(note: the following is an adaptation of an old project I found while looking through my harddrive)
Pareidolia: A misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct
An area of our lives in which pareidolia is playing an increasingly important role is that of the continual barrage of advertisements we’re subjected to. The average internet surfer comes across at least an ad or two per page surfed. Over the years, advertising has become such an important economical means through which the demand for a product is controlled that even groceries are turning to ads. The need for advertisement has been reflected by a continual increase in demand for market analysts, strategists and psychologists alike. Simple, obvious ads are now woefully inadequate in the marketplace, entirely insufficient. This has gradually led to the introduction of subliminal messaging in ads. Subliminal messages can take many forms, and it is often the case that pareidolia plays a role in subliminal messaging. As an example, take a look at this “black ice†advertisement.
Can't see what im referring to? Look again:
See it now? Where your conscious minds may not have seen the hidden message, your subconscious minds did. Pareidolia allows ad makers to take advantage of the fact that our minds will connect loosely associated things of their own regard. Our minds are trained to connect loosely connected stimuli...without such an ability, you wouldnt be able to read these words; afterall, they're just pixels...and the advertisement industry has been quick to exploit this.
Now the question here is simple: is all of this ethical? Do ad companies have the right to employ psychology to induce us to buy their product? As though subliminal messaging in ads isn't enough, there are even ad companies researching the possibilty that auditory stimuli may induce people to go on a spending spree (just imagine the possibilities of such a system being put into effect in a shopping mall)...and what of the use of role models? A majority of advertisements are centered around role models; be it a popular singer, a movie star, or perhaps even a football player. When someone comes to buy a product which has been advertised heavily, the seemingly obscure stimuli of the brand name becomes associated with the role model and hence buyers are more likely to purchase these advertised goods as they either feel obligation or they identify with the role model the brand and hence the product embodies. Do ad companies have the right to play with our minds?
In addition I recently came across a treasure-trove of information related to advertising in the alcohol industry (while doing this mandatory online alcohol course thing for college). Most advertisements in the alcohol industry involve shaping our expectations with regad to what will happen when we drink. However, the catch here is that most of the ads are misleading. Ads involving alcohol commonly use heavy sexual overtones to suggest some sort of a link between drinking and sex (as though suggesting alcohol leads to sex). Do companies have the right to mislead us?
I believe that laws should be put into effect to limit what ad companies can do...lest they take it too far. This has been an issue for quite some time, though ad companies usually end up saying that the final decision lies with the consumer. That, however, may not be the case anyome.
Pareidolia: A misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct
An area of our lives in which pareidolia is playing an increasingly important role is that of the continual barrage of advertisements we’re subjected to. The average internet surfer comes across at least an ad or two per page surfed. Over the years, advertising has become such an important economical means through which the demand for a product is controlled that even groceries are turning to ads. The need for advertisement has been reflected by a continual increase in demand for market analysts, strategists and psychologists alike. Simple, obvious ads are now woefully inadequate in the marketplace, entirely insufficient. This has gradually led to the introduction of subliminal messaging in ads. Subliminal messages can take many forms, and it is often the case that pareidolia plays a role in subliminal messaging. As an example, take a look at this “black ice†advertisement.
Can't see what im referring to? Look again:
See it now? Where your conscious minds may not have seen the hidden message, your subconscious minds did. Pareidolia allows ad makers to take advantage of the fact that our minds will connect loosely associated things of their own regard. Our minds are trained to connect loosely connected stimuli...without such an ability, you wouldnt be able to read these words; afterall, they're just pixels...and the advertisement industry has been quick to exploit this.
Now the question here is simple: is all of this ethical? Do ad companies have the right to employ psychology to induce us to buy their product? As though subliminal messaging in ads isn't enough, there are even ad companies researching the possibilty that auditory stimuli may induce people to go on a spending spree (just imagine the possibilities of such a system being put into effect in a shopping mall)...and what of the use of role models? A majority of advertisements are centered around role models; be it a popular singer, a movie star, or perhaps even a football player. When someone comes to buy a product which has been advertised heavily, the seemingly obscure stimuli of the brand name becomes associated with the role model and hence buyers are more likely to purchase these advertised goods as they either feel obligation or they identify with the role model the brand and hence the product embodies. Do ad companies have the right to play with our minds?
In addition I recently came across a treasure-trove of information related to advertising in the alcohol industry (while doing this mandatory online alcohol course thing for college). Most advertisements in the alcohol industry involve shaping our expectations with regad to what will happen when we drink. However, the catch here is that most of the ads are misleading. Ads involving alcohol commonly use heavy sexual overtones to suggest some sort of a link between drinking and sex (as though suggesting alcohol leads to sex). Do companies have the right to mislead us?
I believe that laws should be put into effect to limit what ad companies can do...lest they take it too far. This has been an issue for quite some time, though ad companies usually end up saying that the final decision lies with the consumer. That, however, may not be the case anyome.
