R v (1) GRAHAM WESTGARTH SMITH (2) MIKE JAYSON (2002)

[David Howe]

"Andrew Brown" <alloneword@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Why should anyone doubt this? The effectiveness of images to alter
> behaviour is the principle on which the entire adveritising industry
> is based.

And indeed, we always buy every product we see advertised?

The advertising industry exists on the theory that their carefully crafted
adverts are more productive than just presenting bare information "product x
does $foo" by invoking images that make the observer feel he will be more
attractive to women / the woman in the advert / have more money / have
better social standing / whatever if he had the product.
That it isn't even 5% successful is just the way things are - and if the
amount of influence from professionally produced advertisements by
experienced professionals in the field is that low, how influential do you
think bare photographs will be?
At best, you would expect them to "tip over the edge" someone who was on the
verge of doing something anyway, or at least assure him he is part of a
larger community; at worst, you could find a equal or larger number who
obtain from the illegal material sufficient satisfaction that they do not go
and commit crimes they otherwise would have (how would you know? there are
no statistics on uncommitted crimes)

oh - and if you can find a way to make an image that influences better than
10% of the target population, run, do not walk, to the nearest patent office
and/or copyright office to register it. I know how much is spent on
advertising each year, and it is more than the budget of the host
government....