Previous | Next
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546 of 755
attention were a couple of things I did on retention of information delivered to the ear as
against information delivered to the eye.
Oh. Very interesting.
“Eye versus Ear” was the code or the shorthand title for the work.
And what research went into --
(END OF SIDE TWO, TAPE ONE; BEGINNING OF SIDE ONE, TAPE TWO)
Okay. We're in business.
The technique was very artificial and something I would never have stood for if I
had been a user of the medium. But what I did was to get an announcer from the local radio
station to read fictitious commercials, one after another, I didn't have any music or -- I guess
I did have some music in between. And then I would test immediately after they heard -- and
these were classroom tests; atypical, but nevertheless nobody else had done anything like it
before. I'd test immediately for what they thought they remembered, what points in the
copy, brand names. The brand names were all phony. I made them up.
Some of the classes where I gave that exposure, I wouldn't test them immediately, I'd test
them the next day. Some I tested a week later. Some I tested six weeks later. So I was able
to draw curves on retention of material that was delivered to the ear. And then I gave them -
- some of the kids got copy that they could read about these fictitious products, and I would
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help