are on a motor scooter, but
it’s hard to tell the action of massaging from this still picture. Similarly,
in a cover for Wallpaper (Bullock 2004a, 39), two men are on either side
of a woman, all facing directly toward the camera. The three models are
naked standing in water that is hip deep. Bullock says that ‘‘.most viewers
probably don’t realize that both of the woman’s hands are massaging her
companions’ genitals’’ (38), even though it is hard to say what action is
happening in a still picture when you do not even see the hands.
Bullock spends a great deal of time analyzing a Smirnoff ad (Bullock
2004a, 47) where he sees a man in a woman’s body, cleavage in a woman’s
back, and a menacing skull-like face. This is part of Bullock’s analysis:
‘‘The copy, The Wine Sat There And The Smirnoff Flowed,’ is cleverly
ambiguous. The wine’ refers to the whiney, mousy man who is the
object of the women’s contempt. The Smirnoff Flowed’ literally, into
his face!’’ (Bullock 2004a, 49). He suggests that, rather than a dinner party,
unconsciously this is a heated argument where the Smirnoff will end up
thrown in this man’s face. The ad actually shows, however, two glasses
of wine left on the table while the women are holding the glasses of Smirnoff
in their hands. Bullock never substantiates that what he sees—and what
fits his suggested interpretation—was put there with this intended meaning
by those creating the ads.
Bullock repeatedly makes generic statements such as ‘‘delivering subliminal
content through the use of pictures with multiple meanings is extremely
common in media’’ [his emphasis] (Bullock 2004a, 50), yet he never substantiates
these statements. For him, it seems that any shadow, any reflection
can be made into some sort of subliminal embed. A woman’s thumb
becomes a man’s penis.Aman in a leather jacket ‘‘looks like a homosexual.’’
Women are ‘‘sensuously touching’’ or ‘‘gently caressing’’ each other. And
398 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
he offers helpful little drawings over the pictures, like Madden using a telestrator
as he comments on a football game, to show us what we are missing.
Bullock cites several psychological studies done in the laboratory. It
should be noted, however, that just because someone is not aware of a connection
(a conditioning in an experiment), that does not make it subliminal.
Bullock spends a great deal of time on psychological studies to support the
cumulative effect and the long-term effects of subliminal advertising, but he
does not cite the advertising and marketing research that disputes
this laboratory research. He states, ‘‘Furthermore, the messages only had
an effect when they were perceived unconsciously. They ceased to have
an effectwhentheywereshownlong enoughfor the viewers tobecomeaware
of them’’ (Bullock 2004a, 75). This statement is not backed up by research.
Bullock also discusses research that he says is private, unlike the public
research published in journals, and states: ‘‘The bulk of subliminal research,
in contrast, has been conducted in secret by advertising and marketing
firms. It constitutes intellectual property’ that is rarely, if ever, revealed
to outsiders’’ (Bullock 2004a, 105). This raises the question, of course, that
if all this is so secret, how does he know about it?
Bullock does address advertising’s perspective, startingwith the true statement:
‘‘Advertisers deny they use subliminal techniques’’ (Bullock 2004a,
107). But the subhead above this statement, ‘‘Too Many Coincidences,’’
makes Bullock’s slant clear. He first addresses a Benson & Hedges cigarette
campaign. The copy on the first ad looks like it came from the 1970s
and reads, ‘‘If you got bopped doing the bump with your soft pack, try our
hard pack’’ (Bullock 2004a, 107). His little drawings show the faces and
penises that he suggests have been embedded in various ads. But the sexual
theme in these ads is overt, not covert. Embeds are not necessary to get this
sexual message across.
Bullock (2004a) suggests that advertisers are forced into the position of
placing embeds in advertising: ‘‘Advertisers are not evil conspirators. They
are intelligent, creative people faced with a difficult dilemma. The competitive
pressures of the marketplace force them to use subliminal techniques,
and at the same time require them to deny they do so’’ (123). He even brings
the media into this great conspiracy: ‘‘.market forces have also restrained
the mainstream media from exposing the use of subliminal techniques. .
Most newspapers, magazines, and television stations rely on advertising
revenues for survival. They are naturally reluctant to criticize advertising
because advertisers provide their income’’ (124–125).
Even when Bullock (2004a) quotes advertising professionals who say that
they do not use subliminal advertising, he couches it with a subhead ‘‘Protesting
Too Much’’ (130). He does the same with the subhead ‘‘Scientific
WINTER 2006 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2 399
Disinformation’’ (131) when reviewing the literature that does not support
his claims. Bullock is very dismissive of this research. ‘‘A few supposedly
scientific studies have purported to prove’ subliminal embeds and other
techniques don’t affect consumer behavior’’ (131). He specifically dismisses
the Moore (1982) study because the embed was irrelevant or not emotional.
Other studies he suggests are ‘‘misleading and use flawed methodologies,’’
even though these were refereed papers in the Journal of Advertising. For
example, he suggests that the control ads might have had embeds in them
that the author of the study just did not see. ‘‘The experiment is invalid
because the control’ ads probably contained subliminal devices the author
had not detected’’ [emphasis added] (132). It seems that finding embeds is
a gift that has been given only to Key and Bullock. It should be noted that he
accepts what Key sees at face value, even though it was never substantiated.
Bullock (2004a) analyzes other ads on taboo themes and suggests the
ads portray pedophilic fantasies, incest, and models representing dead
women (even though their eyes are open). Even a Dodge Quad Cab truck
has homosexual implications. This is Bullock’s analysis: ‘‘Highways’
refers to free and uninhibited lifestyles. Four big wide opening doors’ refers
to the two mouths and two anuses involved in homosexual sex. Full sized
bed’ requires no explanation, and hangs out’ refers to exposed genitalia’’
(147). It is hard to believe that Dodge would purposefully use homosexual
images to sell a vehicle that they have positioned as a ‘‘man’s truck.’’ But
the most offensive analysis is of a news photograph (165) taken of one
of the towers at the World Trade Center on September 11. Bullock sees
an attacking monster in the billowing smoke.
Bullock takes a Freudian turn by suggesting that the real reason no one
admits to using subliminal techniques is that we do not want to accept the
truth about ourselves. Again, he goes through some classic psychological
experiments, including the one where a cohort lies to see if the actual participants
would change an obviously right answer to the wrong one. He again
talks about the billions of dollars spent studying subliminal perception in
psychology since the 1950s (172). With that kind of money he may be confusing
subliminal studies with motivation studies, which have been done.
Bullock includes a ‘‘How to Use Subliminal Techniques’’ section in his
book. But before getting into the techniques part, he notes that the Federal
Trade Commission has declined to take action against advertisers who have
allegedly used subliminal techniques, even though Wilson Bryan Key presented
‘‘innumerable examples of subliminal techniques.’’ (174). He says
that government agencies have good reason because of severe political and
economic consequences. He does not consider the option that no one has
been prosecuted because these subliminal embeds do not exist. Bullock
400 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
considers the greatest problem is the denial by society rather than the actual use
of subliminal techniques. And with that, he segues into his how-to section.
He notes three possibilities regarding the illustrations in his book
(Bullock 2004a, 193 [his emphasis]):
d The artist deliberately created the subliminals to psychologically
manipulate the viewer.
d The artist unconsciously created the subliminals without realizing
that she or he was doing so.
d The appearance of the subliminals is entirely coincidental.
Therein lies the basic problem in that the public fear of subliminal advertising
all requires them to believe there exists a deep, dark conspiracy of
secrecy. With so many products, so many clients, and so many people
involved in the approval and production of an ad, it is not even possible
that everyone has kept this dirty little secret for decades and decades in an
industry where everyone talks. As noted by Rotfeld (2001) on subliminal
advertising in general, ‘‘The preparation of every ad or commercial
involves many people, and it is difficult to conceive how any advertiser
could keep the inclusion of subliminal messages secret. The advertising
managers would have to know about it. The copywriters and art directors,
the people who plan the ads, would have to work out how the subliminal
messages would be hidden. The people who produce the ad would have to
be informed, since they put it in final form and need to make certain the
hidden messages are properly reproduced. All it would take would be one
person to stand up and say, Look at what we did!’’’ (153).
DISCUSSION
Bullock has a disclaimer dropped throughout the book: on the copyright
page, at the beginning of the annotated notes, and throughout the notes
when referring to specific ads. The full disclaimer reads
My analyses of all the illustrations in this book are based solely on the appearance
of the pictures. I can only speculate as to how the creators of the illustrations
intended them to be perceived. Furthermore, I am not inferring in any way that
the models portrayed in the pictures had any knowledge or understanding of the
‘‘secret’’ meanings articulated in my hypotheses. (Bullock 2004a, 235)
So not only did he not ask permission to use these ads, but Bullock also
did not talk to anyone on the agency or client side to see if what he suggests
WINTER 2006 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2 401
was part of the strategy in creating the ads. He does note on the copyright
page where he lists all the trademarked names that ‘‘none of the companies
referred to herein have endorsed this book or are affiliated with it in any
way.’’ Bullock makes it very clear, at least in the ‘‘fine print’’ (that is, in
places other than the main text of the book) that these are his opinions and
that they are only opinions.
Bullock also cites and quotes heavily from the psychology literature but
is very dismissive of research more directly related to advertising and marketing.
All the psychology studies are assumed to be pristine, while those
against subliminal advertising are somehow flawed. One might also note
that laboratory experiments often do not reflect real life.
Bullock relies heavily on psychodynamic theory of repression, which
can be and is debated even among psychologists. He talks about how viewers
of ads block/distort/sanitize the sexual embeds in the ads. But this
assumes that there are nasty negative things airbrushed or manipulated
in the ads. Many in advertising would adamantly contend that this is
a wrong assumption (Haberstroh 1984).
The back cover of Bullock’s (2004a) book states, ‘‘August Bullock is an
attorney who presents the evidence of subliminal advertising as though he
were addressing a jury. Even skeptical readers will not be disappointed.’’
His writing is peppered with phrases such as ‘‘makes perfect sense’’ or ‘‘it is
perfectly logical to think’’ or ‘‘implied in the picture’’ or ‘‘it is perfectly
reasonable to conclude.’’ And his trump, sent in a letter to the author,
‘‘If optical illusions are perceived unconsciously, it’s quite logical to think
they are employed in advertising’’ (Bullock 2004b). Perhaps this non sequitur
is logical to him, but he certainly has not proven that to be a fact.
In Bullock’s ‘‘how-to’’ section, he points out something that advertisers
and their agencies could do, but they do not. Bullock also notes that the
study of subliminal techniques is not included in most curricula. For those
of us in academe, there is a good reason: subliminal techniques do not work
because they do not work they are not a business practice and, perhaps more
importantly, it would be wrong to teach something that is unethical even if
it did work and was used.
Innuendo isn’t the same thing as subliminal. There is a difference. With
innuendo, no one is trying to hide anything. With subliminal, they are trying
to sneak something past the reader. In fact, when writers use double
entendres, they want the reader/viewer to get both meanings. The copy does
not work and loses its cleverness if the reader does not ‘‘get it.’’ But there is
nothing subliminal about it.
Bullock would probably say that I am repressing the true facts. That is,
he blames those who do not see the ambiguity and the subliminal messages
402 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
as being threatened by the idea. But then, I think he is seeing things that are
not there.
Perhaps, it is the ethical implications, as mentioned above, that makes
subliminal advertising a sensitive subject for those working in the advertising
business. It reduces the credibility of both advertisers and their agencies,
not to mention that of the people working in the media whose
cooperation would also be needed to make certain that the hidden images
stay hidden during publication or broadcast. The public perception of subliminal
advertising and the reduced credibility by the advertising industry
has been a concern of advertisers for decades.
As far back as 1984, the American Association of Advertising Agencies
produced ads to help in an image-building campaign (Higgins 1986). One
ad, which was mailed to magazines and newspapers, focused on subliminal
advertising by showing a cocktail glass with ice cubes and the headline
‘‘People have been trying to find the breasts in these ice cubes since
1957’’ (Levine 1991).
Just as the advertising industry reacted negatively to the suggestion
of subliminal advertising 20 years ago, a similar backlash occurred when
Bullock (2004a) promoted his book on a listserv discussion line. Various
comments came fast and furious from advertising scholars, many of whom
had worked professionally in the advertising industry.
Jim Goodnight, former Executive-in-Residence at a private university,
stated that the reason he thinks the subliminal advertising topic created such
a furor is because it is so anti-intellectual. ‘‘It is like having someone publish
a book for the Flat Earth Society as a serious scientific study.. When
you’ve looked at as many recall scores as most of us have, you know that
advertising is the art of the blatant message, not the hidden one.’’ Jim
Avery, an author of a campaigns text book, suggested this simile: ‘‘.
the comparison of studying subliminal advertising was like a chemist giving
serious discussion to alchemy.’’ Tom O’Guinn, an author of one of the
major introductory texts for advertising, commented, ‘‘I certainly understand
people’s fear of having yet another book on this fiction that will
not die. If I had a $ for every time I’ve had to convince someone that they
are more likely to find BIGFOOT than produce a working subliminal ad,
I would be a very rich man.’’
Why This Is Important
The concern for credibility is always an issue with advertising. The perception
of the public affects that credibility. Conducted as a comparison of
two earlier studies of consumer awareness and perception of subliminal
WINTER 2006 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2 403
advertising, a survey of students in a Mass Communication and Society
class produced similar results to those of Rogers and Smith (1993), which
replicated many of the findings of an earlier study by Zanot, Pincus, and
Lamp (1983). All three showed that a large majority (74%–84%) had heard
of subliminal advertising. Of those who had heard of subliminal advertising,
a large number (68%–85%) thought that advertisers used it and most
(68%–78%) thought that subliminal advertising was effective (see
Table 1).
Over a span of more than 20 years with different samples the results held
up, so it is still a valid statement that ‘‘subliminal advertising has become
[and continues to be] a recognizable part of the culture, despite the lack of
scientific evidence that it is practical or even possible’’ (Rogers and Smith
1993, 16).
It is important to remember that people do not act on reality but rather on
their perceptions of reality. Therefore, these beliefs—valid or not—will
affect the consumers’ attitudes toward advertised products and the advertising
industry. ‘‘Academics have also scoffed at the lack of scientific evidence
and documentation for the existence of the phenomenon as provided
by popularizers such as Wilson Bryan Key. Apparently the general public
believes differently’’ (Zanot, Pincus, and Lamp 1983). The public likes to
believe the worst about advertising, and that makes it difficult to refute subliminal
advertising charges.
What Does This Mean for Consumers?
As long as popular authors bring their road show on subliminal advertising
back to the front of consumer awareness, they needlessly scare consumers
into believing that they are being psychologically manipulated.
TABLE 1
A Comparison of Awareness and Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising
Zanot, Pincus, and
Lamp (1983)
Rogers and
Smith (1993)
Student
sample (2004)
Familiar with concept of
subliminal advertising
81% 74% 84%
Of those who are familiar
with subliminal advertising,
those who believe advertisers use it
81 68 85
Of those who believe advertisers
use subliminal advertising,
those who believe it is effective
68 72 78
Sample size 209 400 266
404 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Consumers already have a collection of fears of advertising’s power (e.g.,
see Rotfeld 2001, chap. 10), and this is yet another area of needless consumer
paranoia.
What was correct when first stated by Klass (1958) almost five decades
ago is equally true today: ‘‘Fears about the ability of subliminal stimulation
to influence behavior markedly are grossly exaggerated .. subliminal
advertising is not the technique that will revolutionize the principles
and methods of the mass communication industry’’ (150). That has certainly
proven to be the case.
The bottom line is that consumers need not worry about psychological
manipulation from subliminal advertising. Maybe somewhere, somehow,
there is an advertiser willing to waste money in this manner, but no consumer
should care. Subliminal advertising just is not effective. Therefore, when
someone tries to read too much into an advertisement, consumers should
trust their own eyes. As a final thought, because these men who see the sexual
images in so much advertising reference Freudian psychology, it seems
appropriate to dismiss their ideas of subliminal advertising with the mostoften
repeated quote from Freud: ‘‘Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.’’
REFERENCES
Beatty, Sharon E. and Del I. Hawkins. 1989. Subliminal Stimulation: Some New Data and Interpretation.
Journal of Advertising, 18 (3): 4–8.
Bloomquist, Douglas W. 1985. Teaching Sensation and Perception: Its Ambiguous and Subliminal
Aspects. In The G. Stanley Hall Lecture Series, edited by Anne M. Rogers and C. James Scheirer,
vol. 5 (159–203). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bullock, August. 2004a. The Secret Sales Pitch: An Overview of Subliminal Advertising. San Jose, CA:
Norwich.
———. 2004b. Personal letter, September 24.
Cooper, Joel and G. Cooper. 2002. Subliminal Motivation: A Story Revisited. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32 (11): 2213–2227.
DeFleur, Melvin L. and Robert M. Petranoff. 1959. A Televised Test of Subliminal Persuasion. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 23 (2): 168–180.
Della Femina, Jerry. 2000. Reducio Ad’ Absurdum. The Wall Street Journal, September 14.
Gable, Myron, Henry T. Wilkens, Lynn Harris, and Richard Feinberg. 1987. An Evaluation of Subliminally
Embedded Sexual Stimuli in Graphics. Journal of Advertising, 16 (1): 26–30.
Garfield, Bob. 2000. Subliminable’ Seduction and Other Urban Myths. Advertising Age, 71 (39):
4–5.
George, Stephen G. and Luther B. Jennings. 1975. Effect of Subliminal Stimuli on Consumer Behavior:
Negative Evidence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41: 847–854.
Gray, Gary. 2000. Nothing Subliminal About It: The Truth About the Myth of Marketers’ Manipulative
Powers, from Someone Who Was There. Marketing Magazine, 105 (47): 9.
Haberstroh, Jack. 1984. Can’t Ignore Subliminal Ad Charges. Advertising Age, 55 (61): 3–5.
———. 1994. Ice Cube Sex: The Truth About Subliminal Advertising. Notre Dame, IN: Cross Cultural
Publications.
Hawkins, Del. 1970. The Effects of Subliminal Stimulation on Drive Level and Brand Preference.
Journal of Marketing Research, 7: 322–326.
WINTER 2006 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2 405
Higgins, Kevin T. 1986. As Plans Acceleration of Image-Building Campaign. Marketing News,
20 (7): 8.
Kanner, Bernice. 2000. Hide in Plain Sight. Working Woman, 25 (3): 14.
Kelly J. Steven. 1979. Subliminal Embeds in Print Advertising: A Challenge to Advertising Ethics.
Journal of Advertising, 8 (3): 20–24.
Key, Wilson Bryan. 1972. Subliminal Seduction: Ad Media’s Manipulation of Not So Innocent
America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
———. 1976. Media Sexploitation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
———. 1980. The Clam-Plate Orgy: And Other Subliminal Techniques for Manipulating Your
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Klass, Bertrand. 1958. The Ghost of Subliminal Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 23: 146–150.
Lantos, Geoffrey P. 1996. Book Reviews [Review of the book Ice Cube Sex: The Truth About
Subliminal Advertising]. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13 (1): 62–64.
Levine, Joshua. 1991. Search and Find. Forbes, 148 (5): 134–135.
McDaniel, Stephen W., Sandra H. Hart, and James U. McNeal. 1982. Subliminal Stimulation as a
Marketing Tool. Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 20 (1): 41–48.
Melillo, Wendy. 2000. The Rat Pack. Adweek, 41 (38): 15.
Moore, Timothy E. 1982. Subliminal Advertising: What You See Is What You Get. Journal of
Marketing, 46 (Spring): 38–47.
Ogilvy, David. 1983. Ogilvy on Advertising. New York: Vintage Books.
Rogers, Martha and Kirk H. Smith. 1993. Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising: Why Practitioners
Shouldn’t Ignore This Issue. Journal of Advertising Research, 33 (March–April): 10–18.
Rogers, Stuart. 1992–1993. How a Publicity Blitz Created the Myth of Subliminal Advertising. Public
Relations Quarterly, 37 (4): 12–17.
Rosen, Dennis L. and Surendra N. Singh. 1992. An Investigation of Subliminal Embed Effect of Multiple
Measures of Advertising Effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 9 (2): 157–173.
Rotfeld, Herbert Jack. 2001. Adventures in Misplaced Marketing. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Saegert, Joel. 1979. Another Look at Subliminal Perception. Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (1):
55–57.
Schumann, David W., Jennifer Grayson, Johanna Ault, Kerri Hargrove, Lois Hollingsworth, Russell
Ruelle, and Sharon Sequin. 1991. The Effectiveness of Shopping Cart Signage: Perceptual
Measures Tell a Different Story. Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (February–March): 17–22.
Simpson, Glenn R. 1999. Privacy Advocates See Subliminal Side to Web Ads. The Wall Street Journal,
December 9.
Teinowitz, Ira. 2000. Ad Creates a Rat’ Problem for GOP. Advertising Age, 71 (39): 4.
Theus, Kathryn T. 1994. Subliminal Advertising and the Psychology of Processing Unconscious Stimuli:
A Review of Research. Psychology & Marketing, 11 (3): 271–290.
Trappey, Charles. 1996. A Meta-Analysis of Consumer Choice and Subliminal Advertising. Psychology
& Marketing, 13 (5): 517–530.
Vokey, John R. and J. Don Read. 1985. Subliminal Messages: Between the Devil and the Media.
American Psychologist, 40 (11): 1231–1239.
The Wall Street Journal. 2001. FCC Finds No Wrongdoing in Broadcast of Rats’ Ad, March 12.
Wells, William, John Burnett, and Sandra Moriarty. 1992. Advertising Principles and Practice. 2nd
edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zanot, Eric J., J. David Pincus, and E. Joseph Lamp. 1983. Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising.
Journal of Advertising, 12 (1): 39–45.
406 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
