6 GREEN ADVERTISING

BOX 4.6 GREEN ADVERTISING

One of the most recent kinds of social responsibility appeals in advertising has been regarding the environment. Being able to advertise one’s product as being biodegradable, organic, or otherwise conserving the earth’s resources is a popular concern and would seem initially to be

a socially responsible position. In fact, the emphasis in green advertising is much more on the means of production and on the consumption process (Iyer & Banerjee, 1993), presumably because that is where the environmental impact is at issue. However this may not be the best way to reach the consumer.

Green advertising has suffered from a problem of low credibility; consumers apparently are not believing its claims. Sometimes the scientific reality is more complex than what is presented in the ad (T.M.Smith, 1998). For example, one popular kind of trash bag advertised that it was made of biodegradable plastic. Although this sounds good, once a sealed bag of contaminants is in a landfill, it may actually be better for the environment if it is not biodegradable, rather than slowly decomposing over several years, gradually releasing toxic content into the groundwater system. Some such products rely on the sun to initiate the decomposition process, and it is not at all clear how much sun the typical bag buried deep in a landfill would receive.

Sometimes some guidelines can be helpful to consumers. For example, in October 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture implemented legal definitions of “organic” foods. If a label says “100% Organic,” that must mean that all the ingredients contain no synthetic pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, antibiotics, hormones, or artificial preservatives. “Organic” means that at least 90% of the ingredients meet or exceed the USDA specifications, while “Made with Organic Ingredients” requires only 70% (Bjerklie, 2002). Do you find such guidelines helpful in your shopping?

An unconditioned stimulus (UCS) naturally, without learning, elicits an unconditioned response (UCR). For example, meat (UCS) naturally produces salivation (UCR) in a dog. Similarly, the sight of a gorgeous woman (UCS) naturally elicits mild sexual arousal or at least some positive feelings (UCR) in most heterosexual males. At this point in the process,

Advertising and Marketing 118

(associated) with the conditioned stimulus (CS), which does not normally elicit the UCR. For example, Pavlov’s dog dish (CS) was associated with meat (UCS), just as the attractive model (UCS) is associated with a product (CS) in a commercial. There may be some natural and obvious connection between the model and the product, such as a perfume ad that suggests a woman will attract sexy men if she wears that fragrance, or there may be no intrinsic connection at all, such as the beautiful woman who merely appears next to the steel-belted radial tires repeatedly.

After enough association of the UCS and the CS, the CS by itself comes to elicit the conditioned response (CR), which is very similar to the UCR. Just as Pavlov’s dogs eventually began to salivate (CR) to the empty food dish (CS), so may we have positive feelings (CR) about the tire (CS) when we see it without the gorgeous model. This basic classical conditioning paradigm is the psychological process being employed by most ads using sexual stimuli.

Ironically, sometimes advertisers themselves may be loath to be associated with certain stimuli that they feel evoke strong negative responses in a large segment of the population. For example, condom manufacturers are wary of becoming too closely associated with the gay community for fear of alienating potential heterosexual customers.

Subliminal Advertising

Although we could look at classical conditioning as a subliminal effect in the broadest sense, people are more likely to worry about subliminal persuasion, especially as applied to advertising. In the late 1950s several popular press articles reported a study by advertising expert James Vicary wherein he reported increasing the sales of Coke and popcorn in a New Jersey theater by flashing the messages “Eat popcorn” and “Drink Coke” for a few milliseconds every 5 seconds during a movie. Although the research was never published and in fact was admitted by Vicary in 1962 to have been a complete fabrication and was only intended to increase his advertising agency’s business (Pratkanis, 1992), the public became very alarmed, and the FCC and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) outlawed the practice. Excited about its prospects, a few radio stations even started broadcasting subaudible messages like “Isn’t TV dull?” and “TV’s a bore” (Haberstroh, 1994).

Even today, large numbers of people continue to uncritically accept the existence of subliminal persuasion, in spite of there being no credible scientific evidence for its existence or effectiveness. Subliminal means below the threshold of conscious perception; by definition, if something is subliminal, we are not aware of it. Such stimuli may be a subaudible sound message in a store (“Don’t shoplift”), a very brief visual message in a movie

119 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

or TV show (“buy popcorn”), or a visual sexual stimulus airbrushed into an

ad photograph (S-E-X spelled in the crackers or sex organs drawn in the ice cubes). What are the alleged effects of such stimuli? Do they, in fact, work to sell products?

A helpful distinction to bear in mind in considering this problem is the difference between establishing the existence of some subliminal stimulus and demonstrating that such a stimulus has some effect. Books like Wilson Bryan Key’s Subliminal Seduction (1974), The Clam-Plate Orgy (1981), Media Sexploitation (1976), and The Age of Manipulation (1989) focus on demonstrating the existence of subliminal messages and sexual implants, but they give few arguments to demonstrate any effects that such stimuli have. Such authors often implicitly assume that showing its existence also entails that it has an effect. This assumption is completely unwarranted, however. Although there is some reputed evidence of an effect (Cuperfain & Clarke, 1985; Kilbourne, Painton, & Ridley, 1985), much of the so-called evidence is anecdotal or open to other interpretations. In fact, there is little evidence that subliminal messages affect people very much (see Merikle & Cheesman, 1987; T.E.Moore, 1982, 1988; Pratkanis, 1992; Pratkanis & Greenwald, 1988; and Saegert, 1987, for reviews).

Moore (1982) identified three types of stimuli: subliminal visual perception, subaudible speech, and embedded sexual stimuli, and carefully examined research evidence on possible effects in each. Moore concluded that there is only a little evidence, although it is far from compelling and not directly related to advertising anyway, that subliminal stimuli may in some cases have a weak positive effect of a general affective nature (i.e., they make us feel a little better about the product, probably due to classical conditioning). However, there is virtually no evidence for any effects of subliminal stimuli on behavior. Saegert (1987) looked at the very few studies that seem to suggest effects and argued that other interpretations are possible. The conclusion at this point seems to be that subliminal stimuli may exist on occasion but that their effects are minimal or nonexistent, Subliminal advertising seems to be a perceived reality in the mind of much of the public, but not an actual reality that stands up to scientific scrutiny The same is true for subliminal learning tapes (Greenwald, Spangenberg, Pratkanis, & Eskenazi, 1991; Merikle, 1988; Merikle & Skanes, 1992). One new area not yet receiving much scientific or public attention is the possibility of presenting subliminal visual stimuli via computer, such as on web sites.

Similar issues are involved in heated controversies over subliminal messages in rock music. In 1990, the family of two teenage suicide victims in Nevada brought suit against the group Judas Priest and CBS Records, on the grounds that subliminal and backmasked messages on the album Stained Class had directed the boys to take their own lives; the judge ruled against

Advertising and Marketing 120

the family (J.R.Wilson & Wilson, 1998). Another concern has been allegedly satanic messages recorded backwards into certain rock music recordings. See Box 4.7 for details of a careful research program designed to test for effects of such stimuli.

BOX 4.7

SATANIC MESSAGES IN ROCK MUSIC? Periodically one hears the claim that some rock music contains

embedded messages recorded backward. Although no one claims that these messages can be consciously perceived easily when the record is played forward, concern has been expressed that there may be some unconscious effect unbeknownst to the listener. Furthermore, some have even been concerned that such messages may be satanic and have caused legislation to be introduced in several states that would call for warning labels about such messages to appear on album jackets.

Psychologists John Vokey and Don Read of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta were contacted by a radio announcer for information about this phenomenon. They first made the point that the existence of such embedded messages does not presuppose any effect of such messages on the listener. The evidence presented by concerned members of the public is highly anecdotal and often debatable but nearly always speaks to the existence issue, not the effects issue.

Vokey and Read (1985) conducted a careful series of studies designed to test the effects of such messages, assuming for the moment that they exist (an assumption that is not at all established, but we will leave that for now). When verbal messages on tape were played backwards, research participants showed no understanding of the meaning; identifying the sex or voice of the speaker was about all that they could perceive. Next, they tested for unconscious effects by giving a spelling test where some of the words were homophones (read, reed). A biasing context sentence (A saxophone is a reed instrument) was played backward, but listeners were no more likely than a control group to write reed instead of read. When backward messages were played and subjects were merely asked to assign the statement to the category Christian, satanic, pornographic, or advertising, based on its content, they could not do so at greater than chance level. The only time that people ever perceived and reported anything at greater than chance level was in one study where the experimenter picked out words in advance and asked the participants to listen for them. Only under conditions of such strong suggestibility could people comprehend anything from the backward messages.

121 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

Vokey and Read’s studies clearly demonstrate that, even if backward messages do exist in albums, it is highly unlikely that they could be having any effect on the hearers. This conclusion is all the more striking considering that in their studies there was no competing forward message like the music in rock albums. In at least a couple of cases, proposed record-labeling legislation was withdrawn based on results of this research.