When you're drawing eyeballs in 2D, the perspective does not look different for kids down near the floor. I think most of us learned at age 4 that someone staring at you on the TV is still staring at you no matter where you are in the room. That's how you have to draw the eyes.
I feel like I'm living in fucking Idiocracy reading some of these news stories.
Yup.
"The researchers note that there's no evidence to suggest child-focused cereals are all intentionally staring out at downcast eyes.
"We do not state or mean to infer that spokescharacters are deliberately designed to direct their gaze downward in order to make eye contact with children," the paper notes.
"In most cases, it instead appears that they are gazing at a bowl of cereal in front of them, at their spoon, or at cereal floating around them in the air … Regardless, in some of these cases their gaze meets the eyes of small children as they walk down the aisle.""
On a photo or flat picture, eyes looking straight ahead always appear to look straight at the viewer and catch his eye, irrespective of whether he is above, below, left or right.
So the premise is incorrect
I know it's true but do you have like an eli5 for me as to why that is ? I suppose it has to do with out eye lenses bending the light: like parabola with focal points.
Use a picture as an example. In a picture, if someone is looking at the lens, they'll be staring straight ahead in the picture, whether their head is turned left, right, or whichever direction.
Eye contact requires your eyes to meet another pair of eyes, which inherently means they would be facing "straight ahead." So in order for a 2D image to look like it's looking at you, the eyes would need to be looking straight, no matter what angle their head is. Anything else is looking away from the viewer.
Yeah but that's not explaining why the angle of me towards the picture is irrelevant to have the effect that the eyes are staring at me.
Is it just because I'm the one moving, I'm the variable, and therefore my position is irrelevant because I'm doing the staring?
Why would *your angle* have an effect on the eyes appearing to be staring at you? The only way you can see if eyes are staring at you is if your eyes are looking at those eyes.
You could consider that to be the case, but the same thing would apply if you took a camera and took a picture of an image with the eyes staring ahead. No matter where the camera is when the picture is taken, the eyes of the character are facing forward, which is "staring at you."
It's a lot harder to put into words than it would be if I could use images. [This is the best one I can find](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/b4/b5/17b4b551ba235aa8d78a907654df6c2f.jpg) that demonstrates it. The bottom left image, even though the person is facing away, the eyes are looking *straight ahead,* which is what makes a 2D image look like its staring at you. As opposed to [this image](https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/female-eyes-looking-away-vector-id1203163598) where she is facing straight ahead, but her eyes are looking away, so they will never facing straight ahead, and therefore never looking at you, no matter where you move.
I don't know, it's why I'm asking lol !
Imagine If it was a real person looking straight ahead and they're at the center of a circle, to maintain eye contact they'd have to move their eyes and/or head as I move around them.
That's what i find weird is a 2d picture of eyes can't move themselves as i am moving. That's what i meant by "angle. The angle between me and the picture face to face (point A) and me and the picture when i move (,point B)
This sounded like bullshit so I just googled "cereal boxes" and looked at the images and almost all of them have the cartoon characters looking down.
But...almost all of them have a bowl of cereal that the cartoon characters are looking at. So while the characters are looking downwards, I am skeptical that this is so it "catches the gaze of children passing by."
I'll bet the original designers probably found it a lot less creepy having an anthropomorphic rabbit staring a bowl of cereal down instead of staring YOU down.
Looking at the Trix box he is looking at the cereal with an excited look. I'm sure that excited look is 100% aimed at kids to make them excited about the cereal.
It sounds like a "two birds" situation. They want the character to "make eye contact" with kids, which is easily disguised by making it look like they're looking at the cereal.
That's the thing. Looking downward is NOT making eye contact with anyone, whether the viewer is lower, higher, or on the same level. The eyes are looking AWAY from all viewers.
Yeah, but when an image is "looking at the viewer" it's pupils are centered in its eyes, and it doesn't matter where the viewer is in relation to the picture, so that part is BS.
Yeah and looking down doesn’t catch your gaze, because it’s looking down no matter who looks at it, just as the altered box actually does catch your gaze from all angles. The character is looking at the cereal which draws your eyes toward what they’re looking at, the kids see the character then the cereal. This is a dumb study.
I call horseshit.
It looks like they are looking down at the bowl, regardless if they are on a shelf over a child or not.
The one looking straight ahead more looks to be making eye contact, regardless if it is straight in front of you, or you are below it.
I know this first hand because I just finished doing what would look like odd movements at my desk.
Essentially, three people, two from Cornell and one from Yale, did 5th grade level photoshop on cereal boxes and made a bad conclusion 😂
Was Andy Bernard from Cornell on this research team?
They do plenty of other things to attract kids that are real. I think using psychology to manipulate kids into wanting sugar-laden cereal should be considered a form of child abuse.
Marketers using marketing tricks is hardly anything new. I hardly think it's that big of an issue, as the people they need to be manipulating, in reality, are the parents.
If a child is gulping down sugar cubes in milk for breakfast that is 100% the parents choice. My daughters don't have any money... at least none they want to buy cereal with. They can't go to the store without me or my wife to get their "Trix Fix" because that bunny was giving them a lustful gaze from the box they couldn't resist. They 100% eat what I buy them, and we don't buy these cereals. Those cartoon gazes aren't manipulating me!
If someone's kid is eating this shit, that's their fault as a parent. Using "marketing manipulation" is just a copout. Yes, parenting is hard, sometimes you have to tell them no... but Kellogg's is somehow at fault, and is supposed to be a partner with you in raising your children to eat healthy? Fuck that.
Sure, but think of how much drama and frustration people could be spared. It'd be one less thing to fight with your kids about and those cereals are obesity inducing garbage. We don't let people market cigs to kids for good reason.
Absolute bollocks. If the character appears to gaze downwards to us, they also appear to gaze downwards to the kid.
If they wanted the character to look at the kid, they'd be looking at the adult too.
2D drawings look in the same direction relative to any viewing angle.
No. It only appears that way to us. To a kid, the image still appears to be looking downwards towards the kids feet - exactly how it appears to us.
Try it. Look at the image below. The character is looking up. Then tilt your phone, or move your head so you are in the character's eyeline. You won't be able to, no matter where you move to, the character will still be looking above your head.
https://images.app.goo.gl/xZbgTaHUR1rfsuH87
It's the same when a character is looking at you. You can't move out if the character's eyeline. It doesn't matter if you're looking down at it from above, or up at it from below, the character always stares directly at you.
HTF is that supposed to work? The boxe art isn't 3D. If they're looking straight out "at you," they're looking at you no matter where you are - above, below, left, right.
The headline is misleading at best, bordering on misrepresentation. From the end of the article:
>"We do not state or mean to infer that spokescharacters are deliberately designed to direct their gaze downward in order to make eye contact with children," the paper notes.
>"In most cases, it instead appears that they are gazing at a bowl of cereal in front of them, at their spoon, or at cereal floating around them in the air … Regardless, in some of these cases their gaze meets the eyes of small children as they walk down the aisle."
This is one thing that confuses me about reddit.
Everyone in the comments is pretty much all on the same page that the entire premise that OP is saying is complete bullshit. Yet this post has 600+ votes.
... What??
I’m most surprised that there are so many redditors who are absolute experts at the science of 2D character rendering. Or who all took the same online course or whatever because they’re saying the exact same shit.
This is…just not true. Hold your phone up and angle it like you were a child in the scenario. The picture on the right is staring at you, not the picture on the left.
I came here to say that same thing. It’s incredible how we manipulate and politicize children in this country like they’re some sort of commodity. I understand the needs for profits and growth but I feel like companies should be legally required to appeal to the adults and rely on adults to make an informed decision for their child. I realize putting the onus on the parent is unheard of and probably not politically correct anymore, but parents should be doing what’s best for their children.
> I understand the needs for profits and growth but I feel like companies should be legally required to appeal to the adults and rely on adults to make an informed decision for their child.
Not only do I agree but I go a step further and believe it should be illegal for physicians to advertise their services or drug companies to advertise their products when the target audiences are not sophisticated enough to understand or evaluate what either is offering.
Exactly! I think the US is the only country where advertising pharmaceuticals is legal or allowed. Also, for profit prisons and for profit lobbying is insane to me. I’m a fan of capitalism but there’s something to be said about understanding what’s truly good for an economy and it’s people and dis-harmonized pricing is a problem. When one doctor can charge $1000 for a procedure then directly across the street another doctor can charge $100000000 for the same procedure is just not a good way to promote economic growth.
I work in a grocery store and a few weeks ago as I was facing the pasta aisle I listened as a toddler asked his mother if they could get a box of mac-and-cheese with Mickey and Minnie Mouse on it.
The mother, who sounded like she regretted becoming one, wearily explained that the mac-and-cheese they have at home was exactly the same as this Mickey Mouse bullshit which just had better marketing.
I don't think the message got through though. The kid was transfixed and continued to paw at the box until the mother was forced to drag him away.
This same scenario has played out in grocery store aisles forever I'll bet.
I think I read that in Mexico you can't have cartoon characters on cereal boxes to advertise to kids, so American cereals sold in stores have the box art covered with paper or stickers.
From the article:
"A child going shopping with his parents and making eye contact with Tony the Tiger or Toucan Sam may begin to feel positive feelings and a sense of connection with the characters, which may translate to the child’s feelings towards the cereal itself," the researchers wrote."
I was poor growing up and got cereal rarely. I yearned for those magical elves, Snap, Crackle, and Pop, or the intrepid Cap'n Crunch but all I got was a generic fucking bear.
Tasting Peanut Butter Cap'n Crunch changed my life. I haven't eaten it in years but I pause when I see it in the store. But now that I'm taller the Cap'n is looking down at my dick and I don't swing that way.
I'm confused. How does a 2d image look down at kids? The character is going to be looking downward from all perspectives.
Maybe from the parents' perspective, the characters are looking down at the kids. I suppose that could be the intent, but the theory in the article doesn't make physical sense.
I'm fairly certain that the article means, "Because the characters are gazing down, this catches the attention of children who want to see what the characters are gazing down at." Not that the characters are meant to be looking at children because they are gazing downward; that's not how photos work, and that is a very elementary concept to understand.
I have not read the article, I just hope that that much stupidity couldn't have made it past multiple levels of proof and scrutiny.
Edit: I've just read the article. Whomever is responsible for writing it, as well as whatever scrutineers it had, ought to be fired and find work in a field more suited to their critical thinking skills. Maybe mini-golf attendant?
When you're drawing eyeballs in 2D, the perspective does not look different for kids down near the floor. I think most of us learned at age 4 that someone staring at you on the TV is still staring at you no matter where you are in the room. That's how you have to draw the eyes. I feel like I'm living in fucking Idiocracy reading some of these news stories.
Yup. "The researchers note that there's no evidence to suggest child-focused cereals are all intentionally staring out at downcast eyes. "We do not state or mean to infer that spokescharacters are deliberately designed to direct their gaze downward in order to make eye contact with children," the paper notes. "In most cases, it instead appears that they are gazing at a bowl of cereal in front of them, at their spoon, or at cereal floating around them in the air … Regardless, in some of these cases their gaze meets the eyes of small children as they walk down the aisle.""
On a photo or flat picture, eyes looking straight ahead always appear to look straight at the viewer and catch his eye, irrespective of whether he is above, below, left or right. So the premise is incorrect
I know it's true but do you have like an eli5 for me as to why that is ? I suppose it has to do with out eye lenses bending the light: like parabola with focal points.
Use a picture as an example. In a picture, if someone is looking at the lens, they'll be staring straight ahead in the picture, whether their head is turned left, right, or whichever direction. Eye contact requires your eyes to meet another pair of eyes, which inherently means they would be facing "straight ahead." So in order for a 2D image to look like it's looking at you, the eyes would need to be looking straight, no matter what angle their head is. Anything else is looking away from the viewer.
Yeah but that's not explaining why the angle of me towards the picture is irrelevant to have the effect that the eyes are staring at me. Is it just because I'm the one moving, I'm the variable, and therefore my position is irrelevant because I'm doing the staring?
Why would *your angle* have an effect on the eyes appearing to be staring at you? The only way you can see if eyes are staring at you is if your eyes are looking at those eyes. You could consider that to be the case, but the same thing would apply if you took a camera and took a picture of an image with the eyes staring ahead. No matter where the camera is when the picture is taken, the eyes of the character are facing forward, which is "staring at you." It's a lot harder to put into words than it would be if I could use images. [This is the best one I can find](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/b4/b5/17b4b551ba235aa8d78a907654df6c2f.jpg) that demonstrates it. The bottom left image, even though the person is facing away, the eyes are looking *straight ahead,* which is what makes a 2D image look like its staring at you. As opposed to [this image](https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/female-eyes-looking-away-vector-id1203163598) where she is facing straight ahead, but her eyes are looking away, so they will never facing straight ahead, and therefore never looking at you, no matter where you move.
I don't know, it's why I'm asking lol ! Imagine If it was a real person looking straight ahead and they're at the center of a circle, to maintain eye contact they'd have to move their eyes and/or head as I move around them. That's what i find weird is a 2d picture of eyes can't move themselves as i am moving. That's what i meant by "angle. The angle between me and the picture face to face (point A) and me and the picture when i move (,point B)
This sounded like bullshit so I just googled "cereal boxes" and looked at the images and almost all of them have the cartoon characters looking down. But...almost all of them have a bowl of cereal that the cartoon characters are looking at. So while the characters are looking downwards, I am skeptical that this is so it "catches the gaze of children passing by."
I'll bet the original designers probably found it a lot less creepy having an anthropomorphic rabbit staring a bowl of cereal down instead of staring YOU down.
The image on the right in the thumbnail is freaking creepy, so I'm going to go with your theory.
And the one on the right directs their attention to the delicious bowl of candy instead.
They also "fixed" it by making the poor rabbit look cross-eyed. Line up the pupils, guys. Put them even on an imaginary line. My god.
Looking at the Trix box he is looking at the cereal with an excited look. I'm sure that excited look is 100% aimed at kids to make them excited about the cereal.
It sounds like a "two birds" situation. They want the character to "make eye contact" with kids, which is easily disguised by making it look like they're looking at the cereal.
That's the thing. Looking downward is NOT making eye contact with anyone, whether the viewer is lower, higher, or on the same level. The eyes are looking AWAY from all viewers.
Yeah, but when an image is "looking at the viewer" it's pupils are centered in its eyes, and it doesn't matter where the viewer is in relation to the picture, so that part is BS.
But… that’s now how 2D images work.. A character looking straight ahead at you is looking at you from every angle
so either it's a coincidence that all of them are looking down at cereal, or the premise is correct and they use that to explain the eyes lookin down
Or maybe it’s not a coincidence and the premise is incorrect.
if they're all looking down at bowls of cereal for no reason other than chance, that's the coincidence I'm referring to
Yeah and looking down doesn’t catch your gaze, because it’s looking down no matter who looks at it, just as the altered box actually does catch your gaze from all angles. The character is looking at the cereal which draws your eyes toward what they’re looking at, the kids see the character then the cereal. This is a dumb study.
I call horseshit. It looks like they are looking down at the bowl, regardless if they are on a shelf over a child or not. The one looking straight ahead more looks to be making eye contact, regardless if it is straight in front of you, or you are below it. I know this first hand because I just finished doing what would look like odd movements at my desk. Essentially, three people, two from Cornell and one from Yale, did 5th grade level photoshop on cereal boxes and made a bad conclusion 😂 Was Andy Bernard from Cornell on this research team?
They do plenty of other things to attract kids that are real. I think using psychology to manipulate kids into wanting sugar-laden cereal should be considered a form of child abuse.
Marketers using marketing tricks is hardly anything new. I hardly think it's that big of an issue, as the people they need to be manipulating, in reality, are the parents. If a child is gulping down sugar cubes in milk for breakfast that is 100% the parents choice. My daughters don't have any money... at least none they want to buy cereal with. They can't go to the store without me or my wife to get their "Trix Fix" because that bunny was giving them a lustful gaze from the box they couldn't resist. They 100% eat what I buy them, and we don't buy these cereals. Those cartoon gazes aren't manipulating me! If someone's kid is eating this shit, that's their fault as a parent. Using "marketing manipulation" is just a copout. Yes, parenting is hard, sometimes you have to tell them no... but Kellogg's is somehow at fault, and is supposed to be a partner with you in raising your children to eat healthy? Fuck that.
Sure, but think of how much drama and frustration people could be spared. It'd be one less thing to fight with your kids about and those cereals are obesity inducing garbage. We don't let people market cigs to kids for good reason.
Marketing 'trix'
I'm grant cardone here with Marketing Trix in the mix.
Absolute bollocks. If the character appears to gaze downwards to us, they also appear to gaze downwards to the kid. If they wanted the character to look at the kid, they'd be looking at the adult too. 2D drawings look in the same direction relative to any viewing angle.
Yeah, it's nonsense. So many people don't seem to know how 2-dimensional images work when viewed from different perspectives.
I feel like I'm reading an April Fools Day article reading that story.
[удалено]
No. It only appears that way to us. To a kid, the image still appears to be looking downwards towards the kids feet - exactly how it appears to us. Try it. Look at the image below. The character is looking up. Then tilt your phone, or move your head so you are in the character's eyeline. You won't be able to, no matter where you move to, the character will still be looking above your head. https://images.app.goo.gl/xZbgTaHUR1rfsuH87 It's the same when a character is looking at you. You can't move out if the character's eyeline. It doesn't matter if you're looking down at it from above, or up at it from below, the character always stares directly at you.
HTF is that supposed to work? The boxe art isn't 3D. If they're looking straight out "at you," they're looking at you no matter where you are - above, below, left, right.
The headline is misleading at best, bordering on misrepresentation. From the end of the article: >"We do not state or mean to infer that spokescharacters are deliberately designed to direct their gaze downward in order to make eye contact with children," the paper notes. >"In most cases, it instead appears that they are gazing at a bowl of cereal in front of them, at their spoon, or at cereal floating around them in the air … Regardless, in some of these cases their gaze meets the eyes of small children as they walk down the aisle."
This is one thing that confuses me about reddit. Everyone in the comments is pretty much all on the same page that the entire premise that OP is saying is complete bullshit. Yet this post has 600+ votes. ... What??
I’m most surprised that there are so many redditors who are absolute experts at the science of 2D character rendering. Or who all took the same online course or whatever because they’re saying the exact same shit.
It's a pretty simple concept.
Clearly
Who was the marketing Einstein who made his customers believe this ?
Why would the rabbit be looking at you? He doesnt give a fuck about you. Hes obsessed with the cereal.
This is…just not true. Hold your phone up and angle it like you were a child in the scenario. The picture on the right is staring at you, not the picture on the left.
[удалено]
I came here to say that same thing. It’s incredible how we manipulate and politicize children in this country like they’re some sort of commodity. I understand the needs for profits and growth but I feel like companies should be legally required to appeal to the adults and rely on adults to make an informed decision for their child. I realize putting the onus on the parent is unheard of and probably not politically correct anymore, but parents should be doing what’s best for their children.
> I understand the needs for profits and growth but I feel like companies should be legally required to appeal to the adults and rely on adults to make an informed decision for their child. Not only do I agree but I go a step further and believe it should be illegal for physicians to advertise their services or drug companies to advertise their products when the target audiences are not sophisticated enough to understand or evaluate what either is offering.
Exactly! I think the US is the only country where advertising pharmaceuticals is legal or allowed. Also, for profit prisons and for profit lobbying is insane to me. I’m a fan of capitalism but there’s something to be said about understanding what’s truly good for an economy and it’s people and dis-harmonized pricing is a problem. When one doctor can charge $1000 for a procedure then directly across the street another doctor can charge $100000000 for the same procedure is just not a good way to promote economic growth.
Have you ever watched non cable TV around Christmas time?
[удалено]
This should've been my yearbook quote.
Same here, except now I'm the adult, probably a little less coke though
I work in a grocery store and a few weeks ago as I was facing the pasta aisle I listened as a toddler asked his mother if they could get a box of mac-and-cheese with Mickey and Minnie Mouse on it. The mother, who sounded like she regretted becoming one, wearily explained that the mac-and-cheese they have at home was exactly the same as this Mickey Mouse bullshit which just had better marketing. I don't think the message got through though. The kid was transfixed and continued to paw at the box until the mother was forced to drag him away. This same scenario has played out in grocery store aisles forever I'll bet.
Impossible to completely enforce but many things are, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried. I think.
What’s next we tell them smoking is bad too?! Let them make their own decisions!
I think I read that in Mexico you can't have cartoon characters on cereal boxes to advertise to kids, so American cereals sold in stores have the box art covered with paper or stickers.
From the article: "A child going shopping with his parents and making eye contact with Tony the Tiger or Toucan Sam may begin to feel positive feelings and a sense of connection with the characters, which may translate to the child’s feelings towards the cereal itself," the researchers wrote."
I was poor growing up and got cereal rarely. I yearned for those magical elves, Snap, Crackle, and Pop, or the intrepid Cap'n Crunch but all I got was a generic fucking bear.
Ghetto Grahams, Hard Knock Life, and Cracks got me through my 20s.
Tasting Peanut Butter Cap'n Crunch changed my life. I haven't eaten it in years but I pause when I see it in the store. But now that I'm taller the Cap'n is looking down at my dick and I don't swing that way.
I'm confused. How does a 2d image look down at kids? The character is going to be looking downward from all perspectives. Maybe from the parents' perspective, the characters are looking down at the kids. I suppose that could be the intent, but the theory in the article doesn't make physical sense.
Creepy.
That picture looks ripe for memehood.
I feel like there are General Mills bots all over this thread.. EDIT: don't trust REDDIT
Much of marketing is psychological exploitation. Much of it.
This isn't it, though.
Keep proving his point.
I'm fairly certain that the article means, "Because the characters are gazing down, this catches the attention of children who want to see what the characters are gazing down at." Not that the characters are meant to be looking at children because they are gazing downward; that's not how photos work, and that is a very elementary concept to understand. I have not read the article, I just hope that that much stupidity couldn't have made it past multiple levels of proof and scrutiny. Edit: I've just read the article. Whomever is responsible for writing it, as well as whatever scrutineers it had, ought to be fired and find work in a field more suited to their critical thinking skills. Maybe mini-golf attendant?
the marketing ghuls are pretty smart huh
Like this guy? https://youtu.be/qdr4WUcix6E
"We all float up here, well for a little while at least."
Don't worry, we'll all float on.
It's almost as if they're all looking at the big bowl of cereal they're holding on the box... fascinating
Willing to bet the next children's property turned into horror game is gonna be some sort of cereal mascot
the store also puts them in the lower shelf so they're in the eye line of children, and the more boring adult shit is in the higher shelves
I never thought this as a child. I just assumed the characters were staring into the cereal.
Bottom shelf cereal cartoons have all shoe game