Wait, so lawbreakers can be unethical too?

September 6, 2006 2:44 AM

Subliminal Spam. It's rather crude, but I wonder if we'll start seeing more of this, and done more subtly.
posted by delmoi (20 comments total)

Impressively unimpressive.
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:56 AM on September 6, 2006

It's not subliminal. It's trying to beat OCR spamfilters by introducing animation.

If it were subliminal, you wouldn't be able to see the "Buy! Buy! Buy!" screen at all.
posted by jozxyqk at 3:03 AM on September 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

What a stupid idea.

posted by Jimbob at 3:30 AM on September 6, 2006 [23 favorites]

No I won't fave your comment.
posted by adamvasco at 3:38 AM on September 6, 2006

Hey - did this come with the accompanying text of garbled Literary classics? I have noticed that occuring too. It is like a classic meal - SPAM stock with a side of sporge.
posted by RubberHen at 3:44 AM on September 6, 2006

Finally, a workable business plan for YouTube !
posted by lobstah at 3:56 AM on September 6, 2006

Metafilter-to-Slashdot lag time: -38 hours
posted by intermod at 4:18 AM on September 6, 2006

Stock up 31% in response to slashdot article (Score:1)
by simul (113898) on Wed Sep 06, '06 04:35 AM (#16050659)

TMXO stock is up 31% following this slashdot article. So, animated GIF's do work to prop up stocks. Provided someone is generous enough to slashdot them.

I made $700. I wish I put more in.

- Erik
posted by BeerFilter at 4:35 AM on September 6, 2006

far less interesting than it should have been.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 4:58 AM on September 6, 2006

I kinda thought subliminal advertising was pretty much discredited back in the late 70's.
posted by RavinDave at 5:53 AM on September 6, 2006

Strange...urge...to...drink Pepsi...
posted by fungible at 5:58 AM on September 6, 2006

That was stupid.
posted by bob sarabia at 6:31 AM on September 6, 2006

Entirely liminal.
posted by knave at 7:48 AM on September 6, 2006

As subliminal advertising ever beebn proven to work? I'm just curious.
posted by Vindaloo at 8:23 AM on September 6, 2006

That should be "Has subliminal..." - silly me.
posted by Vindaloo at 8:23 AM on September 6, 2006

People actually look at spam messages?
posted by interrobang at 9:14 AM on September 6, 2006

[H]as subliminal advertising ever [been] proven to work?

No.

Wait, maybe?

Okay, no.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 9:21 AM on September 6, 2006

No, it doesn't work because it's hard enough to persuade someone to part with money using perceptible messages and good reasoning, much less via imperceptible exhortations.

I worked in the ad trade for years, and I can tell you that no art director I ever encountered even thought about doing it. A "researcher" named Wilson Brian Key claimed that the ad world was rife with subliminar erotic imagery, but it's hard to get worked up about something that 1) doesn't exist and 2) doesn't work anyway.
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:29 AM on September 6, 2006

When, oh when are we going to practice extraordinary rendition on spammers? I think we'd see a huge drop if spammers knew they'd be sent to Tajikistan for 'interrogation' (aka getting their limbs boiled).

Spam supports terrorism, pass it on.
posted by mullingitover at 11:56 AM on September 6, 2006

Looks like someone grabbed my greenlit link off Fark and posted it over here ;)
posted by MildlyDisturbed at 12:41 PM on September 6, 2006