[LINK] Aussie TV network guilty of subliminal ads

Marghanita da Cruz marghanita at ramin.com.au
Wed Oct 15 11:12:09 EST 2008


Stilgherrian wrote:
> On 14/10/2008, at 6:54 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> Well; for a start, the Wikipedia article simply assumes the positive
>> hypothesis ... but regardless; while I agree that Ten was in breach of
>> regulations, I personally don't believe that regulators should respond
>> to pseudo-science as if it were true!
> 
> 
<snip>
> My 2c worth: There is an advert on the side of a bus, which flashes  
> past us in the street. We barely see it, but the logo impresses itself  
> 'cos we're already familiar with it from other media. Should we ban  
> buses (o bus advertising) because it's "subliminal"?
> 

Bus advertising is not subliminal, even electronic bus/street advertising relies
on  some people having the opportunity/responsibility to complain. The
regulation is
complaints based which is the problem with subliminal advertising.

However, advertisers do get away with lies
> AFTER 55 years of telling porkies, Ribena has finally sent itself to the naughty corner.
<http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ribena-to-withdraw-vitamin-c-claims/2007/03/21/1174153159423.html>

Marghanita
-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: (+61)0414 869202





More information about the Link mailing list