Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[pmorrison@4lpi.com (Jason)]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<1047052877.215272@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
> Stanley R. Allen wrote:
> > Cf, "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.
> 
> Wasn't he the "naked woman in the ice cubes" guy?
> Amusingly, a liquor company is now using this in their ads -
> "Some people see a naked woman in these ice cubes - others
> just see [some variation on 'our wonderful beverage']".
> 
> Subliminal advertising works about as well as hypnosis
> and telepathy, which is to say, not at all.

I don't know about telepathy, but hypnosis really does "work". 
Granted, it doesn't really work the way they show in the movies, but
pick up a psych 101 textbook if you don't believe me.

As for advertising...  let me pose a hypothetical question.  Let's
say, hypothetically, that there is a company that has its product, say
a soft drink, in every country on the planet.  Now let's suppose that
the 6 billion humans on this planet already consume 1 billion drinks
of their each day.  If advertising does not influence the choices that
people make, then why on earth would this same company spend billions
of dollars on advertising?  It isn't very likely that this
"advertising is vital in free markets in order to make potential
customers aware of the benefits of using some product, and perhaps of
the disadvantages of using a different one."  I can't imagine there is
single person on this planet that is unaware of Coca Cola (oops, let
it slip).

The major point of advertising, at least in recent history, is to
influence people's decisions.  If this is impossible, all the richest,
most successful companies are deluding themselves.  I agree that
people aren't mindless zombies who only eat/drink/wear/buy what they
are told, but there are understood psychological methods for
influencing behavior.  You're right, subliminal advertising, in terms
of secret messages between frames or hidden nudity, doesn't work.

I for one would like to see more substantive advertising (this product
is better because of these points) and less associative advertising
(watch this hot chick drink this product).  But if you watch TV or
read a magazine for a half hour, I think you'll see which is deemed
more successful by companies.  There's not much I can do about it if I
want strong free speech.

Still, saying advertising doesn't and isn't intended to influence
behavior is sticking your head in the ground.  The real solution is
for consumers to be much more critical (and self-ware) of what is
presented to them.