I'm amazed at the things that my five year-old daughter sees -- in the car, in the grocery stores, everywhere. She spots birds in faraway trees, hidden packages in crowded aisles at grocery stores, cartoon stickers on passing car windows while in traffic, etc. We play "Eye Spy" a lot -- and she kicks our butt. She's also learning to read, so she sees patterns in numbers and letter signage that most of us would totally miss. She points out things during walks around the neighborhood that we have never noticed before in the years that we've live here.

It's amazing how visually innocent and adept children are. I hope she doesn't lose it any time soon. It has made me wish I could see things anew like a 5 yr-old again. But I would be a very large 5 yr-old.

it reminds me of walking up the street to our studio. every day i seem to discover something new, but its been there as long as i have taken the road. and i'm not only talking little things. for some reason we tend to miss entire buildings for months, until they suddenly grab our attention. the cereal characters that look into kids eyes make be think that i should (once again) analyze those beer labels. who knows... maybe thats how they get my attention.

Thx Deb (and hey!)

Even though John Stossel (sp?) merely scratched the surface, this piece on 60 minutes was definately interesting. But, the Fedex arrow? Sure, 5 yrs ago... it was worth the viewing...

If only Steve Heller had the time/balls to take his brains/books primetime (er,hello- he has enough documentary material for an 8 DVD monster ala Ric Burns) we'd have something that could rapidly move our design dialogue.

I wonder why Glaser's wisdom never makes it on air. Shame that our profession is only mentioned when arrows are hidden and ominous cereal characters watch our children

Sorry for saying balls, Armin. I know you hate BALLS.

Designers are visual people by nature. From what I'm reading, Stilgoe comments on a niche of people who aren't. People like my father, who never realized that the dimensions of the painting above his fireplace match the dimensions of the fireplace exactly. Comparing them with a tape measure after my visual calculation, he assures me, "Well, you're right. I never noticed that."

Most people don't notice. They're not trained to. It's not part of their daily experience. Every day I'm conscious of the signals sent through my corneas because that's what I do. From advertisements to traffic signals to sports logos to computer icons, they all reach me. I question them. So much so, that it drives me mad. Okay, I'm getting all of these signals, every single day, and they all mean something. Don't they? What's the semiotic breakdown? What do these indexes, icons, and symbols all add up to? What myths lie beneath them?

I've stayed up for nights on end deciphering things like that along with Debbie's closing questions---from the minimal to the maximum, from the deliberate to the accidental. I don't know what's more disturbing, being cognizant or being ignorant/innocent.

What's disturbing is that although mass media, the ubiquity of advertising and our hyper-designed culture has fundamentally changed the way information is conveyed, the majority of people are (apparently) still operating under the old rules, i.e. not looking critically at the objects and images being thrust upon them. (i'm talking specifically about commercial design, advertising, marketing, etc.) I agree that designers are more highly attuned to visual cues. But the general population, bombarded with images, has to develop some sophistication here as well. I was actually quite surprised by the show's tone of wonderment.

I do like the professor though. He seems like good guy. We always need someone around to inspire us and remind us to have a look around and take notice.

This exact topic brings to mind a great book, How To See, by George Nelson -- originally published in 1977 and recently revised by DWR with layouts by Chris Pullman (AIGA Medalist, and vp of Design of WGBH Boston). The subtitle of Nelson's book is "A Guide to Reading Our Man-made Environment."

Nothing is ever new it seems...

Cryptoscopophilia: the urge to look into the windows of homes you pass

I guess Prof. Stilgoe's work offers us a proper rationale.

As for the cereal characters looking down at children...

For me it's more result than plan. The time-tested way to draw cartoon eyes (� la Hanna Barbera, Chuck Jones, et cetera) is to situate the pupil towards the bottom. Any other position can suggest a more charged emotion, and would be less desirable to the marketing team.

>I'm amazed at the things that my five year-old daughter sees -- in the car, in the grocery stores, everywhere. She spots birds in faraway trees, hidden packages in crowded aisles at grocery stores, cartoon stickers on passing car windows while in traffic, etc.

Tan--I love that kids can do that. Stilgoe also mentioned that when the Fedex logo was shown to children who couldn't read, they always saw the arrow among the letterforms. Most adults have had to have it pointed out to them.

Another book to mention that really made me more aware of my surroundings is How to Use Your Eyes by James Elkins. It poses the question of how to look at... thirty three different things. Items vary from a how to look at an x ray to how to look at grass. Since I read that book I've never looked at pavement the same way.

Design wise, back in the day when I was still in school I did try to invoke a secondary visual to trigger memorability like the FedEx arrow. It was for a vodka bar where they also wanted to emphasize their food. I based the mark around the absolut bottle shape, and made the negative space inside the bottle a fork. It was a yin yang thing except with bottle and fork.

I'm constantly amazed at what the people around me don't see, and they're not even hidden things. I do tend to be a bit hyperaware of my surroundings, but I'm talking just the existence of entire billboards, for example. In general, people seem to trundle themselves around with blinders on, only noticing something if it happens to get in their way. For a long time, I'd thought they were being unobservant, and then realized that it really was that they simply weren't looking in the first place. I find this very odd.

What's scary about the Amex thing? Seems like fairly standard targeting to me. Unless it's the cheap cliched imagery itself that offends.

I'm assuming there's an explanation in the book for the idea that reading leads to not looking around right? That seems a bit of a leap to me.

In college I once had to give a presentation on subliminal advertising. I am sure it is nothing we now know, but at the time it was kind of amusing. We kept going over this image most of the time:

It's supposed to have the word SEX within the cubes. The space between the glass and the bottle is supposed to be a vagina and there is a penis somewhere, I can't remember where.

This is a funny one:

It spells SEX. There is more on this one (and others) over here.

Look, as hidden as the FedEx arrow:

I think this whole subliminal advertising was an '80s fad. It might still be done nowadays, who knows? I am usually more concerned/amused by this kind of things:

One of the many ads in HOW magazine, it's funny because the two "loving" dogs are always on the spine so it's hard to notice them immediately. Whether it was on purpose or nobody noticed is what concerns/amuses me. Plus, I don't think that small dog can… oh, forget it.

Armin: re the Pepsi cans--I worked at the Schechter Group (now Interbrand) in the early '90s, right after they designed the "Cool Cans" (as they were called) for Pepsi. Ron Wong, the Creative Director, swore to me that the S-E-X spelling was totally, completely accidental.

Stilgoe believes that the majority of Harvard students, (and the rest of the population, for that matter) are visually illiterate. That most people lack a sense of visual spontaneity. The reason? Stilgoe states that once people learn to read, they stop looking around.

Great topic Debbie. I can see where the Professor is coming from in a general "Gallop Poll" sort of sense but I think that this sweeping statement would not hold as much water going case by case. For example: I am sure the Professor has attuned himself to see beyond the subliminal messages in marketing materials or catch the subtleties in Victorian window box designs. Yet what would happen if he were to go fly fishing with a seasoned veteran (who is totally oblivious to marketing messages and Victorian window boxes)? Do you think that he would be able to catch anything? Do you think he would be able to face a bright mountain river and deviate the color and movement of a salmon from a maple leaf? What if our Professor were to be on a major league pitching mound and have a man on first looking to steal second? Would he be able to observe and react quickly enough to make any impact? I do feel that we (especially us in more urban areas) suffer from visually overburdened but I can't say it's just because we are all that lazy. Our visual observation skills differ on mental, psychological, cultural, and situational levels so I would have to say that I disagree with his [Prof. Stilgoe] statement that I posted at the top.

I have this theory that we as the society sway more and more toward very specific aspects of observation or participation due not only to demographics but also to personality types and/or flaws. I for instance am an INFP on the Meyers-Briggs personality scale. In my particular life this means that I do everything from studying small details in paintings at length to drive fast/slow down to avoid driving in any pack of cars. I see quite a few things that Erin (my fiancée) doesn't catch. But I don't think it is because I have been trained to see them in any way. She (like Tan's daughter) catches many things that I don't for her reasons. Maybe a person didn't live near the water so they notice barnacles growing on the underside of a dock. Which might be something (since I spent many years living on the beach) that I am just subliminally accustomed to seeing.

Visually speaking we all have different ways of observing the world around us but who can judge that experience?

I don't mean to blow this all out of proportion I am just playing the Devil's Advocate. I really do like the historic sides of what Prof. Stilgoe is trying to teach us.

The space between the glass and the bottle is supposed to be a vagina

Um...sure. What I think is funny is that most of the time the things that supposedly have "sex" or something sexual hidden in them are the most unsexy things. I really don't see the purpose of doing it except for the idea of getting away with it. I tell ya, nothing turns me on more than some tonic water and Pepsi.

Christopher Johnston wrote

I have this theory that we as the society sway more and more toward very specific aspects of observation or participation due not only to demographics but also to personality types and/or flaws.

The French have a term -- deformation professionel -- which is the difference between a specialist and everyone else. David Letterman (the NBC version) gave a wonderful demonstration of this when he had dentists review films, but based on the dental work of the actors. Impossible! Nobody had caps in the 18th century!

We see the type face, everyone else just sees letters.

On a more serious note, I do think we miss a lot of stuff. I wouldn't attribute it completely to the fact that we know how to read. It's more a matter of day-to-day nuisances like crowded streets, talking on the cell phone while you walk, day dreaming, looking left instead of right. It is funny how amny things we don't notice and/or take for granted, we are so preoccupied with getting places fast that we forget to look at our surroundings. But enough sentimentality.

As far as logos go, like FedEx or the old NWA, there isn't much hidden meanings in them anymore, when was the last time you looked at a (newish) logo and went aaaaah, that's fucking clever?

I saw a study once that talked about the amount of visual information that people process -- a measure of visual acuity (for you, eric) and tolerance threshold, etc. (I don't remember specific numbers, so this info is as best as I can remember.)

The study found that we process 10,000 unique visuals a day compared to our grandparents, who processed 1,000 unique images a day. Furthermore, a ten year old is capable of 15,000 and probably 20-30K images when he/she becomes an adult. Commercials have more content, A generation of adults have been raised on video games, which have become increasingly faster and more complicated exponentially. So it's not unrealistic to believe future UI complexities in films like Minority Report.

In a previous thread, I talked about televised graphics (basketball scores and stats during games, creepers on CNN during telecasts, etc.) and how they are shockingly faster and smaller than ever before. I realized it when I caught a rerun of a classic 80s NBA game on ESPN -- where the score and graphics filled the screen and lasted 10 seconds, compared to the tiny bug that flash for 1 second in today's broadcast.

My point is that maybe we do "see" less, but compared to the amount of visual information that we process on a daily basis -- we may actually "see" more. I don't think it's a matter of becoming visually anesthetic and numb -- it's a case of selective filtering for what becomes the most important information at the moment.

For example, right now, I'm viewing two 17" plasmas with 6 windows open -- 2 SU windows, another for a Getty photosearch, one for iTunes, one for Entourage, and one for my appointments. Not to mention my surroundings.

No wonder I'm sucking on a venti latte.

...

One last good book on this subject -- The Age of Missing Information. It's about 8-10 years old, but very relevant. Don't remember the author...

There was a book out in the early days of the web boom that talked a bit about our childrens' ability to consume more media at a faster rate than we ever did. I'll try to dig it up. It was an interesting read, basically stating that a lot of what we consider distractions, kids can absorb. Watching TV while listening to the radio and playing their game boy at the same time, for instance.

It's amazing what our 2 year old picks up on. As adults, I think we tend to over-focus on our mundane day-to-day tasks but kids are just sponges. A marketing person's wet dream. (Does that make marketing folks that target our children pedophiles? ;o)

I don't know if I'd necessarily say that as adults most people are blind to the visual world around them. As a designer, I look around, observe, and notice details that perhaps a large portion of the population wouldn't notice. I notice clip art used on restaurant menus, fonts used in movie titles, and can recognize when an advertiser uses stock photos from Getty.

That being said however, I work, drive, read, etc. while listening to music but probably don't notice a lot of things that a musician would notice when listening to the same music. It's not that I am not listining, I just haven't been trained to listen for specific details. For instance, I know that Radiohead is great, and that they like to experiment with sound. I don't know exactly what makes them great, but I know I like them. There are probably hundreds of subliminal messages hidden in songs that I don't notice, but that a trained musician would pick up instantly.

That's the way I look at design. Perhaps it's a rationalization so that I don't get frustrated when people don't notice things that they see every day.

1st time poster, short time reader. But hooked already..

Tan wrote

I saw a study once that talked about the amount of visual information that people process

I'm with you on this. I've got dual 15" monitors on a windows machine with 11 windows open at all times, and a 21" cinema display for my mac with 6 windows open (and thats just because I'm on lunch!)

Point being, yes we are capable of amazing amounts of input. In our computing examples its something we've chosen. But through the rest of our day we don't have to tune into everything, and more often than not we can't possibly tune into everything at all times.. I think pedestrians would implode at every city block from all the billboards and vendors and flyers being passed out and smells and well you get the drift.

So if we can consciously tune out the excess, we must be able to tune it in just as easily. We just might never get to work..

Related note? With heightened concerns about terrorism, do you think people who are trying to be increasingly aware of strange activity are more apt to notice such subtlties in logos, witty billboards, etc?

With heightened concerns about terrorism, do you think people who are trying to be increasingly aware of strange activity are more apt to notice such subtlties in logos, witty billboards, etc?

In my opinion, I think it could make people less aware due to the fact that those who are on the lookout for suspicious people are doing exactly that: looking at people and not at billboards, signage, logos, etc. While they are more aware of their surroundings, it's more likely that those surroundings would be people, not objects.

Just my opinion.

> With heightened concerns about terrorism, do you think people who are trying to be increasingly aware of strange activity are more apt to notice such subtlties in logos, witty billboards, etc?

I dunno about that -- but when I'm in line at the airport, I do notice how fat some of the airport security people are. I mean, really. And speaking of "seeing" things, how do they see anything on that little xray monitor anyway? Like when a laptop goes through -- the freaking thing is 90% metal. How do those boneheads determine if that Dell is not actually a bomb or a bar of plutonium? ...but I'm digressing. Sorry.

Can you tell I didn't want to go back to work this morning? Damn, a week w/o a day off. This is going to be hard...

> but when I'm in line at the airport, I do notice how fat some of the airport security people are.

It's just an illusion, they can run like the wind. Like the wind I tell ya.

It's just an illusion, they can run like the wind. Like the wind I tell ya.

Depends on if it's lunch time or not. Sorry (hehe) that was to far.

I think pedestrians would implode at every city block from all the billboards and vendors and flyers being passed out and smells and well you get the drift.

That is an interesting point. I always wondered if a person from 100 years ago could stay sane in 200x. Do you think they could adapt? We don't even realize how much ambient noise and light we ignore on any given day. Could a man from 1904 mentally survive the sensory onslaught of say Times Square?

*c

Openings of every kind—in schedules, in urban space, in neighborhoods, on clothes, in events, on objects, in sightlines, in democracy, in philanthropy, in cultures, on bodies—are all inscribes with an impression of the market now. Things once thought free from the media or advertising or branding—even opposed to it—the museum, public space, taxi cabs, restaurant bathrooms—find it ever more difficult to retain autonomy in the face of corporate culture and its sponsorships, educational initiatives, and civic gestures.

I appreciate that as designers we see more than most people, as musicians would naturally hear more in a composition, or a dentist could look at your teeth and probably know more about your overall state of health than say, a designer might.

But do you think we are reaching a state of sensory overload, or do you think that it is just a more interesting world to look at and participate in? And what do you think kids would say?

I think we're just getting *gulp* old. I don't think there will ever be a general sensory overload, because its all in what we have been raised on and what we've grown accustomed to in our daily lives. I think we will always adapt, dare I say "evolve", to our surroundings. And the next generations will only be that much more accepting of it, even in your Minority Report ways..

Best bet, turn off your TVs! The devil is in those tiny football scores and previews that give away any decent part of the upcoming program.

(Though I'll be in front of 24 tomorrow night at 9pm for sure..)

> But do you think we are reaching a state of sensory overload, or do you think that it is just a more interesting world to look at and participate in?

As with anything else, it depends. For me, it just gets more interesting. For the holidays, Bryony and I went to her parent's ranch outside of Mexico, it's peaceful and scenic, the air is clean, there is a nice lake down the road and a soft spoken little stream that lullabies you to sleep. But damn it's boring, I need billboards, noise, smells, images, type, people. I function better when I have information to process, otherwise my brain goes to sleep, like when you sit cross-legged for too long and you stand up and they feel all tingly. That's how my brain felt when I got back to Chicago. So, in short, I like these overloads of visuals.

Sorry, late to the game, so much to respond to.

Nothing is ever new it seems...

Also see "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger, which probably predates all the books mentioned here.

compared to the tiny bug that flash for 1 second in today's broadcast.

Remember the original "Max Headroom" where people are exploding from viewing the ultra-fast, ultra-compressed commercials for ZikZak (or something)?

subliminal messages hidden in songs that I don't notice, but that a trained musician would pick up instantly.

Indeed. I remember going to a John McLachlan concert (the best and tightest band I've ever seen, btw, even though I'm no jazz fan), and every now and then the audience is laughing, and I'm saying "what the fuck ...?", and I'm watching these guys and I can't see them doing anything funny at all, so I ask my friend what's going on and he says "Oh, they're playing these riffs from other stuff -- like there's one now, it's from the Beatles [more laughter], hear it?" No.

I do think we're culturally trained (which is why IQ tests were proved to be such bullshit), and professionally trained to notice different things. But I also think it would help us as designers a lot if the populace at large had more encouragement and education around visuals. I also think it's important and if I were King of the Ministry of Education and could rewrite the curriculum from top down, critical visual education for the urban environment would be on the agenda for every school grade.

In the world we live in today, being able to interpret visual message is a life skill, and being able to dissect and understand them is a skill I'd like to foster in future generations.

Oddly, back to Debbie's original question "Have you ever been asked to ..." unfortunately in the arena I was working in, "cleverness" in design was never considered successful until it was enhanced to a slap-in-the-face level. i.e., subtlety seems to be seldom valued, at least with the clients I worked with. And on the other end of that scale, I've always been amazed by the crazy shit that clients see in potential logos, "It looks like worms ... I see an upside-down house there ... that looks like a devil's tail ..." YOU-know.

All of this makes me think of that Sept. 11, 2003 post where Armin posted the "No Smoking" thing that Ryan Bobblet proposed as a memory to Sept. 11. I still think it was brilliant, though most people didn't get it.

That's the trouble with subliminal or clever imagery, those who get it tend to love and remember it, those who don't, may not even notice it.

AND, does anyone know, do subliminal messages actually have any effect? Does it really make any difference if Snap is making eye-contact with you (or your child) from his cereal box? Does that actually build brand loyalty to Rice Kirspies, or Crown Royal or whatever for life, or is it just a bunch of clever crap that has no effect whatsover other than, "Hey, Snap's looking at me." or "I'm one of the clever ones who saw the erection in the reflection."?

Sorry, this relates to a few comments back . . .

“Cryptoscopophilia: the urge to look into the windows of homes you pass.

I guess Prof. Stilgoe's work offers us a proper rationale.”

The name for that is foyerism, coined by Nicholson Baker in The Fermata. Voyeurism is when you look in people's windows to see what they're doing; foyerism is when you want to see how they've decorated.

> I'm one of the clever ones who saw the erection in the reflection.

Nice verse Marian.

> AND, does anyone know, do subliminal messages actually have any effect?

I am not 100% sureArmin , but I think they actually is by far do. I think I remember reading the smartest, some facts about itliving . Although now, designer that I am talking about it, today. I can't prove Not to mention it with any facts or data.the cutest.

I saw that.

Odd. I suddenly have the urge to buy more Speak Up T-shirts.

I think that what's being discussed here is the difference between "looking" and "seeing."

Given the thousands of marketing images that we are bombarded with daily, I think most of us, both designers and non-designers, spend a significant amount of time tuning out messages and imagery. Like TiVo, we just mentally erase those commercialized inputs. In many ways, this is a sort of survival mechanism.

Also, I think that we adults generally tend to have a lot more on our minds than children. They tend to live in a world of input and analysis, while we tend to live in a world of output and process. I mean, just think about the number of times you have got in your car and drove off, just to realize 5 minutes later down the road that you've just driven through all sorts of complex, potentially dangerous situations and not even noticed.

Speaking of subliminal advertising, Joe Camel (that penis headed cartoon character) was the most blatant of all attempts. Considering how hard they pushed that, it really had no cultural traction. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to search around the Web for that.)

I never noticed the arrow in the FedEx logo before. But now that I have, I'm underwhelmed. Whatever. I'm not sure that the arrow really adds all that much more to the logo, other than just being a happy coincidence. It's sort of like the old Bank of America logo that had the hidden bird image in the negative space between the "B" and the "A". (I'm too lazy to search around the Web for that logo, too.)

In Buddhist philosophy, the process of paying attention to the "now" in life is called being "mindful." In order to see and appreciate the nuanced subtlety and beauty of our immediate world, we need to stop worrying about the past and future, and take notice of what's going on in our world right now. Buddhism also focuses on rhythmic breathing, as well. (Sarcastically, I think riding a motorcycle in rush hour traffic is another way of paying attention to the "now" of life.)

I actually do try to spend parts of my day slowing down "to smell the roses," so to speak. Besides just being a more aware designer, slowing down can help you appreciate the complex, vibrant, paradoxical, and inspiring world we live in (as cheesy as that sounds).

Subliminal Messages Software 1.0.... Subliminal Mind is a powerful software tool which allows you to harness the proven power of subliminal messages on your PC.

Subliminal messages function just below the threshold of conscious perception influencing the subconscious part of your mind. Subliminal Mind lets you use this power for your own purposes to reprogram your mind at the subconscious level while your conscious mind works on other tasks, i.e browsing, working or playing.

ummm... anyone want to fork over the $14.95 to see what it does?

I just want to know why someone would really want it?

Yesterday the company I work for had a BMW 745i in house. I took photos all day long of the outside, inside and underneath of this $81,000 car. Technicians were in and out of it all day trying to figure out how the iDrive computer system worked. This is the most complex car I've ever sat in. It is so complex in fact, that the dealer told us that new owners have returned the car due to the unintuitive instrument placements and complex computer interface.

Nothing was standard. This spaceship even had radar in the front and rear which visually displayed and audibly relayed to the driver the position and proximity of objects within about 15 feet of the vehicle. It took a tech writer about 15 min. to get to that function without a manual.

I would bet that if the "key" were given randomly to someone with the promise of ownership if they could drive it away in less than 15 seconds, the car would remain in place.

Is there a limit to the information that we can process? Or maybe I should say comfortably process.

[kewl]

The mistake that BMW has made is by doing it all at once ... or perhaps also making stupid design decisions.

It's not that there's too much information, necessarily, it's just that there's too much new information to process quickly. It's like a computer program: you can handle the new features of any given upgrade, provided they haven't fucked too much with the interface you're used to. I only get really frustrated with upgrades when they take away the tools I'm used to using or move them to new locations.

This radar now ... FINALLY ... I've been wanting that for years. I've always thought, how difficult can it be to give me a little beep when something is coming within a couple of feet of my right rear panel, for instance?

(I've always wondered if it would be possible, or better, to drive looking at a screen that showed you a bird's-eye view of your position on the road, like a video game.)

(I've always wondered if it would be possible, or better, to drive looking at a screen that showed you a bird's-eye view of your position on the road, like a video game.)

I would really like that in the city.. esp. with parallel parking.

It always amazes me when people begin an entry with something bromidic like "NYC Girls" or "Sex in the City", and then have the nerve to to tell people that they're missing out on something, or that we should pay more attention to "things".

Possibly, with a little forsight you may realize how programs like sex in the city, and pretentious NYC girls are much more of a risk to our state of ungrace than the arrow in the FedEx logo.

You're right. I should have been watching Alias. Much better show. But I believe it was a repeat.

Nefpaj, I think you are reading too much into the anecdotal part of the entry. You obviously seem to have a problem with Sex and the City and NYC girls, so in this instance I fail to see the relevance of your concern as a contradiction of interests (and values) by Debbie as you present it.

Armin,

I don't particularly care what you think is relevant. I do think that debbie or whoever started this thought did bring up the fact that she, and her girls, or wait maybe they're NYC girls, (but are they really from NYC Armin?) sit around and watch Sex in the City. For some need I say more, but if you want me to spell out the logic then read on.

Answer the following questions please. What is Sex in the City about? Would you call your friends "Nashville chics", or "Rochester hotties"? I will speculate by saying no.

Can I go so far off to think that it is somewhat idolator to mention NYC before your friend's names? And to become obsessed with girls who are obsessed with sex in NYC - this is supposed to be inspiring, provocative, it sounds more like a fuckin' sellout.

I'm not hearing any cultural sensitve/conscientious thoughts from someone who idolizes cities and is obsessed with a show that has as much integrity as the Spice Girls. If you feel that she is a relevant source for comment on product positioning, and subliminal advertising then you're not paying enough attention either.

It takes all kinds.

Debbie, actually it would be much more beneficial if YOU DIDN'T EVEN WATCH TV.

It is so ridiculous that you SAY that we should be paying attention to the finer and potentially manipulative details when you sit around and watch TV after work, in NYC nonetheless. What a sick joke!!!!

A perverted sick joke teller you are Debbie. :)

Right.

I would like you to find someone out there that purposely, did you read that, PURPOSELY put sublminal phallic and sex symbols in their work.

What you're witnessing here is a Freudian quip - turning stacked pepsi cans to read sex???? C'mon, next thing you're going to tell my is that you've been up on the couch all day watching reruns of Sex in the City while Lucky freakin Charm gives you head.

Allright, enuff from nef, this tabloidish subject is getting too funny to comment on.

*Sigh*

someone out there that purposely [...] put sublminal phallic and sex symbols in their work.

Actually, I deliberately put these testicular- and tongue-shapes in this pattern, and the response to the piece this was in has been extremely positive. Now I guess I know why ...

it's so subliminal I can't even see the product...

Presto....you've managed to make your design invisible - at one with the message, or wait is that a freakin-jeekin jello border?

Tricked again, dang-nabit

Late to the game on this one but...

My partner just pointed out that PBS Kids is trying thwart our efforts as fiendish, loathsome marketers by offering the Don't Buy It! web site. They expose our quiver of tricks, like food styling, use of humor and patriotic icons in ads, photo retouching and how we art directors shove models faces in Preparation H to keep their emaciated faces from looking puffy!! We’re ruined!

They do all this by using fun and vibrant colors, graphics and typography to appeal to kids by drawing them in so they can learn how they are being manipulated by companies and ... hey wait a second!

Debbie - you can even design a kid-targeting cereal box!

Here's mine...

Market research shows that it appeals to all-too-hip designers with hero complexes who like to beat up each other online!

I think it might appeal more to metrosexuals Brady. Or Brawny users.

Enough said.

(Thanks Graham.)

Kiran: Thanks, that is quite a story. Do you know what the four posters spelled out? Have you seen the other three?

debbie-click on the link to eye magazine on the adbusters page and things will seem . . . clearer.

aha! incredible. so the seen was really unseen...

thanks, graham.

Coincidence?

My wife caught an interesting product placement tonight on American Idol. She claimed to see the golden arches of McDonalds in one of the sequences. I didn't believe her so I set up my camera to capture the image. From the above shot, it does indeed look like the "M" three times - it makes sense (sort of) since McDonalds is a sponsor...

Cannot possibly be an accident.

Actually, believe it or not, it was an accident. I worked at the firm that created the design (Ron Wong at The Schechter Group which became Interbrand) and it was not done intentionally. At least that is what they told me!