Below is a transcript from the opening of the Hearing on Subliminal Communication Technology that took place Monday, August 6, 1984. This section of the hearing deals with the House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials, and FCC Representative, Dr. John Kamp, Assistant to the Deputy Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Accompanied by Charles Kelley, Enforcement Division, Mass Media Bureau. (1)

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Glickman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Glickman. Today the subcommittee will focus its attention on subliminal communication technology. This subcommittee has kind of made it a theme this year to explore in addition to the other areas of our jurisdiction those things which concern the public in a kind of Orwellian sense as a result of the nomenclature of this year 1984.

We held a series of hearings on computer security and privacy.  Largely those hearings led to the enactment in the House of legislation which makes it a Federal crime to tap into people’s records for the purpose of obtaining financial or privacy information.  But, the subject is one that has many different facets to it.  This hearing today is concerned with the subject of subliminal communication.

And this, as many in this room are familiar, is a process by which an individual is presented with information without that individual being made aware specifically of that information, but to which they make a selective response.  This message, which is usually in the form of words, pictures or voices, is presented so rapidly or faintly that the person seeing or hearing the message is not consciously aware of seeing or hearing anything.

Although little is known, at least by the general public, about the exact psychological and physiological mechanisms involved in subliminal communication, there have been a number of scientific advances in the area and an increase in its application in recent years.

For example, I understand that the use of subliminal communication is used by a large number of stores throughout the country to discourage shoplifting. Using an audio device, music is combined with a subliminal message such as “I will not steal.” These subliminal messages are reported to have reduced shoplifting by as much as 80 percent in some cases.

In addition, I understand that video tapes are now being marketed which use subliminal communication techniques to assist individuals in losing weight, stopping smoking, enhancing memory, lowering blood pressure, and for other purposes.  If a store is able to reduce shoplifting by up to 80 percent through subliminal communication, several serious questions naturally follow: Are such techniques also being used as successfully in increasing sales? What other uses are being made of this technology? What is the potential outcome of research in this field?

Clearly we need to take a closer look at the use of subliminal communication technology given the serious moral, ethical and legal implications posed by some of these recent innovations.  All of us remember the Vance Packard book, “The Hidden Persuaders,” which I think started public attention towards this area.

I, myself, think that subliminal communication clearly has a twilight zone implication to it. And given the rapid advance in computer technology in this country, as well as psychological research, much of which is being done by the Defeense Department, I think it is incumbent upon us in Congress to at least explore the issue to see how widespread it is and to see if anything needs to be done about it.

Our first witness today is Dr. John Kamp, Deputy Chief, Mass Media Bureau of the FCC. We are pleased to have you here, Dr. Kamp.  Mr. Kamp, why don’t you proceed? You may feel ree to read or summarize your statement, because all the statements of the witnesses will appear in the record in their entirety.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN KAMP, ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF, MASS MEDIA BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES KELLEY, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, MASS MEDIA BUREAU

Dr. Kamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
On behalf of Chairman Mark Fowler, I wish to thank you for inviting the FCC to participate in your hearing today. I was asked to represent Chairman Fowler on this matter at least partially because of my academic background as a social scientist, as well as my role at the Commission as a legal and policy assistant to the Mass Media Bureau Chief.

I bring with me this afternoon Mr. Charles Kelley, head of our Enforcement Division in the Mass Media Bureau. He will be with me helping answer any questions you may have at the conclusion of my testimony.

Subliminal perception has been a persistent issue at the Commission spanning over 35 years but it has seldom required significant amounts of Commission time and resources. That is largely because the Commission’s stand on the issue has been clear and consistent.

The FCC’s position is that the use of such techniques involves intentional deception and , thus, is inconsistent with a licensee’s obligation to broadcast in the public interest. The Commission defines subliminal projection as a technique of projecting information below the threshold of sensation or awareness.

This is not the subtle but overt message delivered by the attractive model selling toothpaste, this is the message that is so subtle the person is not intended to be at all aware of the attempt to persuade.  And it is that element - intentional deception - that has been the focus of concern at the FCC. Typical subliminal techniques are projections of visual messages of extremely short duration and transmissions of low volume audio messages that cannot be consciously perceived.

That said, two things are important to state at this juncture. First, as a social scientist I must note that there is considerable doubt in the scientific community that these techniques are very effective.

There is a whole host of problems, stemming from such things as the fact that individuals have highly varying levels of perception, making generalized threshold levels of subliminal perception very complicated. Another such problem is that to the extent that these messages are designed to change people’s behavior, scientists as well as advertisers know that subtle appeals are often more interesting than they are effective.

But my second point is of more direct relevance - that the Commission’s prohibition against use of this technique by broadcasters is clear regardless of whether the technique is effective or not.

The Commission’s authority to regulate subliminal perception techniques when used by broadcasters stems broadly from the public interest provisions of the Communications Act, including, in particular, sections 303 and 317. Section 303 contains the provisions that give the Commission general authority to regulate the industry to further the public interest, convenience or necessity.

More specific authority in this area is contained in section 317 of the act which has been reiterated in section 73.1212 of the FCC’s regulations. Essentially, these provisions prohibit covert advertisements.

They require broadcasters to identify on each broadcast any sponsor of any broadcast program or advertisement. By requiring clear identification of sponsors, the Commission seeks to ensure public awareness of the nature of the persuasion and the identity of the persuader. Subliminal projections, which are designed to sidestep conscious awareness of advertisements, have been found to be against public interest and the spirit and the language of section 317.

The FCC enforces its prohibition on the use of subliminal projections by following up on complaints. Viewers, listeners or members of the industry alert the FCC to possible violations.

If a complaint appears to be valid, the Commission first asks the broadcast licensee for an explanation. If necessary, Commission technicians can review a copy of the programming to check for subliminal messages.

The Commission, however, receives very few complaints in this area. From 1966 to the present, complaints concerning subliminal projections have comprised no more than one-half of 1 percent of all advertising complaints.

We think this system has worked well to date because broadcasters know the position of the Commission and know its intention to act as necessary to stem any abuse. A quick review of the major cases on this issue is instructive.

The FCC first became concerned with subliminal projection techniques in 1956 after it learned about a New Jersey movie theater which flashed the words “Drink Coca-Cola” and “Hungry? Eat popcorn” every 5 seconds at the subliminal level of one three-thousandths of a second during the film.
Although an increase in sales was reported, the theater refused to release any of the details of the experiment. The first broadcast case came in 1957 when television Station WTWO tested the technique by monitoring the reaction of viewers to flashes that stated “If you have seen this message, write WTWO.”

WTWO reported no increase in incoming mail. In 1958, researchers conducted an experiment on Television Station WTTV where viewers were subliminally told to “Watch Frank Edwards,” a news analyst featured on the station. The researchers reported that the message had no statistically significant effect. (De Fleur and Petranoff 23 Public Opinion Quarterly 168 (1959).)

In 1957, early in this period of experimentation, the FCC published a public notice expressing its concern and asserting its jurisdiction in this area. At that time the Commission noted that subliminal messages only had been used by broadcasters for experimental purposes and that the broadcast industry trade association (NAB) had announced its intention to review and consider any subliminal advertising proposals.
The 1957 notice clearly stated that the FCC considered the use of subliminal messages to be inappropriate by broadcasters. No further immediate action was judged necessary because licensees appeared to be behaving responsibly.

In 1958, the National Association of Broadcasters amended its code to bar the use of these messages. Broadcasters interest in subliminal messages appeared to wane in the face of FCC policy statements, industry prohibitions and the lack of persuasive test results.

In 1973, the issue arose briefly when the FCC received complaints that television stations had broadcast an ad which contained a subliminal message to “Get it.” An FCC investigation revealed that the advertising agency which produced the advertisement had already dispatched telegrams to the stations informing them of the existence of the subliminal message and authorizing them to delete it.

Some stations, however, continued to broadcast the advertisement containing the “Get it” message. The FCC took the occasion to clarify its position and issued a public notice which stated: “We believe that the use of subliminal perception is inconsistent with the obligations of a licensee * * * Broadcasts employing such techniques are contrary to the public interest. Whether effective or not, such broadcasts clearly are intended to be deceptive.” (Broadcast of Information by Means of “Subliminal Perception” Techniques at 44 F.C.C. 2d 1016 (1974).)

That statement in 1974 continues to contain the essence of Commission policy on this issue, and it appears to be good law and good social policy. As noted above, our complaint level is now so low as to be only a persistent trace at the agency reflecting, as far as we can tell, more public fascination with this issue and concern over the undesirable manipulative possibilities of the technique than evidence of any actual use.

Nothing in the information flowing into the Commission at this time has suggested the need for any new Commission initiative in this area. However, it is a matter that clearly warrants continuing scrutiny, for were the techniques shown to be effective or new techniques developed and used, the manipulative possibilities would clearly warrant further govermental concern.

In the meantime, we think this is good law because it has consumed a minimum amount of Commission resources. The Commission has established its position, made it clear to the industry, and stood ready to enforce it. Thus, it has been able to concentrate its resources on other major matters.
That concludes my formal remarks. Again, I thank you for this opportunity to appear, and I will be glad to remain to answer any questions you may have. In that regard, Mr. Charles Kelley, Chief of the Enforcement Division of the Mass Media Bureau is also here to help you.

MR. GLICKMAN.Thank you, Dr. Kamp.
So you have not received any complains recently regarding the use of subliminal advertising.

DR. KAMP. Wee receive complains from time to time, perhaps on a month or so. But we have not yet, or have not recently, in the last several years, received a complaint that on its face was sufficient for us to warrant a major investigation.

We have in those cases where we received complaints that appear to raise valid problems, we oftentimes first ask the complainant to give us further information, if he has it, and if we do have it, then we go to the station.

But very recently, over the past few years, there has been no major complaint.

MR. GLICKMAN. But you do investigate each one of these complaints?

DR. KAMP. It depends. In most cases we ask, we begin by asking the complainant for further information. And if the complainant comes forward with that, then we do a further investigation.

But, very seldom do we receive information from the complainant about the matter that causes us to have a further - to ask for further information.
Oftentimes, for example, and one very recent one we received just a few weeks ago, indicated to us that what was happening was that there was a strong image on the TV screen, and that was caused not by an attempt to subliminally send a message, but had to do with some problems with the technical aspects of the sending unit at the station, and when that was pointed out the the technicians at the station, we found that the problem had gone away.

MR. GLICKMAN. How do you know if subliminal messages are or are not being used during television and radio commercials?

DR. KAMP. Well, on - the strange parts of this, it is a catch-22, of course. If you know it is there, it is not subliminal.

We don’t know unless there is a complaint sent to us. As it turns out, of course, the complaint system at the Commission works very well.
Subliminal perception is such that what is subliminal to one person is not necessarily subliminal to another. And an effective subliminal technique almost always is perceptible to some people, because their perceptions are much quicker than others.

So it will be seen relatively soon by people in the audience, and there will be a complaint.

What happens usually, however, is that other people in the industry concerned about the industry itself and the effect of what a competitor might be doing, complains to us, and that is where we get most of our complaints.

MR. GLICKMAN. Do you have a definition of the word “subliminal” in your rulemaking?

DR. KAMP. We have a definition in our public notice. I paraphrased it in my remarks, but it essentially has to do with a technique that is designed to persuade people that comes below the usual level of awareness.

MR. GLICKMAN. Now, for example, then, let’s say during the broadcasting of a religious program on TV, if the message subliminally was focused across the screen “Honor your father and your mother,” which on its face is a fairly benign message, that would violate the Commission’s rules; is that correct?

DR. KAMP. Under the current system, yes. We have not had a case like that of a message that would normally be construed as socially desirable, nor a challenge to our existing rules based on those kinds of facts.

And so I am not sure what the Commission might do in that sort of a situation. The example you give would seem to be on that would be very difficult for us to mount a firm challenge to the person who suggests that one should “honor thy father and mother.”

But the Commission for the most part tries to stay out of any content-based decisions because of the sensitive first amendment issues that arise here.

MR. GLICKMAN. But your basic testimony then - the thrust of your testimony is the Commission rules apply when products are being sold rather than when ideas are being brought across the television screen?

DR. KAMP. I think what the Commission would do - the Commission under its general public interest standard may look at ideas being sold subliminally in much the same way as it now looks at products.

But your question implies the correct answer. That is, the focus of this issue at the Commission to date has been in advertising areas where products are being sold.

MR. GLICKMAN. Do you know if other Federal agencies have gotten involved in this issue - the FTC, for example?

DR. KAMP. Yes. The Federal Trade Commission does have some authority under the FTC statute which allows them to regulate unfair or deceptive ads where there is an effect on interstate commerce.

The FTC’s authority operates separate from ours, of course, in that the FTC statute that gives the FTC authority to regulate except the broadcasting industry. So the Federal Communications Commission has authority where a broadcaster is involved and the FTC has authority where all other advertisers are involved.

But it is interesting to note that the question that you ask me may be answered somewhat differently by the FTC, because the FTC looks at it is somewhat more limited than that of the FCC.

The FTC has to have a demonstrated proof that the ad is unfair or deceptive, and then that has a negative effect on interstate commerce. So there could very well be different answers to very similar questions.

MR. GLICKMAN. Well, we are going to hear from some witnesses who have more experience in the mechanics of it and the technology of it. Just as one private citizen, I would think the American public would be very, very reluctant under any circumstances, no matter how socially desirable the message is, to know that they are being subliminally interfered with without their permission.

So I would just encourage you to keep a watch fully on this. I think with technology, the ability to modify tape in ways that we never dreamed of before, both video tape as well as audio tape, I think the kind of things that my have not occurred in the past could occur in the future.

DR. KAMP. I think that you are absolutely right on that. “Honor your father and mother” is something that might be very difficult to disagree with, but you might take a message like “drink more milk” that could be embedded in some communications and although that might seem socially desirable at the first level, you might also note that there could be commercial or industry interest in the commercial aspects of it, and that it also could be exposed to people for whom the drinking of more milk might be undesirable, people that had a propensity for heart trouble or for some reason were allergic to milk products.

So it is not easy in many cases to tell the difference between a socially desirable message and a socially undesirable message. But I will continue to honor my father and mother and the Commission will continue to take a watchful eye on these kinds of matters.

MR. GLICKMAN. Yes. We would not want to see any message like “reelect your Congressman”.

DR. KAMP. It depends on which Congressman. [Laughter.]

MR. GLICKMAN. That is right.  Thank you very much for your testimony today. We appreciate it.

MR. KAMP. Thank you, sir.

1. 2006, University Press of the Pacific, “Subliminal Communication Technology: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation Aviation and Materials, of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.

]]> http://programmingthenation.com/WordPress/?feed=rss2&p=282 http://programmingthenation.com/WordPress/?p=272 http://programmingthenation.com/WordPress/?p=272#comments Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:04:29 +0000 Jeff_Warrick http://programmingthenation.com/WordPress/?p=272 By Jeff Warrick

On August 6, 1984 a Congressional Subcommittee of the Committee on Science and Technology met to discuss Subliminal Communication Technology.

Below is a short video clip from our feature documentary, “PROGRAMMING THE NATION?” - about the history of subliminal messaging in American mass-media - that discusses what took place during this hearing.

Kansas Democrat Rep. Dan Glickman was the Chairman and he first spoke with Dr. John Kamp, Assistant to the Deputy Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Read the FCC Statement and Mr. Glickman’s Q and A with Dr. Kamp in part 3.

It seems to me that there is quite a bit of disinformation available out there regarding the laws prohibiting subliminal advertising. As a result, (and based on my interviews with average people on the streets), I’ve reached the conclusion that the general population actually believes subliminal advertising is illegal. I too once thought this, as surely our government regulators would not allow such manipulative techniques to be practiced, regardless of whether they were proven to be effective. Right?

But, the REALITY however, is that THERE ARE NO LAWS which exist, (and never have), in America which prohibit the use of subliminal advertising. During the making of our documentary film, “PROGRAMMING THE NATION? - about the alleged history of subliminal messaging in American mass-media - I personally contacted the FCC about this very subject. Their response?

They quickly pointed me to a 1974 “public notice” a.k.a. “policy statement” (1), (shown below), which reads as follows:

“We believe that the use of subliminal perception [technique] is inconsistent with the obligations of a licensee, and we take this occasion to make clear that broadcasts employing such techniques are contrary to the public interest. Whether effective or not, such broadcasts clearly are intended to be deceptive.”

Upon first glance, one might read this and quickly breathe a sigh of relief, watch a few hours of television, and sleep like a baby at night knowing that the FCC would never allow our subconscious minds to be violated in this manner. A reasonable assumption based on the wording I suppose. However, when given the historical context and manner with which this statement was given, the truth soon becomes more clear.

Here’s a brief overview of the historical context which led to this 1974 statement. In 1973, one year earlier, a very controversial non-fictional book entitled “Subliminal Seduction” written by Wilson Bryan Key, (who we interviewed for our documentary prior to his passing), reached the best-seller list and caused enormous public outcry on the issue.  Later that same year, (possibly as a result of Key’s book), an over zealous advertiser hired to produce a TV commercial for a kid’s game called “HUSKER DU” purposely inserted a flash frame of the words, “Get it!” into the spot.  When the ad agency learned of what their employee had done, they reportedly contacted the stations informing them of the existence of the subliminal message and authorizing them to delete it.  Some stations, however, continued to broadcast the advertisement containing the “Get it!” message.  As a result of these two circumstances, the FCC became flooded with complaints and was literally forced to issue a public response due to public demand.

The manner in which the FCC issued the response is important also.  The FCC did not issue a mandatory prohibition into their written guidelines on the use of subliminal advertising.  The reason is because the FCC does not regulate advertisers, but rather only the broadcast corporate entities which carry the advertising messages.  Since broadcasters don’t have the necessary resources and enormous amount of time to examine every piece of advertisement, frame-by-frame that they receive, the FCC, (historically favoring corporate interests), would never attempt to forcibly require them to do so.  What the FCC did instead was to issue a “POLICY STATEMENT” - definitely not the same as an enforceable rule - to quell this public outcry.

The FCC also did not issue any cut-and-dry examples on what was and was not considered “subliminal” - and for good reason.  Rather only a broad definition of subliminal advertising as “Any technique whereby an attempt is made to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below the threshold level of normal awareness.”  But, what is the “threshold level?”  What is considered “normal” vs. “abnormal” awareness?  You get my point?

So, with the general public feeling safe and secure again, it was back to business as usual.  Advertisers were still free to pursue any manner at their disposal to create compelling messages for their corporate clients, and the corporate broadcasters would continue to push the messages of their corporate sponsors to an ever more receptive and growing audience.

Regarding the section of the above statement that reads: “(The Television Code now prohibits use of “Any technique whereby an attempt is made to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below the threshold of normal awareness . . .),”  I believe its important to address the regulatory significance of the NAB TV Code Authority.  According to George Dessart, on “Standards and Practices” here is a brief history of this code and how it relates today:

“By the late 1930s, the networks had established so-called continuity acceptance procedures to assure that their advertising policies and federal law were adhered to. Later, as the role of radio in American life became more clearly understood, a body of written policy was articulated, generally on a case by case basis, to guide not only advertisers and their agencies but also programmers and producers in entertainment and other programming.

More than 67% of all television stations subscribed to the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) Code adopted in 1950 (a similar radio code had been in operation since 1935). In addition to provisions which addressed historic concerns respecting the “advancement of education and culture,” responsibility toward children, community responsibility, and general program standards, the NAB Code also included advertising standards and time limits for non-program material defined as “billboards, commercials, promotional announcements and all credits in excess of 30 seconds per program.” In 1982, in settlement of an anti-trust suit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, the NAB and the federal government entered into a consent decree abolishing the time standards and the industry-wide limitations on the number and length of commercials they provided. The Code program standards had been suspended in 1976 after a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that the Family Hour violated the First Amendment. After the demise of the Code, the networks, which had already developed their own written standards, took over the entire burden.

With the changes in ownership of the traditional networks, the emergence of the cable networks, and the deregulatory climate, there has been considerable relaxation of the process–not every episode is reviewed once a series is established–”

1. 2006, University Press of the Pacific, “Subliminal Communication Technology: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation Aviation and Materials, of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.

]]> http://programmingthenation.com/WordPress/?feed=rss2&p=262 http://programmingthenation.com/WordPress/?p=252 http://programmingthenation.com/WordPress/?p=252#comments Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:13:20 +0000 Jeff_Warrick http://programmingthenation.com/WordPress/?p=252 A 2007 study conducted by cognitive scientist Dr. Ran Hassin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Psychology Department, (originally published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dec. 4, 2007), shows that subliminal exposure to national flags affects political thought and behavior.

The short video below which gives more details about this study, was originally part of a series produced by ScienCentral. There is one MAJOR correction I must make regarding what the host says - about the FCC having outlawed subliminal advertising in 1974.

The FCC actually issued a “policy statement” in 1974 which gave their stance on subliminal advertising. It was largely the result of public outcry on the issue generated by the book, “Subliminal Seduction” by Wilson Bryan Key, (whom we interviewed for our documentary).

But, “policy statements” are not the same as “enforceable rules” and the FCC does not give any details on what is, or is not considered “subliminal advertising.” Furthermore, the FCC has no authority over the Advertising Community, but rather only the Broadcasters that deliver their messages.

By Tom Jacobs

Feeling aggressive and hostile toward the people around you? Perhaps you’ve had one too many.

Thoughts, that is. About alcohol.

Over the past five years, several studies have found exposure to alcohol-related cues in one’s immediate environment can increase aggressive thoughts and behaviors. A paper just published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin adds to this evidence, reporting that even a subliminal reference to drinking may make one more likely to harm another human.

A French research team led by psychologist Baptiste Subra of the University of Grenoble conducted two experiments to test how the idea of liquor (as opposed to its ingestion) affects behavior. The first, which confirmed 2006 research by the University of North Carolina’s Bruce Bartholow, found test participants unscrambled aggression-related words more rapidly following a quick-flash, 300-millisecond exposure to a photo of an alcohol bottle.

Tellingly, this effect — which suggests aggressive thoughts had been activated and were easily accessible — was just as strong as it was in a second group of people, who were briefly exposed to a photo of a weapon. Thinking about a Guinness and thinking about a gun seem to be equally effective ways to trigger belligerence.

In the second test, 78 French university students were subliminally exposed to one of three types of words: alcohol-related (such as vodka), aggression-related (assault) or neutral (water). They then undertook a “boring and difficult task,” which became still more annoying when their computer screens froze. At that point, the person in charge of the experiment informed them he didn’t know how to fix the machines and told them they’d have to start over.

Afterward, the students were asked to rate the experimenter’s competence on a one-to-seven scale. “The form said the department chair would use the ratings to determine which experimenters to hire for future studies,” Subra and her colleagues noted. “Thus participants could directly harm the experimenter by giving him negative ratings.”

Which, it turns out, they were more likely to do if they had been exposed to either an alcohol- or aggression-related word. Members of those two groups cut the experimenter less slack, giving him lower marks than those who had been exposed to the neutral word. As in the first experiment, there was no significant difference between those exposed to the alcohol-related and aggression-related words.

These findings have clear implications for the regulation of alcohol advertising. “In some countries, it is common practice to forbid alcohol consumption during public events such as soccer games,” the researchers note. “But is it wise to display alcohol commercials during these same events? Our results suggest it is not.”

There are undoubtedly other cues that trigger feelings of hostility. But it’s sobering to realize how the mere concept of intoxication seems to stimulate anti-social attitudes. When you walk into a bar, you may have to pay for your drinks, but the aggressive attitudes they provoke are apparently on the house.

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Feeling overwhelmed by the sex, violence and inappropriate content on prime-time television? Fear not, squeaky-clean entertainment is on its way to your living room.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Thursday it was working with Procter & Gamble Co. to produce “family-friendly TV programming.”

The first production, which will run April 16 on NBC, is a made-for-TV movie called “Secrets of the Mountain,” about the adventures of a single mother and her kids in a mountain cabin they’ve inherited from an eccentric uncle.

While the entertainment may be devoid of sexual innuendo and graphic violence, there will be plenty of subliminal advertising via product placement by both Wal-Mart and P&G, as well as regular ads from the companies during the commercial breaks.

Of course, product placement is already rampant in programming, and corporate underwriting of television is nothing new. (Soap operas got their name from being sponsored by soap makers.) P&G Productions says it’s produced nearly 50 movies of the week, 35 years of “People’s Choice Awards,” 20 soap operas and a number of beauty pageants and variety shows.

But a tag team of the world’s largest retailer and the No. 1 consumer-products maker is a significant way for these businesses to target consumers and reinforce their images as wholesome and family-friendly, while getting their goods in front of this desirable demographic in a DVR-proof way.

In a time when companies are trying to figure out how to become players in new media and on social-networking sites, creating a TV movie with virtuous themes seems almost quaint. If families are even watching TV together, kids are usually the ones controlling the remote. Will this brand of programming appeal to them?

Also, as we saw during the recent writers’ strike, lots of consumers have defected from traditional TV-watching, and now spend time on other pursuits, such as playing video games and consuming their media via the Internet.

With more profanity and racy themes sneaking into prime-time programs, rolling out G-rated TV options that families can enjoy together isn’t a bad idea, but it’s not clear whether anyone will be watching.

– Angela Moore, commentary editor

Editor’s Note: Truthout is joining with the World Business Academy in an effort to demonstrate popular opposition to the unethical practice of neuromarketing manipulation. Please visit the Stop Neuromarketing page to view a video and sign the petition.

Guard your reptilian brain. Corporations and politicians are trying to tap into it to use the latest brain research and sales techniques to influence your buying and voting patterns.

The idea is this: you have three brains, the new brain that thinks, the middle brain that feels and the old brain that decides. The old brain (also called the “reptilian brain” because it dates back 450 million years and is like reptiles’ brains today) is focused on survival. It is the gatekeeper that controls what gets to the other two brains.

Using a form of marketing known as neuromarketing, corporations and politicians are using MRIs, EEGs, and other brain-scan and medical technology to craft irresistible media messages designed to shift buying habits, political beliefs and voting patterns, as described in the World Business Academy’s video “Spellcasters.”

By measuring activity in different parts of the brain in response to an ad or other media message, advertisers and political consultants can create advertising campaigns that tap into the pre-conscious brain. The idea is to assess central nervous system response to certain ads, the better to skirt the viewers’ rational thought.

Since the dawn of commerce, sellers have tried to figure out how to best pitch their wares, grab attention and close the deal. Sales pitches have always been designed to create a willing buyer, often by creating needs and wants and then offering up a new product to satisfy them.

Clever and unscrupulous sales pitches are nothing new. They helped create a nation of smokers until litigation revealed that tobacco companies hid known risks. The court cases led to big damage awards, new warning requirements and, finally, fewer smokers.

The use of music, images and emotion to manipulate the consumer and voter is also nothing new. But neuromarketing involves a degree of intrusiveness and manipulation that needs to be exposed and stopped. Consumers pushed back when advertisers turned to subliminal advertising - the practice of flashing an image for a tiny fraction of a second, too fast for the cognitive brain to process. It’s time to push back again.

Neuromarketing is sometimes defined to include not just the use of brain scanners, but also the use of eye tracking and skin sensors to assess the power of an image or media communication. Whether or not there is any bright line that divides appropriate and inappropriate uses of technology to get inside people’s heads in the figurative sense, here is a stand we should take and fight to hold: technology that literally gets inside people’s heads in an attempt to circumvent their rational thought and animate their preconscious brain is unethical and unacceptable. Brain scanners go too far. Marketing and public relations firms should be limited to tools that measure the external manifestations of people’s reactions to media messages.

Neuromarketing undermines our core democratic values of freedom and self-determination. No wonder the practice is still largely in the closet. Most companies and political parties do not want to become known as master manipulators, whether they’re selling a consumer product or a political candidate. But just this week, Bark Group Inc., a multinational European advertising company, issued a release about neuromarketing technology that Bark is developing with a brain research firm MindMetric, to produce ad campaigns that will create a stronger emotional response in consumers.

Spooked? If you aren’t, you should be.

Powerful and well-funded corporate interests already wield too much political power. If neuromarketing catches on as a favorite tool of politicians and their masters, 2010 will make the totalitarian mind control games described in George Orwell’s frightening book, “1984,” look like child’s play. Big Brother is watching you.

Congress should hold hearings to investigate the commercial and political uses of neuromarketing so the public can learn what companies and political candidates are using neuromarketing research to manipulate consumers’ and voters’ choices. The Democratic and Republican parties and all 2010 political candidates should disclose their neuromarketing research and expenditures. The public should demand that companies pledge not to use neuromarketing or other unethical marketing techniques.

That you, the reader, take action is more important now than ever in light of this week’s Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend as much as they want to influence voters in federal elections. The decision wipes out a century of law that somewhat curbed the power of corporate money over Congress. If not countered by determined citizens fighting back, it could spell the end of our 200-year experiment with democracy.

The fact that 72% or more of the U.S. economy is consumer-controlled means that we can - and must - use our dollars to impact corporate decision making, or all is lost. People must put their money where their values are, and corporate America will listen - because our purchases make their cash registers ring. We may have lost tremendous power at the ballot box but we can control society from the cash register.

There is one shining example where a depressed minority in America without the right to vote, opposed by every formal institution in society, channeled consumer spending to change the political course of our nation’s history. That was the grape boycott in the 1960s led by migrant farm workers and Cesar Chavez who said, “please do not buy grapes, so we can live without being subjected to toxic pesticides and inhuman working conditions.” American consumers responded with their dollars and history was changed forever.

That example of consumer power does not apply only to disenfranchised political minorities. It is the beacon we must follow if we are to save our free will and the legitimacy of our electoral system.

Almost two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson warned about the power of “moneyed corporations” to distort good government. He wrote about his hope to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Sign the neuromarketing petition. The World Business Academy will keep a public record of those companies that pledge not to use neuromarketing. Those are the ones you want to do business with. Your choice to be individually responsible matters now more than ever. It’s time to put your money where your values are.

Original Article

Ferrari has removed the bar-code part of the paint jobs on its Formula 1 cars because of a claim that it is subliminal advertising for cigarette sponsor Marlboro.

The team said ahead of the Spanish GP: “With Philip Morris International we have decided to modify the livery of our cars.

“This decision was taken to remove all speculation about the so-called “bar code” which was never intended to be associated to a tobacco brand. We want to put an end to this ridiculous story and concentrate on things more important than such groundless allegations.”

Ferrari’s official team name is Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro and is the only team still sponsored by a tobacco company’The argument’s completely pointless, verging on the ridiculous’.

Marlboro branding does not appear on the car but recent media reports have suggested the prominent bar-code design could be in breach of strict European Union laws banning tobacco advertising because it resembled the lower part of a packet of cigarettes.

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo hit out at the criticism earlier in the week. “I find this argument completely pointless, verging on the ridiculous, to claim that the colour red or a graphic design which shows a bar code could induce people to smoke.

“At a time when, on the other side of the Atlantic, they are fighting to provide a more equal health service, on the old continent of Europe so-called experts are racking their brains to come up with theories that have no scientific basis.” - Reuters

Many Americans have been concerned for years about excessively loud TV commercials that raise the decibel level of sound from the program they have been watching.

The FCC response to my complaint about loud TV ads during the Clinton years resulted in 19 pages covering such things as offensive commercials and subliminal advertising, but concluded there is no way to control loud ads because “loudness is very subjective from listener to listener.”

The message sent out by the FCC during the Obama years says, “Manually controlling volume levels with the remote control remains the simplest approach to reducing excessive volume levels.”

If you write your congressional representatives about loud TV commercials today, they will probably tell you (as mine did) that they support S. 2847, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, or CALM Act, which is pending before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

I hope readers will urge their representatives to support this legislation that provides the volume of TV ads can be no louder than the volume of the program during which it appeared.