Subliminal Messages: Domainers Gone Wild Over Chef Patrick’s Controversial Video
DotWeekly calls Chef Patricks latest domaining news video something that “crossed the line,” in their recent article. A commenter from the DotWeekly article says that Patrick had “to resort to gratuitous nudity to get people’s attention.” While what Patrick did was too graphic for the eyes of some, he was simply following one of the most effective marketing techniques in America today, subliminal advertising.
While Patrick’s video showed a very obvious subliminal message to a demographic consisting mainly of adults, companies such as Disney have shown subliminal ads to kids of all ages, especially younger kids. For example, take a look at the picture below.
When Disney’s The Little Mermaid first came out, the picture to the left was a snapshot of the picture on the cover. At first glance, this looks like your everyday children’s movie cover in “fantasy land.” But take a closer look at this picture. Here’s another hint, look at the background of this picture. Do you notice what the towers in the background all look like? They each look like a man’s penis. It was even admitted by Disney that the person in charge of designing the cover for The Little Mermaid intended for it to look like penises in the background. After a large controversy, and realizing that this probably isn’t great for their image, Disney did have the illustration redone. But nonetheless, Disney subjected kids as young as 1, 2, and 3 to a very inappropriate subliminal image, and is just as guilty, if not more guilty than Chef Patrick.
The main point of this entire article is that Chef Patrick showed us an interesting way of associating the domaining and internet industry with subliminal ads, which as I said before, is one of the leading, most effective forms of advertising today. Whether I agree or disagree with the way he went about associating the two, I am not really sure to be honest. So I’d love to get your thoughts on this!
While I love Chef’s blog, I definitely think it made his blog look dirty, more like a porn blog.
“While (Chef) Patrick’s video showed a very obvious subliminal (advertising) message”
Hi,
I don’t think there was anything “subliminal” about Chef Patrick’s very
voluptuous co-host.
Once again, if the domain business isn´t sexy than we are in the wrong industry, that vid is creativity mixed with sex appeal
Patrick is doing a great job, not many people are doing that kind of domain blogging style like him and with that he contributes much more to the domain industry than others can believe.
Anonymous – Thanks for your comment!
Patrick – Subliminal advertising is not always hidden. For example if you’ve ever seen the Corona commercial where you see a corona sitting on a table, then a hot babe walks through the scene, that’s a form of subliminal advertising. It’s obvious, but it’s still considered subliminal advertising. And that’s exactly what Chef is doing!
Chris – I appreciate the comment. Chef loves his job, and he does it better than most. It’s just a matter of his questionable move to “expose” a girl in his domain news video. I am not picking sides though.
Puleeeze, try not to use fancy words you don’t know the meaning of. “Subliminal” is the first example.
The “limen” part of the word means “threshold.” The “sub’ we all know means “below.” Something is “subliminal” when it falls below the usual ability to perceive.
The classical subliminal messages when psychologists started playing with this idea were flashed on the screen for mere mini-fractions of seconds. They were “subliminal” because it usually takes a bigger fraction of a second for the visual apparatus (eye, brain, etc) to perceive something. It surprised psychologists when some of these “subliminal” messages made an impression on the viewer despite being flashed only a teeny, tiny time.
When an object has more than one meaning it is not “subliminal.” It is ambiguous. “Ambi” implies two. Two or more meanings, in this case.
A tower can be a tower. But it might also be a symbol for a penis. Maybe. Perhaps. If the viewer happens to interpret it that way. If the viewer isn’t in the mood to interpret a picture of a tower as a penis symbol, nothing in the world will convince that viewer of that implied meaning.
Just think of the way you live your life. How many times a day do you see objects or pictures that maybe, possibly, under some circumstances could be interpreted as penises. We see things that could be interpreted as penises thousands of times a day. It is definitely not the case that people are helpless to defend themselves against interpreting things that look like penises as penises. Of the thousands of times a day that you see objects that could be interpreted as penises, I’ll bet you interpret them as penises maybe once or twice a day. Now, pictures of penises or actual penises get interpreted as penises most of the time. But not other objects that maybe, possibly could be…
Making “subliminal” a magic word that creates the impression that human beings automatically do things one way and one way only is nonsense.
As Freud once said, “It may be a penis symbol, but it’s also a good cigar.”
Nice counterpoint re: subliminal advertising and using the movie “The Little Mermaid” as an example –I remember when the hoopla hit on that cover.
However, if Disney WAS going for subliminal advertising with a background of penises, WHO were they trying to “subliminally” sell to? Why would phallic towers sell, and if so, what was their market?
September 20th, 2009
As someone who is a still-performing AVN Hall of Fame Adult “actor” (search my stage name– Dave Cummings!), and just happens to own thousands of adult and Non-adult domains, I’m finding it hilarious that some folks are questioning this issue.
I wonder if this week will surface any more supposedly religious American politicians who preach one thing but hypocritically “partake”?
Dave C.
September 20th, 2009″