Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss Subject: Re: offensive advertising Message-ID: <393@umich.UUCP> Date: Sat, 11-Jan-86 20:58:10 EST Article-I.D.: umich.393 Posted: Sat Jan 11 20:58:10 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jan-86 08:02:15 EST References: <237@birtch.UUCP> <1825@cbsck.UUCP> <78@midas.UUCP> Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 23 Keywords: sex in adv Xref: watmath net.women:8349 net.motss:2451 Summary: In article <78@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >It might interest the advertisers to know that I can remember a number >of ads that used this formula where I can't for the life of me remember >what they were advertising. Indeed, I saw something on 20/20 about advertising and some guy who evaluates advertising for its effectiveness. He uses a machine that tracks a person's eye movements while they watch an ad; on a separate screen a dot appears where the viewer is focusing. The (male) 20/20 reporter tried out the machine, and was shown a Pepsi ad (I *think* it was Pepsi -- I can't remember the product but I remember the model!) with an incredibly sexy woman holding the Pepsi. It was amusing to see the screen with the dot on it -- you can imagine where the dot spent most of its time. Anyhow, the ad evaluator said that it was a bad ad (from a sales perspective) because the viewer *never looked at the product*! Until that time, I had thought that the ad (which I had seen before, many times) was effective -- after all, it certainly got my attention. But what that advertising evaluator said does make sense. Of course, it may be that the ad was directed at women (I think the ad was for *diet* Pepsi, and we all know which sex does most of the dieting in this culture). --Paul V. Torek torek@umich