# Can subliminal advertisements cause seizures? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 16, 2001, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535 "2001-08-16T07:37:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sultan\_Kinkari](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7bcc69/32.png) [@Sultan\_Kinkari](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sultan_Kinkari)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/1 "2001-08-16T07:37:58Z")
I have heard stories about when corporations were first experimenting with subliminal advertisement on the general public. Story goes that some small children and elderly, or maybe those who were prone to epileptic seizures were adversely affected by these commercials(they had seizures) which resulted in subliminal advertising being banned by the FCC(or whomever). Any validity to this? ---
**Author:** ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/2 "2001-08-16T08:04:42Z")
If a subliminal advertisement is flashed quickly enough, and in a particular series or order, ie, “Buy Coca-Cola” flashed on the screen two times a second, it _could_ trigger a seizure in certain epileptics that are photosensitive. It explains why you sometimes see warning signs on carnival rides or other situations where strobe lights are used. It’s a pretty uncommon, but happens enough in some people to prompt the warnings. Why it happens in certain epileptics isn’t really clear, it just does. [This](http://www.siumed.edu/neuro/epiQNA.html) site offers some background. I can’t link to it directly, but click on any ‘photosensitive seizures’ link for a better explanation than what I gave. And from what I understand of subliminal advertising, it wasn’t banned because of seizures, it was banned out of fear it actually worked. ---
**Author:** ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/3 "2001-08-16T08:20:44Z")
After re-reading you question, it seems your more after an answer as to why they stopped it, not necessarily if it can cause seizures. If that’s the case, then I think the second part of my answer is more applicable. Again, from what I’ve read on the topic of SA, its banning (snort!) had little to do with seizures and everything to do with the idea that advertisers, the government, hell, anyone who could produce a subliminal message, somehow could have a kind of ‘control’ over the receiver. That is, in the most basic terms, the powers that be were afraid these messages actually worked so well, that people had little control over what they then did. The thing flashes “Buy Coca Cola”, and the next thing you know, people are storming down the doors after coke. That, and the fact that the limited research on SA at the time sparked a shit storm of a outrage from the public. No one involved in either creating or broadcasting these messages wanted to be responsible for what they contained. And the people receiving these messages didn’t want anyone else having this kind of ‘control’ over their thought processes. At least that’s how I understood it. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/4 "2001-08-16T12:18:17Z")
Actually, I’d like to see a cite that “corporations were . . . experimenting with subliminal advertisement on the general public” at all to begin with. AFAIK, this is not true. Some individual movie theaters tried using subliminals, IIRC, but there was never any large-scale experimentation with it. The FTC recommends that advertisers not attempt to use subliminals, not because they might cause seizures, and not because they work. It doesn’t matter to the FTC whether they work or not (for the record, they don’t); they recommend against their use because they are dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/5 "2001-08-16T12:23:43Z")
Who needs subliminal? Regular advertising gives me fits. ---
**Author:** ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/6 "2001-08-16T12:41:25Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pldennison_ > **Actually, I’d like to see a cite that “corporations were . . . experimenting with subliminal advertisement on the general public” at all to begin with. AFAIK, this is not true.** You got it **pld**. [This](http://www.parascope.com/articles/0497/sublimdb.htm) site details the coke example I referenced above. It’s in the “Subliminal Projections - 2”, subheading, “Experiments” part, towards the top of the page. The last time I checked, Coca-cola was produced by a fairly large corporation. And I’m not sure I agree with your, **"The FTC recommends that advertisers not attempt to use subliminals, not because they might cause seizures, and not because they work… they recommend against their use because they are dishonest."** To begin with, it’s the FCC that recommended (By threat of a ban) that these techniques not be used, not the FTC (Same site, bottom of the page, if you’re interested). Secondly, if the FCC really didn’t think these techniques worked, why would the issue of whether or not it was dishonest have anything to do with it. If they proved that they were ineffective, the content of what that message was has then been made moot. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/7 "2001-08-16T12:58:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CnoteChris \* > \*\*You got it **pld**. > [This](http://www.parascope.com/articles/0497/sublimdb.htm) site details the coke example I referenced above. > > It’s in the “Subliminal Projections - 2”, subheading, “Experiments” part, towards the top of the page. > > The last time I checked, Coca-cola was produced by a fairly large corporation.\*\* I appreciate the cite, but I think you should read your own cites. > [@](#): > > The first known experiment with subliminal projection occurred in 1956, when a special projector was installed in a Fort Lee, N.J., movie theater by a New York City firm, Subliminal Projection Co., Inc. During a six-week period, patrons reportedly were exposed to two advertising messages projected subliminally on the screen during the regular presentation of the motion picture “Picnic.” > > The words “Drink Coca-Cola” and “Hungry? Eat Popcorn” were flashed on the screen every five seconds at the subliminal level of 1/3000th of a second. Although the Subliminal Projection Co. reported that the sale of popcorn and Coca-Cola increases as a result of this stimulation, it refused to release either its statistical data or the details of the experimental study. Just like I said, this was something conducted in a single movie theater by some advertising company, not by the Coca-Cola corporation. I think this cite supports what I said, rather than what the OP claims. > [@](#): > > Secondly, if the FCC really didn’t think these techniques worked, why would the issue of whether or not it was dishonest have anything to do with it. If they proved that they were ineffective, the content of what that message was has then been made moot. You are correct that it was the FCC rather than the FTC. Again, though, I think you should read your own cites: > [@](#): > > Section 317 of the Communications Act read as follows: > > All matter broadcast by any radio station for which service, money, or any other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time the same is broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished, as the case may be, by such person. Subliminal ads, whether they actually work or not, would not meet the disclosure requirements outlined in Section 317 of the communications act. The site goes on to say: > [@](#): > > Application of Section 317 to sponsored subliminal program material presented, for example, at five-second intervals, would, in practical effect, ban unrestricted use of the technique. In addition, Sections 73.1212 and 76.221 (applicable to broadcasting and cable television, respectively) of the Commission’s Rules require that sponsored program matter be announced as such. Therefore, it appears that sponsored telecast or cable-originated material that is subliminally projected falls within these rules. This, again, supports what I said. The kicker, however, is the last paragraph (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > On January 23, 1974, the FCC adopted a Public Notice which it sent to all its broadcast licensees and which stated, in part: > > We believe that use of subliminal perception is inconsistent with the obligations of a licensee, and therefore we take this occasion to make clear that broadcasts employing such techniques are contrary to the public interest. **Whether effective or not, such broadcasts clearly are intended to be deceptive.** So, thanks for the cite. I says pretty much exactly what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Heaving\_Mass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Heaving\_Mass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heaving_Mass)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/8 "2001-08-16T13:01:47Z")
Experiments in movie theatres, mostly, showed this form of advertising to work extremely well. Initial reports showed that when single still images of a hot, sun scorched desert were interspersed with the film, sales of soft drinks rose dramatically in the lobby. The reason they were banned is that if they work(and it has never been proven beyond doubt that they do), the consumer is not making a conscious, “informed”(are we ever?) decision to buy a product, rather they are “brain washed” into doing so, without even knowing it. Anyway, why would companies need subliminal advertising? Ask this after looking at your Levis jeans, Nike runners, Microsoft software, Mercedes Benz, Compaq computer, etc. ---
**Author:** ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/9 "2001-08-16T13:58:11Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pldennison_ > **So, thanks for the cite. I says pretty much exactly what I said.** Well, not really, but whose splitting hairs here. What you said is this- > [@](#): > > **It doesn’t matter to the FTC whether they work or not (for the record, they don’t) they recommend against their use because they are dishonest.** There are two wrong statements in that comment, **pld** , and I was pointing those out to you. First, the agency in question is the FCC, not the FTC. We’re clear on that, I think. Secondly, you state that not only are subliminal advertisements ineffective, you state that they were restricted because they were, “dishonest”. Referring to those sections that you so thoughtfully quoted in your post, the FCC is _unsure_ whether subliminal advertising works or not. Because of that reason, and that reason alone, they don’t allow those kinds of ads. Not because, as you state, they’re “dishonest”. Nowhere is it discussed whether the notion of honesty or dishonesty had any weight in the FCC decision to not allow subliminal advertisements at all. None. Since it’s unclear whether they work or not, they’re not going to risk it and propose, nay, threaten, that they shouldn’t be. Pretty simple what they said, and what they implied. If they can’t prove it doesn’t work, and base their decision on that notion, it’s safe to assume they also thought they _could_ work, which is what I said earlier. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pldennison_ > **Just like I said, this was something conducted in a single movie theater by some advertising company, not by the Coca-Cola corporation.** Got a cite where it says the coke company _ **didn’t** _ pay to have that done via the ad company mentioned? Right. Coke might have, or they might not have. I have a feeling they’d have come out and bitched about their brand being used in this experiment if they weren’t involved in it somehow. That’s splitting hairs, I agree, but it isn’t so closed a case that they _weren’t_ involved in it somehow that I thought to correct the O.P.’er in my earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/10 "2001-08-16T14:06:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CnoteChris \* > \*\* Got a cite where it says the coke company _ **didn’t** _ pay to have that done via the ad company mentioned? > > \*\* And while you’re at it, **pl** , if you have a cite where it says that Coke didn’t secretly fund Argentina in the most recent Falklands war, I’d certainly appreciate it. You know, if the standard of proof in the world is, “there’s no proof of the negative, so it _might_ be true.” ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/11 "2001-08-16T14:32:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CnoteChris \* > \*\* . . .you state that not only are subliminal advertisements ineffective, you state that they were restricted because they were, “dishonest”. Referring to those sections that you so thoughtfully quoted in your post, the FCC is _unsure_ whether subliminal advertising works or not. Because of that reason, and that reason alone, they don’t allow those kinds of ads. Not because, as you state, they’re “dishonest”. > > Nowhere is it discussed whether the notion of honesty or dishonesty had any weight in the FCC decision to not allow subliminal advertisements at all. None.\*\* I’m going to try to keep this in GQ territory, but I really suggest you read it again: > [@](#): > > We believe that use of subliminal perception is inconsistent with the obligations of a licensee, and therefore we take this occasion to make clear that broadcasts employing such techniques are contrary to the public interest. Whether effective or not, such broadcasts clearly are intended to be deceptive. Again: > [@](#): > > Whether effective or not, such broadcasts clearly are intended to be deceptive. If “deceptive” is not a synonym for “dishonest,” I will eat my hat, your shorts, and a pound of dogshit to boot. If “whether effective or not” doesn’t mean “we don’t care whether they work, they’re still deceptive,” I will eat **two** pounds of dogshit. I have worked in the broadcasting industry, Cnote. I have been **personally responsible** for FCC license renewal for a broadcast facility, and I have been **personally responsible** for filing documents related to a wattage increase for said facility. I know how to read an FCC directive. When the FCC says: > [@](#): > > All matter broadcast by any radio station for which service, money, or any other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time the same is broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished, as the case may be, by such person. , they are saying, “Don’t deceive your public by slipping in sponsorships or paid consideration without disclosing it to the viewing or listening audience.” In short, “Don’t be dishonest.” Subliminals would be an attempt to slip paid consideration into a show without disclosing it to the audience, whether they work or not. > [@](#): > > Got a cite where it says the coke company _ **didn’t** _ pay to have that done via the ad company mentioned? > > Right. I don’t have a cite that Fidel Castro didn’t murder Marilyn Monroe, either. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/12 "2001-08-16T14:38:49Z")
By the by, I was mostly correct about the FTC as well, unless you’d like to explain to us all how the FCC claims jurisdiction over motion picture producers and exhibitors. (Big clue: They have none.) I refer you to the [Small Business FAQ](http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm) at the Federal Trade Commission (you know, FTC?) website: > [@](#): > > **Is it legal to use subliminal advertising techniques?** > > It would be deceptive for marketers to embed ads with so-called subliminal messages that could affect consumer behavior. However, most consumer behavior experts have concluded that such methods aren’t effective. > [@](#): > > **What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?** > > Under the Federal Trade Commission Act: > > –advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; > –advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; > –and advertisements cannot be unfair. Please note the use of the word “deceptive” in each quote, and get on board the big Train of Reason. Deceptive advertising is, according to the FTC, a violation of Federal truth-in-advertising laws. According to the FTC, the use of subliminals would be “deceptive,” and therefore a violation of Federal truth-in-advertising laws. Ergo, the FTC prohibits the use of subliminals because they are a deceptive advertising technique. Cripes. ---
**Author:** ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/13 "2001-08-16T16:16:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pldennison \* > I’m going to try to keep this in GQ territory…_\* Thanks for sparing me the trauma of discussing this in the pit, **pldennison**. I shudder at the thought. Having spent the better part of a half-hour cutting, pasting, making comments on previously cut and pasted comments, to the point that it’s incomprehensible gibberish, (And it’s not too pleasant to look at, either.) I’ll concede that you’re the authority on this matter. Personally, I think it’s taking the concept of splitting hairs to the extreme, but your points are valid. Cheers! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/14 "2001-08-16T18:37:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Heaving Mass \* > \*\*Experiments in movie theatres, mostly, showed this form of advertising to work extremely well. Initial reports showed that when single still images of a hot, sun scorched desert were interspersed with the film, sales of soft drinks rose dramatically in the lobby. > \*\* Do you have a cite for this? I’ve worked in the advertising industry and, as a result of my graduate work in computer graphics, I also have a fairly decent grasp of the neurological mechanics of human vision, and I’ve never seen non-anecdotal evidence that subliminal advertising has any effect on human behavior whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/15 "2001-08-16T18:45:52Z")
This news article excerpt from CNN supports the idea that some visual stimuli can cause seizures and convulsions in those that are susceptible. * * * December 17, 1997 Web posted at: 4:15 a.m. EST (0915 GMT) TOKYO (CNN) – The bright flashing lights of a popular TV cartoon became a serious matter Tuesday evening, when they triggered seizures in hundreds of Japanese children. In a national survey, the Tokyo fire department found that at least 618 children had suffered convulsions, vomiting, irritated eyes, and other symptoms after watching “Pokemon.” [http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/17/video.seizures.update/](http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/17/video.seizures.update/) ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-subliminal-advertisements-cause-seizures/76535/16 "2001-08-16T19:12:12Z")
Two **Straight Dope** columns on subliminal advertising: [Does subliminal advertising work?](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_187.html) [Are subliminal messages secretly embedded in advertisements?](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_344.html)