Friday, November 5, 2010
Subliminal Advertising and Freedom of Speech
Is there anything (morally) wrong with this? Is this an example of subliminal advertising (regardless of the law)? Why do people complain about it? As we usually say, it does not really matter whether these practices are legally permitted or prohibited. But assuming that these practices are prohibited, do they entail a violation of freedom of speech? Can subliminal advertising give us reasons to buy or not to buy a product? Should it be demonstrated that these messages cause us to act one way or the other? WHY?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is morally wrong for the broadcaster to engage in practices that subconsciously affect people’s minds. It seems to me that the station is simply exploiting its viewers. By using fast imagery, which most people don’t even notice, the broadcaster is tricking its viewers into liking a given brand. It should use ways that consciously make people aware that a given company is sponsoring the event. I think the viewer should be able to make a connection between the brand and the event. Someone who enjoys watching the awards show should grow an appreciation for the company that makes it possible; it seems to me that this is the purpose of sponsorship. Through subliminal advertising, the viewer grows an inclination towards a certain brand, but he/she does not know its origin.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there is something morally wrong with this; in this specific case, the broadcasting company did use subliminal advertising to get to their audience. This is morally wrong and people complain about this because the subliminal advertising targets the subconscious. This is negative because it is a form of mind-control; we cannot resist this type of advertising if we wanted to. In this instance, it was wrong to just force these ideas on the viewers of an awards show. We as humans want to be able to control as much as we can. Subliminal advertising limits and even restricts the amount of information and knowledge that we can control. Subliminal advertising can most definitely give us reasons to buy a product. If shown enough subliminal messages, this will effect our opinions of the specific brand without us even knowing it. This, in my opinion, is wrong. In making a decision about a brand or a product, I want to start with a clean slate and build my opinion and my decisions on information I have obtained myself from sources that I trust. I want to be aware of my thoughts as well as my thought process. Subliminal messaging strips this freedom from consumers.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa marino
Subliminal advertising could be considered a deceptive form of advertising and be morally wrong. As the video says some people see it as a form of "mind control, influencing us in ways we are unaware". By advertising this way, producers are taking advantage of the rational ability of a consumer to make a decision. In this case it is deceptive advertising. From the Kantian perspective this type of advertising is not autonomous and is in fact DIS-respecting people's rationality. Kantians would be completely against subliminal advertising.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the advertisements do not present any falsity, which can further be argued against deceptive advertising. Also, the ads are only flashed on the screens for 1 second.
In this case Olay, KFC, and Toyota are sponsors of the event and have a right to time on the screen. However, there are other ways to make the viewers aware of the companies actions of sponsoring the event such as "this program is brought to you by.." right before the program starts, refraining from interruptions during the program.
However, an objection could be made that broadcasting in front of a banner is subliminal advertising...
Furthermore, the point of advertising is to catch the consumer's eye and subliminal advertising does just that; however, it can catch your mind as well.
-Jenna Salandra
Upon first watching the clip, I didn’t really see how those small advertisements in the clips could be seen as morally wrong simply because they were just flashing a name brand. However, thinking in a broader sense, I believe that subliminal advertising is morally wrong and therefore, what Aria did was morally wrong. The reason is because subliminal advertising manipulates viewers and interferes with people’s freedom of choice. Subliminal advertising taps into the subconscious part of the human mind and creates motivations and needs for goods they might not otherwise think of. With subliminal advertising, people do not have a choice in being subjected to it, because people are unaware they are being subjected to it. With all of the advertisements thrown in people’s faces today, people still have a right to choose what they want to look at and which advertisements they want to be influenced by. Most people wouldn’t see subliminal advertising as that big of a moral issue unless it actually influenced a person’s behavior, however, I think it is a practice that should not be allowed to be used regardless of whether or not it directly causes behavior because it is still underlying the right to a persons freedom of choice.
ReplyDeleteOne way to think about this is to connect the case with the concept of deception discussed in the textbook. In that context, does it make any difference whether we are talking about product advertising or - as in this case - corporate advertising? The question gets back to what Alyssa and Jenna discuss in their post. What is wrong? The intrusion in itself or the potential effect of these advertising techniques in our conduct as consumers? Good comments! I like them all.
ReplyDeleteThis i not morally wrong. First of all, I find it very hard to believe that anyone saw the logos while watching the ARIAS, but if they did, so what? This is no different than forcing viewers to watch a commercial for 30 seconds, all it does (if it is even noticed) is remind you of the company's existence. The idea that it is a form of "mind-control" is ridiculous. If I dont like KFC, I simply do NOT eat KFC. The viewer/consumer is not at any disadvantage because he is never without his cognitive brainpower or common sense as a result of the advertisement. With that said, this is absolutely a violation of the code of broadcasting conduct, as it explicitly states that advertisements that last from 10 to 50 milliseconds is below the threshold of human consciousness.
ReplyDeleteConor, I do not understand your point. On the one hand, you wrote that there is nothing morally wrong with that. On the other, you say - correctly - that this is "absolutely a violation of the code of broadcasting conduct". Why do you think this is prohibited by "the code of broadcasting conduct"? The straightforward answer is: "because there is something morally wrong with this".
ReplyDeleteMy point is that while the advertising practice is not morally wrong, it goes against the code of broadcasting conduct. Much in the same way that smoking marijuana is not morally wrong, but it is against the law. The literature in the code of conduct explicitly prohibits advertisements from targeting the viewers subconscious, and that IS what Toyota, KFC, and Olay were attempting to do. My argument is simply stating that this particular rule in the code of conduct does not represent what is morally right because nobody is being taken advantage of or forced into buying a certain product.
ReplyDelete