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

[Andrew Brown]

On Friday, April 26, 2002, at 2:13:45 PM, David Howe wrote:

DH> "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.

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

I said "alter", not determine. These arguments always take the same.
Obviously, the degree to which behaviour is altered will vary from
case to case.

DH> The advertising industry exists on the theory that their carefully crafted
DH> adverts are more productive than just presenting bare information "product x
DH> does $foo" by invoking images that make the observer feel he will be more
DH> attractive to women / the woman in the advert / have more money / have
DH> better social standing / whatever if he had the product.

This is simplistic. What you are talking about is advertising for
luxury goods that most people don't need and aren't going to buy. But
when you have goods that people really want and can imagine for
themselves, you hardly need anything to stimulate the buyer. Look at
classified ads. they're enormously effective and almost completely
devoid of visual stimulation. None the less, even among classifieds,
you'll find that the ones with pictures sell better.

People in search of sexual satisfaction are much more like the
consumers of classified than display advertisements. Their desire for
the thing advertised does not require much stimulation. And it's also
pretty self-evident that people consume pornography for sexual
motives. So a small visual stimulation there is likely to be much more
effective than a really large visual stimulation about washing
machines, or even pentium chips.


DH> At best, you would expect them to "tip over the edge" someone who was on the
DH> verge of doing something anyway, or at least assure him he is part of a
DH> larger community;

I'm not sure about this use of "best". But otherwise it's a reasonable
analogy with the people who yell "jump" at a teetering suicide. They
shouldn't do it. Their actions make disaster more likely.

DH> at worst, you could find a equal or larger number who obtain from
DH> the illegal material sufficient satisfaction that they do not go
DH> and commit crimes they otherwise would have (how would you know?
DH> there are no statistics on uncommitted crimes)

This is logically conceivable. But there's a consensus of expert
belief, reported by Roland Perry and plenty of other people, that this
isn't what actually happens, and that exposure to this material makes
re-enactment more likely.



 -- 
 Andrew                            mailto:alloneword@dial.pipex.com