?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Channel 10 subliminal advertising ? - bobb's journal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Bob Bain

[ website | Bob Bain's Home Page ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Channel 10 subliminal advertising ? [Feb. 25th, 2008|08:41 am]
Bob Bain
[Current Mood |crankycranky]

Link to SMH Business Article...

Ten investigated on split-second ads
Julian Lee
February 21, 2008

THE media watchdog is to investigate Channel Ten over alleged subliminal advertising during last year's broadcast of the Aria music awards.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has confirmed it is looking into whether the flashing images of logos for lollies, cars, cosmetics and fast food constitutes a breach of the broadcasting code.

Any "attempt to use or involve a technique which attempts to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal awareness" could be a breach of the broadcasting code. Subliminal advertising applies to all programs, promotions, community service announcements or station identifications.

During the October's telecast, frames of sponsor logos lasting 1/25th of a second flashed onto to the screen part of the way through each award category. The logos of the program's sponsors - Chupa Chups, KFC, Toyota, BigPond and Olay - also topped and tailed each segment.

---------------------------------------------------

Channel Ten denies its "new creative treatment" of "rapid cut images" constituted subliminal advertising. It is insisting that the flashing images were not commercials and that the TV code of practice allows the use of such techniques. The authority's investigation - the first into subliminal advertising that officials can remember - will take several months and hinge on whether the watchdog finds the flashes were ads or programming, and also what constitutes subliminal.

The watchdog investigation is unlikely to answer the one question the advertising industry's wants to know: does subliminal advertising work?

==========================

I attempted to top up my Gizmo (SIPphone) Account yesterday in order to call Trevor as I have done in the past. I was directed to "Google Checkout" which told me that my credit card had been processed and that SIPphone had been informed. Later I was told that SIPphone Inc had declined the order. I rang the Commonwealth Bank to see if there was a problem with the credit card. I was told there wasn't and that $1 had been processed against the card (seemingly normal to verify the card's validity) and then $10.86 Australian had been charged to it and as far as the Commonwealth Bank was concerned there was/is "no problem". As it stands SIPphone Inc have sent a message to Google checkout (who?) to pass on to me to tell me that my card will not be charged. It seems that Google now "own" almost everything from GMail to Blogspot and now they are processing credit card orders on behalf of on-line vendors. This was never part of any contract I have with Google. I signed up for Google News and then transferred my grossly underutilised Blogspot account to them and then signed up for GMail. I attempted to repeat the order but when entering the credit card information Google checkout went into a form of "hex dump" and directed me to a "report an incident" feature where I was asked what my concerns were/are with their "search engine".... As it stands the Penzance number Trevor has will expire shortly and I will almost certainly delete the LiveJournal Gizmo software from my computer. I might do the same with Skype. This has also rejected certain credit card transactions in the past with one card "ok" but others seemingly "not ok". Guys if your service(s) only partly work they are of limited practical value. If they cause more hassle and frustration than benefit then they get wiped. Skype is in my opinion now so overloaded with features it's simply not worth it. There is the POTS (Plain old Telephone Service) and for all it's faults it is reliable.
LinkReply