How a Publicity Blitz Created the Myth of Subliminal Advertising

by Stuart Rogers Winter 1992-1993

 

In September 1957, I began what to me was a serious study of contemporary applied psychology at Hofstra College in Hempstead, Long Island.

At exactly the same time, in nearby New York City, an unemployed market researcher named James M. Vicary made a startling announcement based on research in high-speed photography later popularised by Eastman Kodak Company.

 

The Tachistoscope

Some time before, a device had been developed that could emit a flash of white light at a speed of 1/580, 000th of a second. it was called a tachistoscope.

The light pulse of the tachistoscope was so fast that it was imperceptible to human consciousness - what I was learning as a psychology student to call "subliminal" because it was below ("sub") the threshold ("limen") of human perception.

      The work done for Kodak involved a tachistoscope providing illumination in a pitch-dark studio for a large-lens camera with an open aperture. In one series of experiments, the flash of the tachistoscope was triggered electronically by the sound of a rifle shot, and the image of a bullet in flight was frozen on color film.

      Perhaps you have seen samples of these remarkable photographs hanging on the walls of your local camera store.

 

Retainers and Consulting Fees

Armed with the scientific sound of "tachistoscope" Vicary invented a sparkling new pseudoscience, and proceeded to contact the CEOs, marketing directors, and advertising managers of multimillion-dollar corporations headquartered in New York City. Basically, he offered to serve them on retainer as a motivational research consultant while he developed the process he called "subliminal advertising".

His persuasive sales pitch was that consumers would comprehend information projected at 1/60,000th of a second, although they could not literally "see" the flash. And he sent a news release to the major media announcing his "discovery" without any scientific validation whatsoever.

 

Plenty of Cooperation

      Ever eager to tickle the public fancies that sell periodicals and build radio and television ratings, publishers and broadcasters alike obediently ran Vicary’s stories, thus endorsing in the public mind all that he imagined.

      My psychology professors were as eager as the New York reporters to espouse the gospel of subliminal advertising, and touted Vicary’s case enthusiastically in the classes I attended.

 

And a Little Conflict

      Vicary’s veracity was further enhanced by the head of another consulting firm, Ernest Dichter, of The Institute for Motivational Research, who is said to have favored the mnemonic moniker “Doctor Dichter” – although a friend of mine observed that he was no more “an M.D., a J.D., a Ph.D. or any-damned-D. than Colonel Sanders (of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame) was a military officer.” Such appropriations of lofty title are helpful, though, to those who wish to enhance their credibility – and work as consultants.

      Dichter issued a public statement declaring that subliminal projection was a form of hypnosis, and would “give the whole field of motivation research a bad name.”

      Although it is not a matter of public record whether Dichter was under contract to Vicary, he might as well have been. Because, almost as if he had been waiting for Dichter’s announcement, Vicary responded by holding a press conference in October of 1957 at which he announced that Dichter’s observation was “like saying a whiff of a martini is worse than a swallow.”

      Ah, conflict, publicity’s great ally. The media loved it. With quotes like that, Vicary could tell them nearly anything and they would be simply delighted to print or broadcast it.

 

The Demon Rum

It is also unclear as to whether Vicary had a hand in writing their copy, but he was helped substantially when the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) immediately issued a [press] release of their own, apparently prompted by Vicary's martini remark.

For reasons they never explained, these teatotalling[1] ladies suspected that the devilish subliminal techniques they had been reading about in the newspapers were being used by breweries and distilleries to "increase their sagging sales", as their release said.

In fact, beer and liquor sales had not been sagging at all, but the claim made another good story, so the media ran the WCTU release with all the enthusiasm they had devoted to Jim Vicary's fabrications.

 

The Famous Popcorn Experiment

His media relations program in full swing by November, Vicary issued another release which claimed that subliminal perception was “a new band in human perception, like FM [radio],” a medium then beginning to gain a modest level of popularity.

And, as a follow-up, toward the end of 1957 Vicary invited 50 reporters to a film studio in New York where he projected some motion picture footage, and claimed that he had also projected a subliminal message. He then handed out another of his well written and nicely printed news releases claiming that he had actually conducted major research on how an invisible image could cause people to buy something even if they didn’t want to.

The release said than in an unidentified motion picture theater a "scientific test" had been conducted in which 45,699 persons unknowingly had been exposed to two advertising messages projected subliminally on alternate nights. One message, the release claimed, had advised the moviegoers to "Eat Popcorn" while the other had read "Drink Coca-Cola."

Because Vicary was by training a market research specialist, it is not surprising that his news releases could be generously sprinkled with the kind of terminology that gave them an air of scientific credibility.

And, although I cannot attest to it personally, I have been told by people who knew him that Vicary was particularly forceful and persuasive in person – “a natural salesman.”

He told the reporters gathered in the film studio that sales figures at the theater over six weeks of testing had been compared with previous records to check for any fluctuation in the sales of the products that had reportedly been subliminally advertised.

Vicary swore that the invisible advertising had increased sales of popcorn an average of 57.5 percent, and increased the sales of Coca-Coal an average of 18.1 percent.

No explanation was offered for the difference in size of the percentages, no allowance was made for variations in attendance, no other details were provided as to how or under what conditions the purported tests had been conducted.

Vicary got off the book for his lack of specificity by stating that the research information formed part of his patent application for the projection device, and therefore must remain secret. He assured the media, however, that what he called “sound statistical controls” had been employed in the theater test.

At least as importantly, too, he had observed the proven propagandist’s ploy of using odd numbers, and also including a decimal in a percentage. The figures 57.5 and 18.1 percent rang with a clear tone of Truth.

 

A Confusion of Fictions

Shortly thereafter, presumably on the basis of a personal interview with Vicary, Motion Picture Daily disclosed that the site of the experiment had been the movie theater in Fort Lee, New Jersey.

It's interesting that we now more often hear today that the site of the now-famous Popcorn Experiment was Grover's Mill, New Jersey.

Grover's Mill, of course, was the site chosen for the landing of the Martian invasion fleet in Orson Wells' classic radio dramatization of War of the Worlds - an event I now believe was just as accurately and honestly presented as Jim Vicary's subliminal advertising experiments.

When I learned of Vicary's claim, I made the short drive to Fort Lee to learn first-hand about his clearly remarkable experiment.

The size of the small-town theater suggested it should have taken considerably more than six weeks to complete a test of nearly 50,000 movie patrons.

But even more perplexing was the response of the theater manager to my eager questioning. He declared that no such text had ever been conducted at his theater.

There went my term paper for my psychology class.

Soon after my disappointment, Motion Picture Daily reported that the same theater manager had sworn to one of its reporters that there had been no effect on refreshment stand patronage, whether a test had been conducted or not - a rather curious form of denial, I think.

      That got into the New York City newspapers, too, and made Vicary furious. Information like that can be bad for consulting contracts on new advertising methods.

(missing part)

 

The FCC Picks up the Gauntlet

(missing part)

....the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] ordered Vicary's firm, The Subliminal Projection Company, to conduct a closed-circuit demonstration of their secret in Washington, D.C.

(missing part)

The advertising industry's senior publication at the time, Printer's Ink, observed wryly, "Having gone to see something that is not supposed to be seen, and having not seen it, as forecast, [the FCC and Congressmen] seemed satisfied."

In fact, so thoroughly did all assembled not see anything that the only reported response was that of Senator Charles e. Potter (Republican, Michigan). "I think I want a hot dog," he said. (missing part)

 

Introducing Innocence

"This innocent little technique," Vicary announced a short time later, "is going to sell a hell of a lot of goods."

(missing part)

In early 1958, the National Association of Broadcasters, in a move undoubtedly designed to forestall federal and state legislation, boldly banned the broadcast of that which had yet to be proved to exist.

And despite all the Top Secret treatment that Vicary claimed for his purported patent application, years later - in1969, when I went to Washington to work on a project for the U.S. Patent Office - no one there could find any record of a Vicary patent application, nor anything related to a device to project subliminal advertising.

 

Psychological Studies

Since Vicary's announcements began in September 1957, results of psychological studies have proved the validity of the observation that a "strong stimulus produces a strong response, and a weak stimulus produces a weak response."

Messages that are projected (as Vicary proposed) at light levels significantly below the level of screen images, and for such short periods of time that they cannot even be perceived, cannot reasonably be expected to have any effect at all on behavior. All the behavioral studies I have read since 1957 indicate that zero perception equals zero response, and so "subliminal" means in practical terms "no effect".

 

The Corner of Your Eye

(missing part)

Yet his [Vicary] claims grew weaker and vaguer with each passing month. By spring he stated that subliminal advertising would only work as what he called "reminder advertising" - with " a level of affect similar to that of a billboard seen out of the corner of the eye from a speeding car (emphasis added).

This was a far cry, indeed, from his descriptions of the irrepressible and irresistible force he had claimed to have harnessed less than eight months earlier.

(missing part)

 

Millions in Fees

Despite this back-pedalling on the potential power and influence of his purported discovery, by the middle of 1958, James M. Vicary had reportedly signed contracts with many of the corporations headquartered in New York City which he had targeted back in 1957.

It has been estimated that he collected retainer and consulting fees from America's largest advertisers totalling some $4.5 million- about $22.5 million in today's dollars.

Then, some time in June 1958, Mr. Vicary disappeared from the New York marketing scene, reportedly leaving no bank accounts, no clothes in his closet, and no hint as to where he might have gone.

The big advertisers, apparently ashamed of having been fooled by such an obvious scam, have said nothing since about subliminal advertising, except to deny that they have ever used it. (missing part)



[1] Teetotaller: a person who never drinks alcohol.