Re: Subliminal Channels

[rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)]

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> > repeated exposure over a long period, to a large group of people who
> > are in your target audience. Statistically, a certain percentage of
> > people will stop to read your ad after repeated exposure. They spend
> > millions because even if a _fraction_ of the target audience responds to
> > the ad, they make many more millions.
> 
> The profit would certainly be lost to recover revenue without
> subliminal stimuli and with your statisical exposure.

   Bull, prove it. Here's a real world example. Let an ad in Wired
cost $2000 (which I believe it does), and let Wired have between 10,000 and
100,000 subscribers (which I think it does), and let the product you'll be
selling cost $10. 2*$2000/$10=400 customers required for 100% profit.
400/100,000 subscribers=0.4% of viewing audience, or 4 in 1000 people must
read and respond to your add.  So we need 4 atypical people who take the
time to carefully read ads.  You can apply the same analysis to million
dollar campaigns and get the same result. Iterated campaigns with
repeated exposure increase my argument even more.

   Key's explaination of print advertising is simply bullshit. Academic
philosophers have little to no credibility when it comes to talking
about things in the real world.

> Your e-mail address says you are from MIT, so act like the scientist
> you're pretending to be and read a little behavioral science first.

   How typical.


-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
-- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --