Back to the directoryFind in the timeline
Vicary's subliminal popcorn claim
In 1957 James Vicary said he had boosted popcorn and Coca-Cola sales in a cinema with messages flashed too briefly to see. He published no data, and a 1992 column says he later admitted his data were too small to be meaningful. The claim is unsupported.
- Where it sits
- Pop claimA popular book, media story or folk belief.
- Evidence level
- Unsupported claimA popular claim that the sources do not support.
- Organizations
- Coca-ColaAn organization is listed where the sources concern it. The text says exactly how.
- Sources inspected
- 3 of 33 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 0 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.
What happened
In 1957 the market researcher James Vicary announced that he had flashed the messages Eat Popcorn and Drink Coca-Cola on a cinema screen too briefly for viewers to notice. A press release said 45,699 people had been exposed on alternate nights over six weeks. It did not name the theatre. A trade paper later reported it as a cinema in Fort Lee, New Jersey.
The psychological idea
The claim rests on subliminal perception: a stimulus shown below the threshold of awareness, here through a device called a tachistoscope, is said to shape behavior without the viewer knowing. Vicary supplied no test design. Rogers says the release gave no allowance for variations in attendance and no other details, and that Vicary said the data formed part of a patent application.
In practice
Vicary reported that popcorn sales rose by 57.5 per cent and Coca-Cola sales by 18.1 per cent. Rogers, then a student, reports that the Fort Lee theatre manager told him no such test had been conducted. At a January 1958 FCC session a flashed message produced no reported effect. By spring 1958 Vicary called the method a very weak persuader. A 1992 newspaper column says he admitted in 1962 that he had done little real research and that his data were too small to be meaningful.
Why it mattered
Rogers argues that the story was a publicity success: media ran Vicary's releases, and the National Association of Broadcasters banned subliminal broadcasts in early 1958. Stroebe, who co-authored the 2006 Lipton Ice study, reports that it found a choice effect only in thirsty participants, a much narrower claim than Vicary's.
Limits and qualifications
Accounts disagree on dates: a 1992 newspaper column places the test in 1956, Stroebe dates the press conference to 12 September 1957, and Rogers places the popcorn release near the end of 1957. The 1962 admission comes from that column and the original interview was not opened. Rogers's account includes personal recollection and opinion. Coca-Cola appears only as one of the two messages in the claim, and no source opened says the company took part. The record shows the claim lacked published data, not that all subliminal effects are impossible.
Evidence behind the claims
Vicary's release said 45,699 people were exposed on alternate nights to Eat Popcorn and Drink Coca-Cola in an unidentified theatre, with popcorn sales up 57.5 per cent and Coca-Cola sales up 18.1 per cent; Rogers describes the device as a tachistoscope, and Motion Picture Daily later reported the site as Fort Lee, New Jersey.
Rogers reports that the release gave no explanation of the difference in percentages and no allowance for variations in attendance, that Vicary said the data belonged to a patent application, that the Fort Lee theatre manager said no such test had ever been conducted, and that no patent application could be found in 1969.
In January 1958 an FCC session with a flashed Eat Popcorn message produced no reported response beyond a senator's remark about a hot dog, Vicary by spring called the method a very weak persuader, and the National Association of Broadcasters banned subliminal broadcasts in early 1958.
A 1992 newspaper column says Vicary admitted in 1962 that he had done little real research and that his data were 'too small to be meaningful', and a 2012 magazine article says he later called the experiment a gimmick.
Coca-Cola is named in the claim as one of two messages flashed, and no source opened says that Coca-Cola took part in or commissioned the test.
The sources date the claim differently: the 1992 column puts the test in 1956 and a September 1957 press conference, Stroebe gives 12 September 1957 for the announcement, and Rogers places the popcorn release near the end of 1957.
In the 2006 Lipton Ice experiments the subliminal brand prime increased choice of that drink only among thirsty participants; the article is by a co-author of that study.
People involved
- James Vicary. Market researcher who made the claim
- Stuart Rogers. Student in 1957 who visited the theatre and wrote a 1992-93 account
In the Psy101 course
- OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 5.1: Sensation versus PerceptionChapter 5, Sensation and Perception. Context. The section discusses this topic.Opened the page: it discusses subliminal messages, notes speculation about advertising use, and says hidden messages have little effect on behavior outside the laboratory.
This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.
Sources and inspection
3 of 3 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.
- [1]How a Publicity Blitz Created the Myth of Subliminal AdvertisingRogers, S.. Public Relations Quarterly, 37(4), 12-17 (Winter 1992-1993), 1993. Journal article. Critique or replication.Relevant text checkedReviewer read the whole scanned article (pp. 12-17) as page images. It is a copy hosted on a personal-archive site. Rogers is a participant in the story, and the article mixes recollection with opinion.
- [2]Subliminal persuasion still a mythDeseret News. Deseret News, 24 July 1992, 1992. News report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedReviewer read the short newspaper column through the fetch tool. It gives the 1956 test date, the September 1957 press conference, the 1962 admission and the phrase quoted in the claim. The fetch summary did not show the author's name, so it is credited to the newspaper.
- [3]How Advertisements Manipulate Behavior (print title: The Subtle Power of Hidden Messages)Stroebe, W.. Scientific American Mind, 1 May 2012, 2012. News report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedReviewer read the magazine article through the fetch tool. Its author, Wolfgang Stroebe, is a co-author of the Lipton Ice study, so it is not independent on that study.
Access note: The 1962 Advertising Age interview was not opened; the admission is stated only as the 1992 column and a 2012 article report it. Pratkanis's own article was not opened.
Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.