Dear FRONTLINE,

One quick message...thank you for a good show.

I'm not going to debate who's right and who's wrong (from the show nor from the feedback submitted above). This show was (simply) a finger on the pulse of today's advertising. A chapter in the History of Marketing.

This is where we are in 2004. If anyone disagrees, then let them write the next chapter.

Jeff Hurley
Charlotte, NC

Dear FRONTLINE,

I enjoyed the show, very informative. I am particularily concerned about how politicians and special interest groups will use these techniques to sway votes on issues. We won't even know that we are being manipulated. I'm sure we will be subjected to covert manipulation regarding social issues and legal matters as they come up. People will think they are voting their hearts when in fact they will be voting in a manipulated way. America has become very polarized on many issues and I wonder if some of these techniques are a factor.

Green Bay, WI

Dear FRONTLINE,

As a Public Relations Director at an international policy center, I thought your investigation into the current state of the science/art of persuasion was right on. I was trained in PR at the University of Florida, one of the better public journalism schools. During our courses, we were exposed to a mixture of techniques used by both journalism and marketers -- a potent combination.

Since then, I have seen the world through the lens of someone who understands the true machine behind marketing. I was forced to watch as my two younger sisters and little brother took up smoking in the late 90s like a lot of Gen Y kids did. I realized that the cig. companies must be on to something new since few in my age group smoked. But those in my younger siblings age group were smoking in record numbers. Yet, it is very hard to explain to someone not trained in marketing the real, scary power behind the its mind penetrating science.

Kids in high school should be given classes on how to be smart consumers. We should arm them with some knowledge on how to see through this stuff. If most adults are not perceptive enough to decode the truth through the lens of marketing, how can we expect children to have a chance? In fact, I'm convinced that corporations continue to market to younger cohorts because they know this as fact. Younger people are more susceptible to the motivating factors of marketing than older, more experienced consumers are. Why else would they virtually ignore the huge market of aging baby boomers? Well, except for the pharmaceuticals (see Viagra).

In the end, we as a society cheat ourselves. The overkill of advertising and marketing is creating such a gluttonous consumer class that I feel we cannot continue at the pace they are setting. We can't all buy everything all the time forever. It has to slow down or stop sometime and this will cause the economy to weaken. Thus, we have begun to feed ourselves in order to keep our economic engines going.

Sorry if this is a bit down. Thank you for listening.

Joshua Glanzer
New York, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

George Orwell coined a term that we've all heard and it applies beautifully as a description for the word manipulation and perception management techniques we've just seen outlined. It's called "DoubleSpeak". I know this is cliche but it's perfectly fitting. Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative is actually a roll-back of the Clean Air Act. "Social Security Reform" actually means "Find Your Own Retirement Fund" and the "War on Terror" stops being a war when we capture people... that's how we avoid the pesky Geneva Convention.

The true problem with our Google society is that we all have information without context. This is why the advertisers and political spinsters are able to so cleverly manipulate public opinion with sound bytes. Nobody knows the original context in which to frame an informed opinion... all they hear is the "Newspeak".

Erik Shifflett
Plaistow, NH

Dear FRONTLINE,

Amusing program, this.

But it could have offered more insight into the creative process that ad agencies go through, rather than interview folks like Kevin Roberts and Keith Reinhard, who, I'd wager, rarely sit down and try to come up with compelling creative ideas...

Thing is, Rushkoff portrayed advertising as far more nefarious and powerful than it actually is. John Philip Jones, an aging ad luminary, used to comment on how weak, indeed, advertising is as a force. He'd say, "Can you remember the last 5 ads you saw?"

Chances are, you can't. And the reason is that most ads are such total rubbish that they fail at leaving even the most miniscule of impressions.

As a copywriter, I can say that doing great advertising is like sport. We try and put on a good show for people; and, in doing so, we try to win supporters for the teams we play for (our clients, for the metaphorically-challenged). But this isn't accomplished by consulting with putative gurus a la Clotaire Rapaille.

Successful advertising is achieved by doing the difficult work of mining for human truths and insights that can be used to win friends amongst consumers.

There are no 'secret codes.' There is no mind control.

It's down to the hard work of being memorable, meaningful, arresting, and distinctive.

Not unlike that extremely well-done Song campaign.

Lyle Shemer
New York, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

You have given me some great insight into what I see and hear every day! Right ON PBS!

Jack O'Reilly
Lansdale, PA

Dear FRONTLINE,

The conclusion drawn from this show is very compelling. We truely are the persuaders, as the marketing companies respond to our every whim. We are the ones who drive the marketing industry, as we are the ones who decide where to spend our money, which is the driving force of any industry in a capitalist society.

The unfortunate thing is that when money drives our culture, the things that really matter take a backseat. The example on the show of pushing the sale of large SUVs was right on target in this regard.

Thanks for the excellent show.

Justin Kaffenberger
Ann Arbor, MI

Dear FRONTLINE,

And all this time I thought I was an independent individual with my own thoughts. Little did I realize that my very cortex was being reconnoitered and analyzed for the best methods to manipulate me. My poor lizard brain was comfy on a rock in the sun, basking in the innocence it took for granted.

At what point do we suddenly realize that the X-Files and the Matrix were documentaries?

Ingrid Chilberg
New, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

I can turn on a TV or a radio and even go online and see wild claims every day 24/7 but the products and services I end up frequenting or purchasing time after time again are those where I get what is promised. It's easy to tell people what they want to hear. It's easy to catch them up into a fad for a while but if you lie then you eventually die. This has been proven time and time again. The so called "cult" products are those that do live up to what they promise. You can't create this customer loyalty out of sequence. You first must provide what is needed at the most reasonable cost and with surety then loyalty follows.

To compete today a company must try a new marketing technique. It's new and it's old and most of all it's simple. Give the customer what they want, good value and customer loyalty will be assured.

Matt Wyrick
Flat Rock, Indiana

Dear FRONTLINE,

The information about narrowcasting at towards the end of the program made me think back to the remark at the beggining that consumers become "immune" to a certain kind of advertising after a period of being deluged with it. How will this play out in the case of the new narrowcasting techniques? Are we all, as individuals, going to become more aware of our own demographic identities and more savvy about what people are assuming about us because of them? Or will cynicism about this more customized and individual form of marketing make us distrust instantly something that we should readily identify with, in other words, distrust anything that at first seems comforting? My hope is that all this clutter reaches a critical mass where none of it affects anyone anymore and the smartest decision a company can make is not to advertise on aggresively, but let already interested customers go to find their ads on the web and other sources. Then we would really be able to say that the consumer is in control.

Juanita Genco
Stony Brook, New York

Dear FRONTLINE,

The most surprising thing I took from this show was how a product could be decoded into a simple message that is targeted at the lizard brain in all of us. It seems to make sense to connect a sport utility vehicle with the theme of "dominance". I only wish I was able to decode some of these messages on my own!

Josh McCormick
Tulsa, OK

Dear FRONTLINE,

I find Americans are overwhelmed with consumerism in this day and age. It's something we can't avoid, and as product placement becomes more ubiquitous, something we're less apt to fight. I found the political discussion in this program to be extremely interesting, especially cast in the light of the recent election. It's so frustrating to see that people are no longer debating about what they most strongly believe in, but rather what's the best way to frame their ideas. It's as though our culture is becoming more concentrated and therefore divided, because we're stuck in a vicious cycle of media and advertising. It's a giant echo chamber in which everyone is trapped; we can't break through the clutter because no one can tell the clutter from reality.

Jason Greenberg
Brooklyn, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your program on advertising ends with the notion that we can become our own persuaders, that the advertising holy grail is to coopt the consumer into the act of marketing itself. However, what this idea fails to properly consider is the work of Dr. Rappaille (sic?). If he is correct, and I believe there is good psychological evidence to support his hypotheses, then there is no real persuasion going on in advertising. Your conscious cognitive processes, in which persuasion takes place, do not control choice, especially when it comes to consumption. What Rappaille is not convincing advertisers to persuade consumers, he is convincing advertisers that persuasion is futile. Instead, focused psychological research reveals the ways in which the pre-conscious parts of the brain "encode" various associations. He helps advertisers unearth these "codes", and in the process he rejects and discourages any form of persuasion at all. The narrator's question at the end of the section on Rappaille was a paradigm example of this new reality. "In order to save the environment, shouldn't we make our reptilian brain shut up?" Rappaille's answer was that it is impossible to do so. Any attempts to do so will be self-defeating. Again, if he's right, there is no persuasion going on here at all. The possibility of our becoming persuaders, even of ourselves, does not exist and never really has.

brunswick, me

Dear FRONTLINE,

Americans are overwhelmed by full spreads and obnoxious tv spots more and more everyday. I am becoming quickly numb to such ads and those particular ads which evoke a set of emotions in me truly get my attention. Companies have to truly start fighting for our emotions not just our attention. The new methods shown in the show are dead on with my marketing courses. I feel this is headed in the right direction and those who can trigger an emotional appeal will win the battle amongst the bigger is better advertising giants.

nick boland
Duluth, mn

Dear FRONTLINE,

Scary, very scary. I now feel much better about buying store brand generics, but much worse about the future of a free democracy in America.

Herrin, Illinois