Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So It Wasn't Satan!
- Thread starter Pani
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That site is completely misrepresenting the facts. Just another reason why websites like "Commercial Report" and the "Consumerist" are anything but helpful.
The sound emitted from this device isn't magic; the sound is picked up by the receptors in your ear, just like "traditional" sound. The only difference being that it is broadcast to a very specific area rather than a city block (for example). Essentially this product is better for the consumer because you can easily remove yourself from the intrudance where you cannot with the sound produced from traditional auditory devices. Plus, as mpw already pointed out, you can also cover your ears while your in "the zone."
You can read more on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
Should've added 'in person', but thank you nevertheless.
Oh come on, there must be some commercials/campaigns you like(d).
Difference is, I'm not followed around by a drum-playing gorilla when i'm trying to take a walk.
Reference/Relevance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury_gorilla
Actually, I first learned about it in Ad Age, but the link no longer works. At least for me. I think this has terrible potential for misuse, if the public is not informed it is being used in a particular area. Cover your ears in a supermarket isle. Cause you are hearing voices no one else does! Precious!
Lot of things have a potential for misuse, but doesn't mean they should be banned, or even a bad thing.
No, but they should be evaluated before they are made public. Has there been any research done on how this might affect those with mental health issues?
Another issue of concern is that marketers are getting increasingly personal. That is the reason for those stupid discount cards in stores that keep track of your purchases. I can imagine a scenario where one has to scan their card right after they get in the door, then are targeted with individual ads according to their buying habits. Or even a situation where they can individualize by sight alone. Chubby people get spammed for weight loss products! Breast sagging? Our uplifting bras are on sale. Crows feet got you down? Try the newest miracle cream!
This is NOT the same as a salesperson hawking something to you. You can talk back to the salesperson. There are limitations of human decency in face to face conversations. It can be very disconcerting if some anonymous source is getting personal with you, and you have no recourse except to leave.
If the ad industry had a demonstrated history of ethics, then there wouldn't be such concern. But think of all the attempts they have made to market cigarettes to children!
Another issue of concern is that marketers are getting increasingly personal. That is the reason for those stupid discount cards in stores that keep track of your purchases. I can imagine a scenario where one has to scan their card right after they get in the door, then are targeted with individual ads according to their buying habits. Or even a situation where they can individualize by sight alone. Chubby people get spammed for weight loss products! Breast sagging? Our uplifting bras are on sale. Crows feet got you down? Try the newest miracle cream!
This is NOT the same as a salesperson hawking something to you. You can talk back to the salesperson. There are limitations of human decency in face to face conversations. It can be very disconcerting if some anonymous source is getting personal with you, and you have no recourse except to leave.
If the ad industry had a demonstrated history of ethics, then there wouldn't be such concern. But think of all the attempts they have made to market cigarettes to children!
Might be a good campaign for sound isolating headphones.
Hearing gorillas? Yeah Shure
Annoying stuff sometimes works, but mostly it probably just damages a brand (if it is advertising).
Nice clip by the way, thanks for the link, I had not seen it yet.
Indeed.
Imagine a world wide network of computers...
Completely agree. I think there are some real problems with this technology. It's by far the most invasive form of advertising I've ever heard of.
A technology museum in france uses this type of thing as you walk up to the main building, its freaky because was you walk you hear this weird noise for like a split second. Its not a good idea for making people think they are hearing voices, especially if someone had a weak heart or a history of mental illness.
True, but some people can't watch TV without getting a seizure. Should we therefor ban TV?
Completely different issue. Being able to ID and position you as a customer could also show a specified message on a screen.
It's like a speaker, only you don't see the speaker.
People will get used to it, just like you're used to seeing images move on a screen and people with wires in their ear talking to themselves.
Amazing how effective that would be in the case of a business. Money speaks louder than words.
Indeed, bad comparison.
Maybe I got carried away "defending" this technologie, me and mpw being the only shareholders on duty
his point there was essentially defending regulation. And I agree, regulate, don't ban.
Do they? Have you ever been to Time Square? ...Sure, one could simply look away, but that's no different than someone covering their ears or simply walking away from one of these ultrasound speakers.
So I consider it a perfectly apt comparison.
That's a fair principle to stick to in general, i suppose. But regulation is time consuming, expensive and often insufficient. This seems like more trouble than it's worth, to me.
Can you suffer an epileptic seizure/other medical problem on a walk through Times Square?
The average street does not look like central Manhatten either.
I dont think it is, it might be better than banning (although I'm not sure anymore).
But that's a discussion for another thread indeed
So we should make a law prohibiting people from using this technologie to make someone believe he/she can fly.
From an advertising point of view, if people don't like it, it won't work. If it doesn't work, it won't get repeated. Self-regulation, like in anarchy.
I had a teacher who had a seizure because the sun was shining through some trees he passed in a car (he wasn't driving). So I'd say yes to your question and reply sun through trees to your statement.
I'm off to bed now, i'll chime back in tomorrow. Cheerio
That's really not a good analogy, but seeing as how you already addressed it, that's enough for me.
These aren't entirely the same either. The nature of this technology makes avoiding it very difficult.
Somehow this reminds of me that egg company that wanted to print ads onto egg shells. Is that really what we need? More advertising?
As for regulation vs banning, I'd say it should be unavailable until we can determine its limits and capabilities, just like we would with any new drug, aircraft, etc. If it's determined by a consumer-advocacy group to be avoidable and no more invasive than television or the standard billboard, then it might be worthy of limited use (with heavy regulation). Until that happens, I'm opposed to it.
What evaluation has been done regarding any other type of advertising with regards to mental health?
That is another issue, the advertising method and content from your opening post is not personal.
If you're walking through a busy market place and can't see the stall holder, you can't talk back and they're anonymous. The difference is they may be able to direct the shouted patter directly to you personally, which the technology we're talking about here can't, as it's just a recorded message. Either way all you can do is leave or just ignore it.
How is this technology more invasive than other aural advertising? If anything it's actually less invasive than say a traditional loudspeaker system.
Nobody's making them think they're hearing anything, they are hearing something, but as I've said I agree the content would need to abide by current or future regulations just as all forms of advertising and broadcast content does.
The regulations are already in place, would you propose doing away with the time consuming, expensive and insufficient regulation to simply(?) and cheaply(?) ban all marketing? where would you draw the line, broadcast? print? packaging?
But no harder than avoiding 'traditional' technologies, and in some ways it makes it easier or more likely.
It's more limited than tradition speaker technology, why would you choose to prevent a new less invasive technology, while not calling for older more invasive technologies to be outlawed? It's practically impossible to board a tube or walk down a street or read a paper or magazine or visit MacRumors without being faced with traditional adverts. Print adverts pour unsolicited through my letterbox everyday, radio has adverts there are TV adverts, the weather forecast is sponsored.
I'd go as far as to say that advertising and marketing are required in modern society. Would we all have iPods if we'd had to just happen upon them or rely on word of mouth for their marketing?
I think you're missing the point.
There's nothing "special" about this ultrasonic sound technology that would cause any adverse health effects. It's just a speaker.
That link mpw posted to the billboard with the sound- sound coming mysteriously from a billboard like that is not cool. If someone didn't look up at the billboard and realize what is going on, it will freak them out, thinking theyre hearing voices or something, much more freaky than a loudspeaker. Not cool at all.
Sure, it's a new and surprising technology, and as many new technologies do, it will startle people. When the first speaker was made hundreds of years ago I'm sure people were afraid of it as well. ...Just as some were afraid of televisions and computers at one time.
This isn't new evil technology; it's just the simple progression of speaker design, and as it becomes main-stream, will be nothing out of the ordinary.
It's just a speaker - no more or less intrusive than the speakers in your car, your computer, in your stereo, or mounted on the top of a police car. ...It's just a speaker.
I saw something similar to this on the news a while back, but it was a "silent" club, in it they were using projected sound at the tables and on the dance floor, and outside the "beam" of sound there was scilence, great for ordering drinks at the bar, freeky as hek looking at people aparently dancing to nothing.