Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!darwin.sura.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!adx.adelphi.edu!auvax1.adelphi.edu!schmidt
From: schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu
Subject: Re: subliminal message flashing on TV
Message-ID: <1993Apr25.225914.1@auvax1.adelphi.edu>
Lines: 58
Sender: news@adx.adelphi.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: auvax1
Organization: Adelphi University, Garden City NY
References: <1993Apr15.234259.9557@news.clarkson.edu> <293@kc2wz.bubble.org> <1r6m1s$feg@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <nagleC6213E.DsE@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 03:59:14 GMT

In article <nagleC6213E.DsE@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
> lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Bruce G. Bostwick) writes:
>>Well, yes and no.  The _image_ can't be on the screen less than 1/30
>>of a second, but a _mixture_ of images that's about 90% of the field
>>that was supposed to be there and 10% of the 'subliminal' addition
>>could be overlaid for one field, producing the same overall effect to
>>our sluggish retinae of a discrete image projected for 1/300 second.
>    
>       This is a 1950s idea.  Supposedly, splicing in a frame of "Buy
> popcorn" upped popcorn sales in a movie theatre.  Big flap at the time.
> Congress involved.  Talk of making it illegal.  General agreement by
> networks not to do it.

More than Talk:  From the FCC Rules:  73.4250 Subliminal Perception:

(a) See Public Notice, FCC 74-78, dated January 24, 1974, 44 FCC 2d, 1016; 39
Fr 3714, January 29, 1974.
(b) See FCC Information Bulletin, "Subliminal Projection" (sic, at least in my
rules service copy of the rules), dated November 1977.

Since I don't have either old copies of the Federal Register or the Information
Bulletin around, I can't tell you what you can't do on TV ( or radio) but I
seem to remember this being an unnecisarily hot subject in the late '70s. 

Practically speaking, I dont have too much trouble seeing the one frame edits
in MTV promos,  badly scratched or torn single frames in films and such, but
maby that's just because the contrast between the single frame and the
surrounding material was significant.  I never believed in the one-frame type
of SP being real.  

On the other hand, the Coca-Cola or Brand (insert desired name here) beer cans
conveniently placed so the brand name is visible in the movie you just watched,
that's another story, and if your TV station or network was paid by the beer
company for the privilege of doing that, there has to be a "Promotional
Consideration paid by ...) or similar message included with the program; but if
the TV station bought the movie already edited that way from the film company
and didn't get any of the payment for "brand visibility" that the film company
got, then they don't have to run the message.
> 
>       A few years ago, some junior person at an advertising agency
> re-invented subliminal projection and one commercial went out on tape
> with single-frame messages.  It aired on a few stations, but a tech
> at one station, previewing the tape, noticed a flicker and looked at
> the tape frame-by-frame to find the "defect".  Big flap.  FCC notified.
> Commercial pulled.  Press reports. Embarassed ad agency.  You could
> probably find the press reports via Dialog or Nexis if you wanted.
> 
>       Now that everybody has VCRs, it's not likely that anybody could
> get away with this on TV.
> 
> 					John Nagle
-- 
*******************************************************************************
John H. Schmidt, P.E.              |Internet: schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu
Technical Director, WBAU           |Phone--Days     (212)456-4218
Adelphi University                 |       Evenings (516)877-6400
Garden City, New York 11530        |Fax-------------(212)456-2424
*******************************************************************************
