Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who Really Won the Super Bowl?

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the cat-scans-meet-scanlines dept.

174

BartlebyScrivener writes "In the latest development of the new field known as 'neuro marketing,' Marco Iacoboni and his group of researchers at the UCLA Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain responses in a group of subjects while they were watching this year's Super Bowl ads. The findings are reported at Edge: The Third Culture."

cancel ×

174 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (1, Insightful)

Chris Bradshaw (933608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789809)

Who Really Won The SuperBowl?

Why Rupert Murdoch of course...

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789814)

You took the words right out of my mouth...

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790025)

Every fucking one who didn't watch the superbowl.

Yep. Thats who won.

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (3, Informative)

aztektum (170569) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789922)

Wait wait, how did he win? The Super Bowl was broadcast on ABC this year. Shouldn't that be "Disney Corp"?

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790546)

Wait wait, how did he win? The Super Bowl was broadcast on ABC this year. Shouldn't that be "Disney Corp"?

Now that Steve Jobs is the majority shareholder of Disney, that makes Apple Computer the winner of the Superbowl.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (3, Insightful)

Trigun (685027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790061)

I thought that it was the referee's family from the vegas payoffs.

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790246)

Umm, earth to the moron's mod'ing this up... it was NOT on FOX this year.

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (1)

Jozer99 (693146) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790359)

I'm pretty sure it was the Steelers.

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (1)

hairguitar (853018) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790429)

Hmm... In recent history, it's been more about which commercials "win" the viewers' attention (game notwithstanding), as pointed out by the article. At the most expensive advertising rate in the season per second, we shouldn't find that a bit surprising ("money changes everything," blah). End result: Folks don't run to the 'fridge for a Coors light during stuporbowl commercials; they stay riveted to the TV, breath bated, waiting to see who's spent the most dosh in the most creative way. That's certainly not sports; it's marketing, and marketing (like it or not) well executed.

FWIW: The officiating was consistent with the rest of the season's; predictably abysmal. And, I enjoyed the Careerbuilder ad the most (I work with those chimps). I also found it interesting there was no "patriotic" theme espoused (very much in contrast to last year's fiasco).

Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790481)

... but Super Bowl XL was aired on ABC, which is owned by Disney, and not a Murdoch-owned property.

Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

ScaryFroMan (901163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789812)

The Referees, that's who. But I don't think that's the question they were asking.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789857)

If you RTFA, you'd realize the answer they're trying to find is actually Which advertisers won during the Super Bowl

SPOILER ALERT
Who won the Super Bowl ads competition? If a good indicator of a successful ad is activity in brain areas concerned with reward and empathy, two winners seem to be the 'I am going to Disney' ad and the Bud 'office' ad. In contrast, two big floppers seem to be the Bud 'secret fridge' ad and the Aleve ad.
Here's the Google Video link to all the ads [google.com] so you can decide for yourself.

Personally, I thought the 'secret fridge' commercial was funny.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789868)

you my friend are a karma whore^2... Will you teach me master?

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (5, Insightful)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789911)

For me, ALL the advertisers have lost.
In the two weeks since the SuperBowl, I have not purchased a Hummer, a Cadillac, a web doman from GoDaddy, ate at the Outback Steakhouse or flown on United Airlines.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (4, Funny)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790225)

In the two weeks since the SuperBowl, I have not purchased a Hummer

I turned into a giant robot and had sex with godzilla.

Also, I used my company's FedEx account to send human body parts cross country.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (4, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790253)

As long as you didn't purchase a Land Rover, a Mercedes, a web domain from RegistryFly, eaten at Applebee's, or flown on American Airlines, then they haven't lost; they just didn't win. Yet.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790887)

As long as you didn't purchase a Land Rover, a Mercedes, a web domain from RegistryFly, eaten at Applebee's, or flown on American Airlines, then they haven't lost; they just didn't win. Yet.
I am not sure how not buying a Hummer or a Land Rover is a victory for Hummer. Hummer spent millions of dollars to encourage the viewers to buy a Hummer.

I doubt anyone in the boardroom at Hummer is saying, "sure we didn't generate any Hummer sales but at least none of those pricks are buying Land Rovers! Money well spent!"

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790976)

I just purchased a Land Rover, a Mercedes, a web domain from RegistryFly, ate at Applebee's, and flown on American Airlines! ... no I didn't I'm posting here, I can't afford to do any of that, so everybody loses.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790274)

Well, you did mention them on a public forum. Score one for the advertisers.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790399)

Well, being in Canada, I only saw normal Global ads (as the CRTC had blacked out all American feeds and replaced them with Global rebroadcasts... what a waste of our tax dollars), so I guess the advertisers lost there because I never saw any of them.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

CortoMaltese (828267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14791087)

Well, being in Europe, I didn't see any of the ads either. But considering that the game started here at about 1:00 in the morning, I don't think they could've measured any significant brain responses anyway. Zzzzz.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

Ruvim (889012) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790427)

Yes, but have you harmed a small cute dinosaur?

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790513)

Ah, but how much beer have you consumed from Budweiser, Miller, Amstel Light, or Michelobe since that fateful day?

they got me to masturbate, though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790578)

I masturbated to a pizza hut commercial 5 times since the super bowl. They won ME over.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (2, Insightful)

j3one (949806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790608)

"For me, ALL the advertisers have lost. In the two weeks since the SuperBowl, I have not purchased a Hummer, a Cadillac, a web doman from GoDaddy, ate at the Outback Steakhouse or flown on United Airlines."

Nope, they won.... You remember them. Case and point.
Infact, you probably still remember the budwiser commercial from 3 or even 5 years ago.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790795)

Nope, they won.... You remember them. Case and point.
Infact, you probably still remember the budwiser commercial from 3 or even 5 years ago.
Nope, they lost....I had to look up the names on Google Video link in the parent post.

Hell the only commercial I remember from the game was the repeated ads of Grey's Anatomy coming up right after the game
....didn't see it.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14791061)

Good old Joe Jackson, from "I'm the Man": "If you think you're immune, then I can sell you anything!"

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (3, Insightful)

dpreston (906415) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790895)

The fact that you just named all those BRAND names off the top of your head just told me they did a great job. They're not trying to sell their product to you, they're trying to brand their name/product/etc.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

ddopson (940155) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790070)

Really? I thought the secret fridge ad was hilarious. The rest of the ads were boring and unmemorable. I guess I just like the idea of a fridge full of beer poping out of the wall. Or that the dude was getting ripped off. I dunno. It was funny on a few different levels.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790176)

I found it irritating. If the guys were stealing beers from the magic fridge, the fridge hider guy -- miserly guarding his beer -- would probably notice and not do it anymore. So to me, that ad, while marginally and momentarily funny, presented a logical flaw that led me to despise it.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (2, Funny)

Basehart (633304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790239)

I just assume everything I see on TV is stupid. That way, everything makes sense.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790327)

My 11 year old son and 12 year old nephew still talk about that commercial. (They don't buy Budweiser, admittedly...)

It's probably a poor ad in what it's trying to do, however, in that it doesn't really identify the brand that clearly. It's the "magic fridge" ad, not the "Bud fridge" ad.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790467)

Here's the Google Video link to all the ads so you can decide for yourself.

    I've decided that resolution is painful.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789883)

The Steelers 12th Man wears stripes.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

iapetus (24050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789890)



The refereeing wasn't as bad as a lot of people seem to think (not saying it was good in all cases, but some of the decisions people complain about were actually perfectly reasonable). The losing team lost fair and square - they had their chances through the game and they threw them away. The winning team took advantage of some of their chances, and they won. Sour grapes after the game aren't going to change that.

Of course, the real losers were those people who were looking forward to a good game, because the way both teams played that was far from what we got...

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (2, Informative)

pizzaman100 (588500) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790197)

Not really. ESPN had a poll the day after the game, and the majority (like 70%)from 48 states said the refs threw the game (exceptions being WV and PA). These results are despite the liklyhood that there are way more Steeler fans than Sehawk fans.

The Seattle 'big chance' plays were pretty much all called back on questionable penalties. And the Pitt big plays were given to them (the qb getting tackled on the 1 yard line and them calling it a TD comes to mind).

Geez, first time I've discussed sports on Slashdot. :)

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790517)


Were we watching the same game? So you must have missed the 6 dropped passes, the two passes that were potential touchdowns but caught out of bounds within the 5 yard line, two missed field goals, the extremely piss poor clock management at the end of the first AND second half of the game. The fact they were 5 of 17 on third down conversions. The NFL's leading rusher had an average per carry much less then his seasson average (and did not carry the ball as much as he should have) and was held to under 100 yards. Who knows what would have happened had they scored more, it wasn't like the Steelers would have ran the ball the entire second half and had that over 6 minute all running drive late in the forth if they were behind... Heck one Ben slip up for an interception when his intendend target was wide open in the end zone would have made it 28-10.

The game was boring and neither team was playing an A game but a few questionable calls was not what caused one team to loose and another to win. Brewing over the calls by the Seattle coach probably was much more of an impact then the calls themselves.
Its a tough thing to swallow when you get that far and loose. Think of the early 90'd Buffalo Bills and the Denver Broncos.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

ericartman (955413) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790136)

I agree the fix was in IMHO. The only way to fix games is not players but referees. After decades of watching my team the RAIDERS be the most penalized team in football even I had to agree with my friend that said the ref's are biased even if it's unknowingly. I mean come on the only common denominator is the ref's. Coaches changed,cities changed, players changed the only thing that didn't change was the penalties and the ref's. So after the Superbowl fiasco, I've sworn off football. Next season I'm wasting my time online playing WoW!

Why is Pittsburg's 12th man wearing stripes? (1)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790312)

Actually, I'm not going to comment on the ref's, other than to state my opinion that they made quite a few more bad calls against Seattle than against whoever the other team was. But it always seems like the team I'm rooting for is getting picked on, so I'm going to just assume that it's not the refs, it's me. If only the rest of the sports fans out there could figure that out.

I find the article interesting as much for the results as for the method. Like my opinion of the calling of the game, I had a different opinion of some of the commercials they mentioned specifically. Of course with a sample size of only 5, that's little surprise. I for one, don't even remember the "I'm going to Disneyland" commercial they ranked highly, but my favorite was the Fed Ex commercial which scored near the bottom in their study.

Of course, it sounds like this was a proof of concept type study rather than a marketing analysis, so the actual rankings aren't really as important as having differentiable data (for the moment). But I do have to say, the study sounds very promising since it placed Burger Kings commercials at the bottom of the stack, where it belongs. I haven't been able to go near a Burger King since they started doing such weird crap on TV. For example: Women wearing Bavarian outfits pouring ranch dressing all over themselves from 5 gallon buckets...WTF, mate?

Huh? (2, Funny)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789831)

Considering the quantity of empty calories and assorted forms of alcohol consumed during normal SuperBowl viewing, I'm amazed they find any brain activity at all.

Re:Huh? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789863)

The body is very resilient, instead of just dropping dead it makes its pain known by bashing heads, and yelling, while continuing to show everyone around that beer is bad, by drinking more. Sadly, this is normally seen as normal at such events, so the cries of pain go unnoticed exept by the beer sellers, who gladely sell you more.

They did the same to bush supporters (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789849)


but they kept getting "signal not found, please calibrate"

Re:They did the same to bush supporters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790022)

for the Democrats they couldn't get thier heads out of the their ass to start the scan.

Re:They did the same to bush supporters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790252)

that's interesting... it ain't the democrats running the country right now... it's the repubs... you like selling off the United States ports found in multiple states to a foreign nation with extensive ties to terrorism, money laundering, drug running, Osama bin Laden, and Carlyle Group? if you do, you be might the president's brother, Jeb Bush, the only governor of one of those states to come out in support of the port-sale deal that Bush (according to the White House's furious back-pedaling late this week) didn't even know about until after it was done. Holy fucking incompetent, Batman! Corruption, cronyism, and incompetence. It's a perfect Republican trifecta. Now, let's take a look at that economy...

Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (4, Interesting)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789858)

The Steelers?

Do I get a prize if I guessed correctly?

As for measuring "neural response", that doesn't necessarily translate into revenue for advertisers. I'm sure I had a strong neural response when really crappy ads came on. I'm sure I also had a strong neural response to certain beer ads, but that's not going to get them any money since I drink beer only once or twice a year when tailgating.

There's far better ways for advertisers to measure the success of ad campaigns.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790166)

The Steelers?

They were awarded the most points, but the Seahawks were the better team. Handing the Steelers 2 touchdowns was a bit much, don't you think?

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

stuffman64 (208233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790309)

Karma at risk, oh well.

No, the Steelers were not "handed" two touchdowns. Yes, there were marginal calls, but only one was truly bad (the chop block). The pushoff, as weak as it was, was still a pushoff and was called as such. The Roethlessberger TD did not have enough video evidence to overturn the call... besides, do you think the Steelers wouldn't have scored on 4th down anyways? The holding call was a tough one too, and I don't think the ref that called it had a good view, but just because fathead John Madden says it wasn't holding doesn't mean it wasn't. You just can't tell from the replay. People can complain all they want, but the truth is the officiating wasn't as horrible as everyone says, but it wasn't all that great either.

That said, I was pretty surprised about the high amygdala activity the people showed in the FedEx commercial... even though it was comical, our brains still perceived it as threatening when he got stomped by the dinosaur. Pretty interesting stuff.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790537)

People can complain all they want, but the truth is the officiating wasn't as horrible as everyone says, but it wasn't all that great either.

It sucked, but the worst thing was that it didn't suck uniformly. When one team gets all the crappy or borderline calls against them, it is a tainted game, no matter who you wanted to win.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (1)

ljw1004 (764174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790350)

I attended a lecture today by someone who, using fMRI, had discovered (1) a part of the brain whose activity was proportional to the expected outcome of a bet, and (2) a part whose activity was proportional to the distribution of risk on that bet, and (3) the hint that maybe part 1 was actually responding to an economist's UTILITY function rather than the probabilist's expectancy function. [paper in "Science", Dec 9th 2005, pp. 1680-1683]

When you talk about a blanket "neural response" it doesn't mean anything. I'm sure they've got much more sophisticated statistics. And I'm sure they'll find brain areas that correlate with higher spending in response to ads, similar to the research above.

Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790441)

The Steelers?

I think that's the point any team with that name sounds* like they cheated...

* ...ring..ring

Spelling Nazi: What's that?

Me: That's the phone homo

how about (4, Insightful)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789877)

.. I would like to see the neural response of slashdotters while reading this article, and see if the UCLA team really got their message through :)

Re:how about (1)

0m3gaMan (745008) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790203)

OMFG that was the most pedantic piece of gibberish I've tried to read in a long time. Too much for my ADD. Can somebody summarize it in one or two sentences?

Why not both? (4, Insightful)

fuchsiawonder (574579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789891)

There is a big jump in amygdala activity when the dinosaur crushes the caveman, as shown below. The scene looks funny and has been described as funny by lots of people, but your amygdala still perceives it as threatening, another example of disconnect between verbal reports on ads and brain activity while viewing the ads.

See, I don't see how there's necessarily a disconnect. So what if there's a threatening image that resonates with a part of the brain? That doesn't mean it can't be funny. Part of being human is having multiple reactions to the same stimulus. Ever ridden a roller coaster? Thrilling and scary at the same time, at least to me. I don't see this as being a disconnect; it's different portions of my self reacting in different ways.

That being said, the Burger King ad was awful.

Re:Why not both? (4, Informative)

Yunzil (181064) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789909)

There is a big jump in amygdala activity when the dinosaur crushes the caveman, as shown below. The scene looks funny and has been described as funny by lots of people, but your amygdala still perceives it as threatening, another example of disconnect between verbal reports on ads and brain activity while viewing the ads.


I had a big jump in brain activity when I saw that, but it's because I was thinking, "Dinosaurs and humans lived millions of years apart, you idiots. >:("

Re:Why not both? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790083)

So the caveman boss firing the guy for not using FedEx was alright, but dinosaurs & humans in the same time period wasn't?

Re:Why not both? (3, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790085)

See, I don't see how there's necessarily a disconnect. So what if there's a threatening image that resonates with a part of the brain? That doesn't mean it can't be funny.

In fact, they are intimately connected. Remember Mel Brooks' famous explanation of the difference between tragedy and comedy:

If I stub my toe; that's tragedy.

If you fall down a manhole and die; that's comedy.

Perhaps the best joke expression of this the one that ends with the punchline:

I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you.

Comedy is a threatening situation that gets the other guy, not you, because he's a putz, and you're not, so you experience the vicarious superiority of having survived the threat. No threat, no sense of superiority, no comedy.

KFG

Re:Why not both? (1)

Sebastian Jansson (823395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790884)

I can't say I agree. Doing stupid mistakes on your own can be quite funny, if nothing else, with some distance to the accident. When someone is really hurt, I think most people stops to find it funny. The difference in movies is that you know that no one was hurt.

I fell when skiing in a steep slope the other day. I found it more entertaining than my friends seeing the accident. They were more concerned with my health. Personally I knew quite soon that I'd be ok. Obviously it isn't a definitive rule that it's funnier when other people get hurt.

Re:Why not both? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14791059)

When someone is really hurt, I think most people stops to find it funny.

Perhaps, but people might surprise you.

I found it more entertaining than my friends seeing the accident.

Ah, but what about the strangers?

The difference in movies is that you know that no one was hurt.

Well we were talking within the context of film/stupid TV ads/jokes. There weren't really two campers and a bear. It's just a joke. No caveman actually got stomped by a dinosaur.

Obviously it isn't a definitive rule that it's funnier when other people get hurt.

"Threat" and "hurt" cover a broad range. For instance, the social faux pas, the basis of the greatest threat known to mankind, public speaking; and the basis of much humor, although you might want to go watch a Daffy Duck cartoon and think over your position.

KFG

More science abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789912)

Am I the only one who finds this sad? People receive stimulus and areas of the brain light up - everything else in the article is specious pseudoscience. I don't even see any references to back up the pontificating. Pretty images from the expensive toy. Meanwhile expensive potentially lifesaving MRI equiptment is abused by Marco Iacoboni et al to forward the cause of what? Advertising!!! The article even starts with a little quip about how we all love ads and talk about them.
Excuse me? No we don't. Don't you get it? We fucking loathe your purile scammy little mind control attempts. Advertisers and marketeers are the scum of the Earth, polluting and spamming the planet with their gross manipulations.
Get a real job man, anything, but something that actually benefits the species.

Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789948)

Advertisers and marketeers are the scum of the Earth

Annoying. Yes. Bothersome. Yes. Scum of the Earth? They win out over child molesters, animal torturers, and Jim Jones [wikipedia.org] ?

I know a few marketing folks, and most of them are decent human beings, just like you and me, trying to earn a buck. Plus, how do you propose to have commerce without advertising?

Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790009)

"Plus, how do you propose to have commerce without advertising?"

Word of mouth, review websites/magazines, and even general newsy outlets like papers and slashdot. I don't have use TV or radio, adblock the hell out of my web browser, and still buy plenty of crap, thank you. I actually pay to get information about products on my own terms, by buying computer and gaming magazines (though I prefer websites because I can block the ads).
To be honest, I don't even object to "product awareness" advertising, just "this is so awesome" and "you will get laid" type advertising, and any kind that wastes my time. Maybe if all advertising had to go via an independent, neutral and ruthlessly factual agency it would be OK.

Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790066)

Considering advertisements have basically taught me never to trust them, not much would change without them, except my favorite TV shows would be on 33% longer, the internet would be safer to surf (well, assuming haven't already migrated away from IE), etc, etc.

Word of mouth is a perfectly good method. I've downloaded more than a few programs because people have recommended them to me. Firefox and Thunderbird. OpenOffice. Linux (not quite yet, too lazy to partition, but I'm getting there). mplayer [mplayerhq.hu] . Apache Web Server. MySQL. The list goes on... granted, these are all free software packages I've mentioned, but then again I usually don't see ads for them anyways. :)

Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790182)

Why 33% longer?

Why wouldn't they cut 30 min shows down to 20 mins and hour long shows down to 40 minutes?

2 or 3 shows an hour, no advertising.

It's dumb to expect longer shows. With more shows, they have more room for product placement. More product placement = more money.

Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (1)

L.Bob.Rife (844620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790526)

my favorite TV shows would be on 33% longer, the internet would be safer to surf (well, assuming haven't already migrated away from IE), etc, etc.

And you forgot to mention... you would have to pay for every tv show you watched, you would have to pay for most websites you visit, you would have to pay more for newspapers and magazines, etc etc.

And conversely, you might pay less for some products which spend a great deal of advertising money. For instance, beer & insurance might go down in price some. But, many businesses would not go down in prices if you removed advertising. Businesses use advertising because it works, which is important to keep in mind. Advertising done properly generates revenue which is why you see it everywhere.

(I hate most advertising too)

Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (1)

Marko DeBeeste (761376) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790098)

None of those use mentioned use Neuro-anal probes to get what they want. Not that they wouldn't, but we have to judge on actions rather than intent.

Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790154)

And child molesters, Jim Jones and animal torturers lose out to Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and the Taliban. Is your point the lowest of low is the standard for scum of the earth? You can be a nice guy and still be a total scumbag.

Marketing people are generally scumbags, it doesn't matter if you like them or not. The problem isn't the concept of advertising, or advertising itself, the problem is the people that do this job.

Yes, scum of the Earth. (1)

TCQuad (537187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790155)

They win out over child molesters, animal torturers, and Jim Jones?

Well, you see, all those people are bad, but the bad things they do are to other people. Advertisers bother me.

OK, OK, we can compromise. They're all scum.

Advertisers aren't the Scum of the Earth (1)

Capn_Snazzy (785218) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790332)

I completely agree At it's roots, marketing was just who had the better sign. What worries me- is the advertisers using that machine to build the commercials. Commercials are annoying enough without releasing commercials that manage to light up the entire "functional magnetic resonance image"

Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (1)

KeithIrwin (243301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790660)

Maybe convincing children that what they need to be happy are trips to McDonalds is a form of molestation.

Further, what's the difference between Jim Jones and tobacco advertisers? They both used psychological manipulation to trick people into consuming poison. Is fast poison really worse than slow poison from an ethical standpoint?

Keith

Pop quiz (5, Funny)

NiteShaed (315799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789921)

The winner of the 2006 SuperBowl was:
a) The Pittsburg Steelers
b) The Seattle Seahawks
c) Bud Light
d) CowboyNeal

Re:Pop quiz (2, Funny)

gbobeck (926553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790067)

e). Da Bears, you insensitive clod!

Re:Pop quiz (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790133)

No, wait! You forgot breats as a choice!

Re:Pop quiz (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790137)

No, wait! I meant you forgot breasts as a choice!

C. "I have no fucking clue" (2, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14789926)

I couldn't tell you who won if my life depended on it, because I don't even know who was playing. I do know that it was played in Detroit, because I live in Michigan, and the local news media (even in other parts of the state) couldn't stop talking about that fact. I don't recall anyone mentioning the Lions, so I assume it was a couple other teams, but I don't follow basketball, so I couldn't name any off the top of my head.

Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789967)

Incorrect. Your response is incorrect because it contains the word "basketball." Congratulations! You're not just out of the loop when it comes to sports, you're plain stupid!!

Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (1)

Kaihaku (663794) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790113)

Somehow I think you missed the humor.

Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790171)

Duh!

Everyone knows SuperBowl is a bowling competition... even us non-Americans.

Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790196)

No kidding, if I want to see the Soup Bowl, I just go to my cabinet and there it is!

Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 8 years ago | (#14791005)

It was not the Patriots [patriots.com] , so who cares?

Al Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789944)

Of course, it was soon overturned upon further review, after the upstairs official ordered the referee to stop waching the replay.

Meanwhile at Network 23 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14789986)

Research continues into compressing advertisments to a size that prevents the watcher changing channel before the ad is over.

Initial results are encouraging...

Re:Meanwhile at Network 23 (1)

NiteShaed (315799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790150)

Oh really, and how do you respond to reports regarding certain of the more sedentary, perpetual viewers? We want answers Mr. Grossman.

Us, Goddamnit! (0, Redundant)

JimXugle (921609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790000)

Whoever thinks that anyone but the Steelers won the superbowl is a jaggof.

Now. I'm goin down to Gian iggle to get some bean dip.

As usual.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790055)

...The Insurgents.

They're talking about advertisers (2, Funny)

TechnoGuyRob (926031) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790059)

Since over half of us Slashdotters don't RTFA, keep in mind they're talking about who won in ADVERTISING.

And I think I speak for all Slashdotters when I ask: ...what's a Super Bowl?

Re:They're talking about advertisers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790285)

Superbowl, n, a large parabolic dish primary used for serving large quantities of advertising.

...and maybe some sports... or something.

Download the ads (0)

imuffin (196159) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790069)

Sure Google preempted my web site with a link to their "Google Video" ads from their homepage (bastards!). But if you want to view the ads in high-bitrate h.264, transcoded from my DirecTV stream, and even download them, Google can't help you. You have to get the spots from my Web site. [tubespot.com]

Budweiser (1)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790100)

They clearly won the beer competition. They bought up all the beer ad space to silence the competition.

Re:Budweiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790335)

"They bought up all the beer ad space to silence the competition."

I didn't know they had a dedicated allocation for beer advertisements. Wouldn't it make more sense if they just... you know... bought the whole thing.

Maybe we should comission a study like this... (1)

beav007 (746004) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790117)

...on advertising on slashdot.

a) Pro-Microsoft ads on Slashdot suck
b) Ads on Slashdot suck
c) I didn't RTFA
d) Aren't they all ads?

Fuck the superbowl. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14790121)

Fuck the superbowl.

whoopie (1)

bicycleguy (692686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790128)

Who really cares?

I had a neural response (1)

Pres. Ronald Reagan (659566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790141)

I had a pretty strong neural response when USC thumped UCLA by about 80 points last season.

Of Course, There's The Other Option (1)

MikeyTheK (873329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790221)

After RTFA, especially the analysis of the FedEx ad, I am left with the following alternative hypothesis to the author - maybe it actually IS funny, and maybe the study doesn't really reveal what the author thinks it reveals. Of course, as usual, when someone wants to get up on their soapbox and look all clever and such they get complete lockbrain and ignore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis they are trying to support. Does this remind anyone of any other frequent topics on /.?

Marketing (1)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790472)

If you are interested in the history of the public relations and marketing industry and the theory behind modern advertising, you should check out the English documentary "The Century of the Self". You can find a tracker at:

http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php? TorrentID=911 [chomskytorrents.org]

Freudian psychology has had more of an influence on advertisers then real science.

Mick Bagger vs. Lingerie Bowl (1)

gr8whitesavage (942151) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790648)

Or, given that these areas are also premotor areas for mouth movements, it may represent the simulated action of drinking a beer elicited in viewers by the ad. Whatever it is, it seems a good brain response to the ad.
We know which brain, rather than part of the brain, is running during the PPV half-time show Lingerie Bowl [lingeriebowl.com] .

Activity in the amygdala... (1)

j3one (949806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790650)

"There is a large increase in neural activity in the amygdala when the dinosaur crushes the caveman.

Ya, its called the "oh snap! PwneD!!" factor...

"Mirror neuron activity in the right posterior inferior frontal gyrus - indicating identification and empathy - while watching the Disney/NFL ad.

mmmm, doubtfull but I will buy it... who did they study, a minni van salesman?

"While actualy watching the game, many had markedly high neuron registry in the indontgive arats posterior area, as well as frontal cranium muscle spasms that included hand to forward scull whacking, and simultanious verbal cues, such as "Doh!"..."

Belive it or not I made that last one up...

Do they prove brain activity=purchases (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790658)

First, if the purpose of a commercial is to get people to buy stuff, then the only way to measure the success of a commercial is to try to determine if the commercial increased actual sales, not if people were excited by the content. For instance, if a car company or department store wanted to promote a sale, the brain activity might not be so important. As long the consumer at some level realized a sale was going on, that would be enough.

OTOH, the purpose of comercials on the super bowl and other self service events like the olympics might be quite different. In these cases the commercials are to link the product to the percieved excitement and cache of the event, thus building brand loyalty. This is no small matter, as store brands are subverting the brands,and brand premiums are not as high as they once were. As such, the commercial seem to best work when they provide a 'comic relief' to the tension of the event. In effect, the commercials are merely a short entertainment featuring the produc in question. If this is the case, then perhaps brain activity is relevent, if the brain activity reflects an appreciation for the gag, and not just an acknowledgement of the product. If the consumer appreates the commercial, then the consumer might be more willing to pay or utilize the brand.

This was, IMHO, the big mistake made by the internet bust companies, and still is made today. Firms think that the because of a huge audience the superbowl in a good place to launch new products, and sometimes it does work, like the 1984 Mac ad. But it seems to me that within the context of the superbowl people want entertainment more that the pushing of new product, and the money would be better spent on more targeted ads. Sure the superbowl will insure that everyone knows your name, but it does not seem to mean that they will make any special effort to buy your producrt. If we are talking beer, they might grab a bud instead of a coors, but that does not mean they will make an effort to learn to use a computer to buy the pet supplies they can get almost as cheap down the street.

ok... (2, Insightful)

dR.fuZZo (187666) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790777)

This experiment measured reactions in people's brains as they viewed Super Bowl ads. What it didn't measure, however, was to what extent, if any, the ads changed people's recognition or feeling about the brands they were supposed to be selling.

An ad could have left a big impact on a person, but done a very poor job of establishing/reinforcing its brand. It would have been more interesting to see an experiment trying to measure if the ads actually did what they were supposed to do.

They really think those ads appealed to the brain? (1)

lowlypeon (232191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14790833)

Anybody who watched half the beer ads, or the ad for godaddy had to recognize that they were aiming a whole lot lower than the brain.

Yep, they didn't generate activity in the frontal lobes. I'm sure the ad designers would be shocked
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>