… just another blahg …

Have you often wondered why the television set seems to blare much louder during the commercials between programming?

I dug around a little and it appears that the peak levels of commercials are actually no louder than that of the shows they pepper. It’s just that the average level of sound in TV ads is greater and so the perceived loudness is higher too. But I digress. Regardless of whether or not they do get louder, they sure seem to get louder, and so we turn the sound off/down or change the channel.

Wouldn’t it make sense for advertisers to tone the sound down so that we aren’t knocked off our sofas? To keep us from constantly clutching at our remotes, one finger on the mute button, in dread of the commercial breaks? Perhaps on more than one count…

Communication researcher Carson Wagner has recently found that watching anti-drug commercials under conditions of low attention is actually more convincing than watching under conditions of high attention. One reason offered up as an explanation for this phenomenon is that when pro-drug viewers are watching with full-on attention, they have the resources required to find faults with the message. They refute it and, in so doing, are less persuaded by it.

That kind of ‘counter-argument’ of the ad’s message doesn’t happen when viewers are watching the commercials in their peripheral view. In the latter case, the associations between the concept ‘drug’ and the concept ‘bad’ are subtly reinforced, despite - and perhaps even especially because of - a lack of complete attention on part of the viewer.

The same could easily apply to selling brands. The ads would play at slightly lower volumes and yet reiterate the connection between the ‘brand’ concerned and the concept ‘good’. It would be a softer sell, sure, but a sell nonetheless. And at least it wouldn’t encourage viewers to turn the darn telly off or have them change the channel to escape those in-your-face “breaks.”

Also, commercials that are replayed incessantly might not become as off-putting as they do when they are too loud. Anyone who watched the India-Australia test match at Perth on TV this week could vividly recall the Airtel annoyance. It actually made my father swear he would never subscribe to Airtel - even though he considers its message quite good. The intrusiveness of the ad somehow got attached to the brand for him, and I suspect that he is not alone.

So, advertisers, hear hear! It would probably be wise to turn the volume of your ads DOWN.

Lame? Quite.

Help!

I am addicted to (gulp) TBN.

Today, I watched Bill O’Reilly in earnest conversation with James Robison. The latter is a regular on the evangelical channel I have become so intrigued by. They were discussing O’Reilly’s latest book called ‘Culture Warrior’  where he talks about some stark divide between America’s “Traditionalists” (Ts) and its “Secular-Progressives” (SPs).

I have watched him on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’, and often been impressed by his ability to think rationally and articulate quickly and succinctly his point of view. What he sorely lacks however is the ability to discern the shades of grey of any issue and therein lies his (fortunate) unpopularity with more than just the “SPs”. I saw the same trend play out in this interview, where Robison asked him to tell “people of faith” in the TBN audience about his book.

O’Reilly spoke of how, in polls, 65% of America was found to be of the “T “variety and how, unfortunately, a liberal media represents the 35% “SP” minority. He went on to beckon viewers of TBN to be a “T warrior” and help to preserve the Judeo-Christian foundation on which the nation has prospered so far. He pointed out how there exists a clear distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, and how this line is sadly made blurry by people who think secularly and progressively.

He claimed to be against the removal of Christian prayers from public school, espoused his clearly anti-gay-marriage view, and spoke passionately about how Ts need to fight SPs from causing furthur deterioration of this nation’s values. “Too many Americans,” he told Robison, “are sitting this one out, when in fact, we need them to go out there and be warriors!” What he means by that is “boycott liberal media” and other things in that vein, but the language is incendiary, to say the least.

Needless to say, Robison was lapping all this up. It seems to me that this “T” state of mind is the internal war - which in turn fuels the external wars - that America is embroiled in. And the same issue seems  to exist worldwide. That Shilpa Shetty would be given such a tough time in India (wasn’t the Shiv Sena involved?), for a little kiss in public from Richard Gere, reeks of the same misguided and arrogant sort of “traditionalism”. 

Well, I’m going to have to avoid getting my daily fix of TBN drivel tomorrow. But I’m afraid that The Bold and The Beautiful will toss me in to the throes of withdrawal.