So It Wasn't Satan!

[Mac Kiwi]

Just wait until someone hacks this system and adds all their own noises.


I would not be surprised if consumers avoided the shops with this technology.

 

[Much Ado]

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.

I don't think i missed the point at all. To people who might have personality disorders or who are suffering from extreme stress or pressure, hearing a voice that no-one else seems aware of could be extremely dangerous.

Hearing voices is a common problem, and a multitude of localized voices as you walk down the street is not going to do anyone any favours, particularly if you've only just got rid of the 'real' voices in your head.

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?

That's a well made point, but the debate is not about where to draw the line, but whether this new style of advertising has crossed it. I would say it has. The line becomes blurrier as you approach TV etc., which is where regulations kick in.

 

[redeye be]

Very cool technology- that should be banned from use by advertisers.

why?

That's a well made point, but the debate is not about where to draw the line, but whether this new style of advertising has crossed it. I would say it has. The line becomes blurrier as you approach TV etc., which is where regulations kick in.

How can you know you crossed a line if you don't know where to draw it?

So basically I think we have two issues.
1- people who are afraid of the tech's possibilities.
I agree, you could make people lose their mind, just like you could do with television, or just whispering in their ear. Hitting a guy on the head with a wrench has nothing to do with car mechanics.

2- people who are against the tech being used in advertising.

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.

Indeed.
Sound is already being used in advertising, in multiple forms and ways.
When you go shopping, you won't enter a store blasting stupid music through their speakers. Other people might like that music and feel "attracted" to the store.
This is just another way of delivering the sound, with the only difference from previous techniques being the possibility to really "aim" the sound.

 

[Much Ado]

How can you know you crossed a line if you don't know where to draw it?

Easily.

I don't know where to draw the line on Abortion, but i know that killing a foetus the day it is due to be born is wrong.

Hitting a guy on the head with a wrench has nothing to do with car mechanics.

Again, i must protest. 😉 A car wrench does not hit people on the head in its usual use. It's an abuse, not a side-effect. This new technology, however, (how shall I say?) hits people on the head as part of its basic function.

 

[mpw]

Very cool technology- that should be banned from use by advertisers.

By that logic you'll need to ban ALL advertising, all print, all TV, all radio , all billboards etc. etc.

Do you agree that the idea of that is simply absurd? If not why not?

...much more freaky than a loudspeaker...

No it isn't freakier than 'a loudspeaker', because it is a loudspeaker.

Which is freakier a traditional speaker whispering a satanic message in a in a lift or a traditional speaker playing a pan-pipe version of Stairway to Heaven in a restaurant?

If you say the satanic one I assume you'll call for the removal of speakers from lifts, right?

...I don't know where to draw the line on Abortion, but i know that killing a foetus the day it is due to be born is wrong...

But you're not in the abortion business I assume, so you don't have to know. Advertisers are in the advertising business, and they need to know where the regulations of their business draws the line. In this case I'm sure they do and believe they're doing nothing wrong.

...This new technology, however, (how shall I say?) hits people on the head as part of its basic function.

In the same way that speakers have hit people on the head for decades!! That is not the new part of the technology, what's new is it doesn't cause unintended noise pollution like a traditional speaker.

The 'new' nature of this technology has less adverse effects than traditional speaker systems, why call to ban the lesser of two evils only?

 

[Much Ado]

In the same way that speakers have hit people on the head for decades!! That is not the new part of the technology, what's new is it doesn't cause unintended noise pollution like a traditional speaker.

Firstly, let's drop the car-wrench analogy or we'll both just end up confused.

The fact that it doesn't cause noise pollution raises another issue for debate- advertisers will be more inclined to use it, so we'll end up with this stuff everywhere. You'd never find a highstreet with loudspeakers on every shop blasting out their message because you wouldn't be able to hear any of them. The lack of noise pollution on this is an excuse to fix it to every billboard, which means more advertising, and another assault on my senses.

And my point about it being potentially disturbing/dangerous still has not been addressed. The implications of this makes this issue so much more than just traditional sound, localized.

The 'new' nature of this technology has less adverse effects than traditional speaker systems, why call to ban the lesser of two evils only?

That is where our opinions begin to differ.

 

[pseudobrit]

Thank God for our liberal gun control policies, so we can turn these massively expensive nuisances into target practice. We got rid of telemarketers. We will get rid of this.

 

[redeye be]

I don't know where to draw the line on Abortion, but i know that killing a foetus the day it is due to be born is wrong.

When talking about drawing a line most people speak of things where it isn't that clear. Like abortion when raped or as a prostitute. A whole different ballpark.

Again, i must protest. 😉 A car wrench does not hit people on the head in its usual use. It's an abuse, not a side-effect. This new technology, however, (how shall I say?) hits people on the head as part of its basic function.

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. What exactly are you against?

 

[redeye be]

The fact that it doesn't cause noise pollution raises another issue for debate- advertisers will be more inclined to use it, so we'll end up with this stuff everywhere. You'd never find a highstreet with loudspeakers on every shop blasting out their message because you wouldn't be able to hear any of them. The lack of noise pollution on this is an excuse to fix it to every billboard, which means more advertising, and another assault on my senses.

True, but it's something we'll get adjusted too. But I do hope we don't get to the point you describe. This doesn't mean the tech should be banned. There are uses for it.
Put a neanderthaler in any city and he would go crazy. He/she couldn't handle all the "inputs".

And my point about it being potentially disturbing/dangerous still has not been addressed. The implications of this makes this issue so much more than just traditional sound, localized.

It could indeed be potentially disturbing/dangerous, like any medium/object. That implication puts it on the same level as traditional sound, localized.

 

[Schtumple]

One step way too far, this is pretty creative, but no, I really don't agree with using it at all.

 

[Consultant]

Back to the story. This is another reason to have an iPod or iPhone. =)

 

[zap2]

Thats weird...to much "beaming stuff into my head" for my taste......but headphone should be able to block it out, so I'm save

 

[EricNau]

I don't think i missed the point at all. To people who might have personality disorders or who are suffering from extreme stress or pressure, hearing a voice that no-one else seems aware of could be extremely dangerous.

Hearing voices is a common problem, and a multitude of localized voices as you walk down the street is not going to do anyone any favours, particularly if you've only just got rid of the 'real' voices in your head.

And you don't think people made the same arguments when the first speaker was introduced hundreds of years ago? Or the TV? Or the Computer?

Once again, it seems scary now (well, to some at least), but so do all new technologies. Why do you feel that the public cannot adjust to this technology just as they always have?

 

[Pani]

Actually, no! I don't think the made the exact same arguments years ago when speakers were introduced because our knowledge of mental health issues is more sophisticated today. Hearing voices is a symptom of certain mental diseases. It could be VERY problematic for that population if they don't understand where the voices are coming from. As well as a fair amount of senior citizens who might also be confused. I don't believe this should be used in advertising. It is fine for museums as long people understand what it is. If they do use it in stores, at the very least, they should have warning signs.

And the argument that people always overreact to technology only goes so far. We have higher standards about avoiding risks today. Let's reverse that logic. Initially, people did NOT think cocaine was a big deal. They put it in coca-cola and cough drops for children. Then they came to realize it was dangerous. So that logic works both ways!

 

[mpw]

...And my point about it being potentially disturbing/dangerous still has not been addressed. The implications of this makes this issue so much more than just traditional sound, localized...
...That is where our opinions begin to differ.

I find it hard to address why this technology would have any more dangerous potential than the existing ones because I don't think it's that different in delivery to the listener other than it doesn't bother the people around.

One step way too far, this is pretty creative, but no, I really don't agree with using it at all.

Okay, but explain why you feel that way.

 

[mpw]

...Hearing voices is a symptom of certain mental diseases...

Also a symptom of not being deaf.

...If they do use it in stores, at the very least, they should have warning signs...

I don't see warning signs in shops today, or on buses etc. Would you advocate that warnings now need to be displayed where traditional audio and visual media is used? How do you warn that the pedestrian crossing is likely to beep when it's safe to cross etc.?

...And the argument that people always overreact to technology only goes so far. We have higher standards about avoiding risks today. Let's reverse that logic. Initially, people did NOT think cocaine was a big deal. They put it in coca-cola and cough drops for children. Then they came to realize it was dangerous. So that logic works both ways!

So you're all for no innovation in any field then?

I'm really struggling to make any sense of most of the arguments people in this thread have put against this particular technology. Most arguments seem to include all advertising, which seems just impossibly ridiculous to me.

 

[Much Ado]

And you don't think people made the same arguments when the first speaker was introduced hundreds of years ago? Or the TV? Or the Computer?

Again, these were not specific methods of advertising to someone. I have no gripes with the technology, just its application as another, seemingly more intrusive, method of advertising.

As i have mentioned, to get a sound that loud and that clear conventionally you would need an enormous loudspeaker which would not go down well due to excess noise pollution etc. This new scheme gives wide-scale auditory advertising an excuse, and this is something i simply do not want.

However, as others have mentioned, an iPod will do just nicely to cancel it all out. And mark my words, people will not be drawn to a product they had shouted at them while they walked down the street.

 

[mpw]

...seemingly more intrusive, method of advertising...

But the point is it's LESS intrusive.

You're confusing it being more effective and less annoying than less effective and more annoying methods as being intrusive.

 

[obeygiant]

Last time I was in Shibuya in Tokyo, I think they had this. You could stand in a certain place and listen to the huge screen across the street from you. If you moved about 10m away you wouldn't hear it. Not really a big deal if you ask me.

However the advertising is working pretty well considering this thread. Its gotten us all talking. 🙂

 

[EricNau]

Again, these were not specific methods of advertising to someone.

Neither is this technology. Although, the radio, TV, and computer evolved to support advertising, just as this technology will.

There's absolutely no difference.

 

[mintlivedotcom]

Maybe it's preparing us for this...

The Signal

 

[redeye be]

And mark my words, people will not be drawn to a product they had shouted at them while they walked down the street.

So by self-regulation, this form of advertising would then cancel itself out.

[This technologie is] Not really a big deal if you ask me.

exactly...


I think it is cool, but people are definitely over reacting.

 

[Much Ado]

But the point is it's LESS intrusive.

You're confusing it being more effective and less annoying than less effective and more annoying methods as being intrusive.

As stated many times, this advertising will become much more pervasive, and hence ultimately more intrusive. A matter of opinion ultimately.

EricNau- I did say i had no gripes with the technology. It's a very innovative technology, i'll grant you.

redeye be- I notice you are an ad student 😉 Explains a lot 🙂

Right, I'm off for Christmas. For now at least, the voices in my head will be only brandy, beer and possibly guilt for forgetting to buy someone a present. Ciao.

 

[redeye be]

redeye be- I notice you are an ad student 😉 Explains a lot 🙂

It could 😀

 

[mpw]

As stated many times, this advertising will become much more pervasive, and hence ultimately more intrusive. A matter of opinion ultimately...

But lots of other forms of regulated advertising is already pervasive, and therefore you'd consider it intrusive? Are you saying that all advertising should be banned? Think about how impossible modern life would be without any adverts.