I would like, first of all, to thank the Chairman for giving me time to testify this morning on the subject of the proposed BATF rules on the advertising of alcoholic beverages.

Naturally, it is a subject of great interest to the American Association of Advertising Agencies. We have 530 member advertising agencies in almost every state of the nation. Our members place more than 80% of all national advertising in America - and at least that percentage of alcoholic beverage advertising on both a national and regional basis.[Would that happen to include agencies developing ads for Jim Beam, Jack Daniels, Budweiser and others noted on this site?]

We have already submitted a somewhat lengthy document on some of the particulars of your proposed regulations. I would like to confine my remarks this morning to one aspect of that proposal - that is, the section that deals with "subliminal advertising".

Let me quote from the proposed regulations.

"Due to increased consumer concern over the use of subliminal techniques in advertising, the Bureau believes that it should state its position on these techniques. Five commenters expressed concern over subliminals and desire a prohibition against their use in alcoholic beverage advertisements.

Subliminal techniques can take many and varied forms in advertisement. These include placing a frame in a film which appears at such a speed that the observer cannot consciously perceive its presence, but subconsciously, the word or scene is registered and can have an effect on purchases, or whatever the advertiser wishes to convey to the observer A more prevalent form of subliminals is the insertion of words or body forms, by use of shadows or shading, or the substitution of form and shapes generally associated with the human body."[ It is this latter type of advertising that is the principal concern of the present web site.]

The proposal then goes on to "propose regulations prohibiting advertisements using any device or technique that conveys a message by placing in advertisements images or sounds that cannot be heard at levels of normal awareness."

We would assume from this that there exists on the part of the BATF a fear that advertisers in this category and their advertising agencies are now or might someday use some form of "subliminal advertising". This deserves a response from the advertising community. It also warrants an analysis of what that kind of advertising is, what the possibility is of its use and, if ever used, what the likelihood might be of its success.

There are several things in the BATF statement that upset us. The first is the assumption that such techniques are in regular use in advertising. [They probably are not that common but that does not diminish the requirement for advertising agencies to behave in an ethical manner and for self regulating bodies to ensure that they prevent such techniques being used.] The second is the implication that restrictions already in existence both inside and outside the advertising industry are not adequate to prohibit the possible use of any subliminals. [ If they were (are) why have they not prevented the abuse of advertising privileges by the likes of tobacco and soft drinks companies?] All, in all, the statement by the BATF harms the image and the public understanding of advertising by incorrect assumptions and implications.

Let's take a closer look at what subliminal messages really are - and examine their history in advertising.

Subliminal means, simply, "below the threshold of consciousness." Anything that is perceived below the threshold of conscious awareness is "subliminal perception". A "subliminal stimulus" implies a reaction as a result of that "subliminal perception", a reaction that does not involve conscious behavior.

A "subliminal stimulus" could be a word, or an image or a sound that is too brief or too small or too disguised to be perceived by the conscious mind, but is perceived by the subconscious.[Disguised is probably the operative word here that refers to the type of advertising with embedded elements that are discussed on this web site and the subject of Rogers and Seiler's article reported on the next page.]

There is no doubt that the subconscious exists. The concept has been recognized for more than 200 years. Freud wrote about it extensively and brought it into popular usage. [ Meet Freud and his theories by clicking here.] And two decades ago Wilder Penfield proved its existence during brain surgery when he used electric shock to bring forth memories from the subconscious mind that the conscious mind could not recall.

And that brings us to subliminal advertising. Does it exist? Have there been hidden messages in advertising? Yes, there have been. [ It is nice to have someone in the advertising profession acknowledge this to be the case - but as the next sentence indicates, such acknowledgment is but a prerequisite for attempts to devalue critics.] But the known attempts at subliminal advertising have been both trivial and transitory. [To bring the story up to date, would you consider attempts to manipulate the decision making of drinkers and smokers, purchasers of cars and food, trivial? And, if such attempts had been running for years would you consider them transitory? Whatever the truth value of Adams comments in 1981, they are no longer true today.]

In 1957 we have the first recorded instance of subliminal advertising when a research executive names [spelling error in original] James Vicary used a tachistoscope, an extremely fast shutter device, and flashed a message at 1/300th of a second on a movie screen. His messages were "eat popcorn" and "drink Coca-Cola". According to Vicary, it increased popcorn sales by 57% and Coke sales by 18%. [See the article by Rogers on the next section of this page.] This would lead us to believe that it is easier to make people hungry than thirsty. But Vicary was never able to duplicate his results under controlled, supervised conditions - and he soon disappeared from the scene. Whether he was involved in a hoax or not has never been proven.

Shortly thereafter, a motion picture producer proudly proclaimed that he was using subliminal projection in his movie "My World Dies Screaming", flashing the word "Blood" on the screen to heighten emotion. That film was little noted nor long remembered. [See the Flickers page for additional commentary and note also that TV commercials are also subject to manipulative intervention but these are not dealt with (as yet) on this site as examples are considerably rarer than in print.]

A television station in Los Angeles experimented with subliminal messages by flashing "Drive Safely" on the screen during news shows. The accident rate in Los Angeles continued without any noticeable let up. And in Wichita, Kansas, a local television station attempted to convince a killer who was at large with subliminal messages that he should give himself up. It was not successful.

In England, a BBC science panel show flashed a subliminal four word news item during a show and asked viewers to identify it. Of 430 replies, 150 claimed to have perceived it, but only 20 got it right.

The only known attempt at subliminal advertising by an advertiser occurred some years ago when the Premium Corporation of America inserted the subliminal words "Get It" in a television commercial for a game called "Husker-Du". The company claimed that it was inserted by an exuberant (but misguided) young man from a production house in Minneapolis. The commercial was removed from the air and history records that the marketplace was not kind to "Husker-Du".

But most of the existing fear of subliminal advertising has been raised by a journalism professor at the University of Western Ontario named Wilson Key (typing error - Kay - hand corrected ) who wrote a book called "Subliminal Seduction". The book became voguish and is read in many university courses on psychology and marketing. [It still is. Is this because it strikes a chord with people who are to some extent aware that a proportion of ads make use of semi-subliminal content?] It created concern about mind manipulation and it inspired considerable paranoia about subliminal advertising.

Mr. Kay (spelling error in original) sees sex in everything. A glass of ice turns into a sexual fantasy. [ See the discussion of Key and his views regarding one such ad on the Classic Key page.] A wine bottle is a phallic symbol. The Howard Johnson's placemat shows clams that are actually human bodies engaged in a wanton sex orgy. An ice cube in a liquor ad reveals the letters S-E-X in the shadows, an incredible photographic achievement since a professional examination of the original photograph and the engraving plates reveal no retouching.

I do not wish to belabor Mr. Kay (again misspelled) further. But I suggest that we should not take too seriously anyone who can sense an insinuation in every advertising statement, and for whom a phallic symbol is anything longer than it is wide. [ While Key seemingly overemphasised the extent of such ads and their likely impact he nevertheless did draw attention to a phenomenon that seems to be spreading across the globe.]

Now let's conclude with some basic questions about subliminal advertising.

Has it ever been used? The answer is hardly ever. The only recorded instance of its use in a paid advertisement was the act of a single individual acting without his company's authority - it was withdrawn by the advertiser and it was not successful. Every other known use has been either in test circumstances or for specific purposes under controlled conditions. [This is no longer the case, if it ever was.]

Does it currently exist? We are quite sure that it does not. [ As the examples presented on this site indicate, the author is certain that it has existed, at least throughout the 1990's and into the years 2000 and 2001. Will it disappear of its own accord? I doubt it.. ] As far as we know, it has never been used by any of our 530 member agencies over the some thirty years since it became a publicized phenomenon. In my own career in the advertising agency business, I have worked personally with hundreds of advertisers on thousands of advertising campaigns. In not one instance have I ever heard a suggestion - either from an advertiser or an agency person - that any subliminal technique be used. And I have checked this experience with many of my colleagues in the agency business - all of whom agree. Our clients always wanted their advertising to be as "liminal" as possible.

Is it legal? Well, to begin with, it is certainly not ethical.[ I strongly agree at this point with Adams.] It is in strict violation of the advertising code of the National Association of Broadcasters. The FCC has made it clear that any station permitting the use of subliminals will lose its license, stating that the "use of subliminal perception is inconsistent with the obligations of the licensee . . . and broadcasts employing such techniques are contrary to the public interest". Also, there is no doubt that the Federal Trade Commission will not tolerate subliminals, being charged with the responsibility for eliminating deception in advertising.

Would it work if it were used? Probably not. There is no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of subliminals. Psychologists are not agreed that subliminal stimulation can initiate subsequent action and certainly not commercially or politically significant action.[But they only carry out a limited set of experiments.Twenty years on from Adams' statement it seems reasonable to note that commercial organizations are much pragmatic and have millions of customers on whom to test their ads. Would they waste their time, money and effort in the use of techniques they did not evaluate and that were not commercially effective?] And there is nothing in psychological testing to suggest that actions could be produced against a subject's will [except, in some circumstances, when under hypnosis.] or more effectively than through normal recognized messages.[They do not need to be more effective, simply cost effective.]

Is it worth worrying about? Hardly. We are convinced that there is no subliminal advertising in America today. [This statement would definitely not be true if made in the year 2001 rather than 1981.] Those who continue to eagerly pursue the search for it are clearly on a witch hunt, and their endeavors have produced no respectable evidence that it does exist. [Try this web site out for size. It probably fits.] Surely there are better and ;more profitable pursuits for concerned consumerists.

Should it be included in these BATF regulations? We think not. We believe that it is simply not necessary, and that its inclusion creates an incorrect impression of advertising's non-use of this non-technique.

But if this regulation is put into effect by the BATF, we hope that you will do so with a full awareness that you are taking another gratuitous swipe at the "straw man" of advertising - and that you are making illegal what is illogical - and that you are ruling against what advertising has already ruled out - and that you are issuing your warning to the already unwilling.

Thank you for your time. I hope that the 4 A's sentiments on this subject have not been left with you too subliminally. For advertising people learned long ago that the best way to say a thing is to say it - up front, on top and above board, where it belongs.[But unethical companies will seemingly use any means at their disposal to stay ahead of their competitors.]

Now I'll be happy to answer any questions. Out Loud. [O.K. Question: What is the purpose lying behind the application of embedded elements in many of the Marlboro ads produced for Philip Morris? Stock Answer: If these ads do exist then they are not effective.]