Originally posted by iwantanewmac
Haha. So many company's allready tried that type of "hidden" advertising.
On television and in cinema's.
All kind of beer brands, pepsi, coca cola.
It never really worked. It really doesn't.
I understood precisely none of what you just said here, but it does still sound interesting, anyway.Originally posted by gooddog
The stachistoscopic image (flashed) could be watermarked or otherwise made less noticeable.
The real "backward masking" phenomenon involves flashing a supraliminal black circle that encloses the image to be masked. Even though the circle is flashed AFTER the image, it somehow prevents conscious perception of an otherwise supraliminal image and makes it subliminal *retroactively*. The exact mechanism for this is not understood. Some hypotheses involve the nerve impulses of the circle overtaking those of the image on their way to the brain. Others hypothesize that the brain uses a buffer of sorts that delays cognition after perception.
This stuff is fascinating , if you get past the sensationalistic media stuff and read up on human perception studies in a good university library.
I would not flip it off. Some of it is described well with very high-power mathematics and physics ( multi-pole expansions, hypergeometric functions etc.). It isn't all fluff and "quit smoking" cassettes. Some of it, in the USA is VERY spooky as it pertains to post-WWII mind-control researchers slipping into the US advertising professions.
See also the Poetzle Effect.
Originally posted by gooddog
Hey, I feel terribly guilty about this, but I have a purple crush on the "beep, beep, beeep" girl in the switch ad. My gawd, what eyes she has. And me at 49 years old !!!!
Do you suppose there is something hotsex hidden in those "beeep"'s ???
Not sure, but you may have just broken the record for the oldest resurrected post at MR