Slashdot Mirror
Using Neuromarketing to Sell Products
Cyan Peppa writes "Marketplace on CBC, that's a Canadian station for you Americans, had an interesting story on neuromarketing tonight. '...Neuromarketing uses traditional neuroscientific methods to determine the drivers behind consumer choices. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), researchers map brain patterns of participants, to reveal how they respond to a particular advertisement or product. This information can be used as the basis for new advertising campaigns and branding techniques...'
Now, I'm no genius, but isn't something like this wrong? Personally, I don't like advertisements tapdancing on the chest of my own free will...What do you think?"
Of course not. It's just another step in marketeers (They wear hats with ears) self justification of what they do. They can't force you to buy a product any more than they can force you to vote Democrat.
What they are really trying to do is figure out WHY people respond they way they do, and come up with advertisements that highlight their best selling points.
Associating beer with fun is stupid. Associating beer with a PARTY is very good. What they want isn't for you to say, I'm having fun lets have a beer, instead they'd like you to think, hmmm big group of people coming over for football, I should get Budweiser. They want situational association with their product (Nasty stain? Tide works good for that, but wouldn't you rather put some Shout on that?)
The best marketing plays into those associations, then society advertises for them:
Stain removal gel that prevents stains from setting? No, Shout.
Adhesive gauze strip?
Acetametaphine?
Chlorine Bleach?
Pressed Chicken Strips?
Facial Tissue?
Visual associations are better than word associations though, even with their name. They've done studies that show when ask to name a battery, more than 50% of their study will say Energizer, most likely because it keeps going and going and going and going. When asked to DRAW a battery or describe one, (Do it yourself real quick) most of them draw a black round cylinder with a golden cap at the positive end. The Coppertop, Duracel. When people 'think' battery they think Energizer, but when they REACH for a battery, they picture a Duracel.
That is what the scientists want to tap into.
Never confuse volume with power.
...the subliminal advertising that some theatre owners tried back in, what, the 50's or 60's. By flashing a single frame of a heaping bucket of buttery popcorn every once in a while during the movie they were able to convince the viewers that they should buy some popcorn during the intermission (remember those?). This practice was ruled illegal. I'm hoping that this ``neurological marketing'' is seen as the same thing as subliminal advertising. In fact, I'd bet that the marketing folks are really just trying to bring that idea back but are wrapping it up in a new name to fool people into believing that it's not so as to avoid the backlash they encountered in the past.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Stuff like this amazes me as there is no real science behind what these companies are doing. They manage to foist technological prowess on ignorant marketing types or they don't know enough about neuroscience to be dangerous to science education in the public.
Wow, this is right up there with folks that tell you they can analyze alpha waves and tell you something about depression or your overall psychological health. (alpha waves are real and result from thalamo-cortical relays induced by relaxed eyes-closed wakefullness, but there is no evidence in the scientific record that indicates people can determine psychological health from their analysis).
The problem with work like this is that cortical patterns of activation are an emergent phenomenon that differs widely among different people which may reveal why DARPA is interested in "fingerprinting" brainwave patterns. But seriosly folks, lets have some studies that indicate emotive components can be accurately predicted from functional magnetic resonance imaging before we start foisting this crap on the unsuspecting public. (I presume they are using fMRI as plain old MRI simply looks at structure based on reconstruction of atomic "spins". Perhaps they are also using MRS or magnetic resonance spectroscopy as well, but I doubt it.)
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Example: The annoying beer commercials designed to associate their beer with having fun.
You sound so dismissive. Personally, I associate fun with having beer.
My problem with the beer ads is that they're pitching such lowbrow fun, or whatever passes for yuppie fun (Heinekens), or the promise that you can get tanked without getting fat (light "beer").
Anyway, liquor's quicker.
*
On a more sober note, advertising is largely an attempt to link your ego and libido with your product choices. (Occasionally it brings a new product to your attention that you might want to try.) This is kind of sad, like if I wear Nikes I'll be cool or beutiful women will want to sleep with me if only I drink that beer, but is does evidently work, and so we have all the bitter fighting over trademarks witnessed amply elsewhere in this forum. Personally I try to buy generics, but I'm old and out of the marketers prime demographic anyway. Next, they'll be trying to sell me Volvos and Preparation H, the antithesis to sex appeal. I'll take the Nikes first.
Through a friend I used to get to do a lot of focus groups. At one for a clothing chain we were asked how important we though it was that the clothes were manufactured in Canada (where I live). Everyone on the panel said that it was ultimately important, except me. I argued that when it came down to it few people actually buy domestically produced goods and that obviously it doesn't matter. I got into quite an arguement with the others until I pointed out that they were all wearing clothes that were not only not made here but were not even Canadian brand names (DKNY, Gap, Tommy Hillfiger, Nike, etc). They wouldn't let us leave until I conceded that buying Canadian was important to me.
This got me thinking about the nature of the focus groups, don't the companies know the opinions they are getting what people say not necessarily what they do? I suspect that the scans will allow for more accurate polling. You could ask a group of women if they like a half naked ad, they may say "no" but their brains might tell a different story.
How is this different than marketing studies where they have people push buttons based on their like or dislike of a product? It's maybe a little more accurate, but really it's not some radical jump that gives them the ability to brainwash people. If they were actively scanning all people as they passed by a store, that would be one thing, but this is using focus groups of volunteers.
The fact of the matter is that all people walk through this world trying to impress images on others. We're the clever entrepeneur, the sports hero, or the trusted religious leader. In the end no matter the images that are pushed onto people, it doesn't hide the truth of what's underneath for long. The entrepeneur turns out to be a swindler, the sports hero's a thug, and the trusted religious leader is a child molester. So even with all the technology in the world, nobody's going to convince us that we should buy crap that is in fact crap.
Now, if they were pumping people with drugs, or something like that, that'd be a different story. Ultimately this will just refine their abilities a little bit more, and probably sell a few more things. They aren't telling us what to do, and we still possess free will, so I don't see the harm.
Frankly I'd rather that they had fewer more influential ads than slathering their advertising feces over any flat surface on planet earth. Maybe studies like this will help them realize that it's all becoming white noise and that we're just learning to ignore them.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Exactly. First and foremost, MRI isn't meant to snap pictures of the mind, it's made for taking pictures of the brain, or pretty much any internal organ for that matter. I have never heard a credible medical professional assert that the output of an MRI provides any insight into the feelings or thoughts of the patient.
:) If they even share the results with the subjects.
It's made for detecting tumors and stuff like that. So maybe they'll come out with the result that an unusual number of "neuromarketing" subjects are aware they have brain cancer
Even if you want to posit (which I don't) that you could determine emotions with this technique, have you ever BEEN in an MRI? I think the experience of sitting inside a metal tube for 20-30 minutes on end with loud clanging going on around you would throw up a ton of "noise" emotions that would be way more powerful than some crappy Nike ad.
But she doesn't have a problem with neuromarketing -- or any other subconscious probing.
"I think if they can find a way to help us find a way into that magic little feeling that shopping can give you -- if you do it right and you get the right thing and you don't spend too much money, hats off to them. Thank you. I think it's a service."
Since she doesn't have a problem with neuromarketing -- or any other subconscious probing, one could guess that she is quite an easy lay. Go for it /.ers! Most likely she'll overlook your pizza stained sweatpants, as long as you keep repeating, "Geek is Chic...Geek is Chic..."
It's sheepeople like these that are making world domination easy. Make sure you wear a condom when you handily take her womanhood.
It is not direct reply to your comment, but:
....). We get used to it, but you can also get used to live in Antarctica or totalitarian regime
I am not sure why everybody thinks that advertisement is alpha-omega of capitalism and competition in the market. This is totally bullshit, advertisement brings NO value to general development of the market and society. Why?
1. Advertisement brings nearly zero information about product properties/value (only that it exists), so it does not help the consumer to choose better/cheaper product. On the contrary, as a consumer you have to pay for additional expenses connected with advertisement.
2. Supports monopoly as only relatively big corporations can afford massive and expensive attack to your psychics
2. "Pollutes" living environment with advertisement garbage - not only (e)mailboxes, but streets (billboards, walls,
3. Deforms market by connecting completely different branches of economy: Did you ever wonder why the hell is TV such a shit? Could you enjoy a movie and use your brain watching good movie when it is broken to ten pieces? On the other hand the TV program is focused rather on people on which the adds work better (means on people which do need/want to think about what they are watching) so if you want to watch something else, forget.
5. Degrades many values connecting them to that advertised junk.
So How to get rid of advertisement? I am libertarian, so i do not think that laws (which would forbid it) can do any good, but let's not support laws which directly support it (like to require time-shifting devices (TiVo) "not to remove" ads from program) maybe some technical advances (like this ability to remove adds from programs and ease of information dissemination in general) would suppress the level of its occurrence.
Pay for fucking program you want to listen/watch - then you more likely will choose program which actually gives you something! And lets call advertisement what it is -junk, rubbish, etc. In 40/50/60 no top-level actor would take a role in an add (I used to like Andy McDowell, but I see, she was not worth it).
Sorry for my (non-native) English.
Advertising is just a way to make something seem like it is worth more than it is. It sucks.
I grew up with a lot of respect for advertizing, and as an art, I still do respect it. However, I've learned that like all profitable art, the field is mostly clogged with hacks.
Advertising need not be aimed at making a product look better than it is. In fact, some advertising does just the oposite (remember the "time to make the donuts" commercials? they actually tried to make donuts look as un-glamarous as possible, it was about service and dedication to the customer).
There are several kinds of ad:
1. The promise of return on investment (you will make money, or you will get babes, or your hair will grow back, peer aproval, etc). Tangible rewards promised. These are sometimes true and accurate, but often spurious.
2. The promise of instant gratification (mmm.... look at the tasty burger... do you really want to WAIT for someone to cook a non-fast-food burger?) These are often quite accurate, but far more manipulative than any other form of advertizing. It's also easy to combine this with the previous catagory.
3. The promise of quality. It's been said that you can sell a man his own shit as long as you tell him he's buying the highest quality shit. The best of this sort of ad, IMHO, was the razor ads where the guy talked about how the razor was so good he bought the company. Testimonials are one way you promise quality. Comparisons and tests are another (take the Pepsi Challenge, which was one of the most strikingly honest campaigns I've ever seen... people really did like the taste of Pepsi better when sampled fairly).
There are others, but that's most of them in a nutshell. Now, here's a little trick you can do. Watch the ads. PAY ATTENTION. Think to yourself, "why are you using this particular tactic?" For example, if you're promising me babes, why AREN'T you promising me quality? What other competing products CAN offer quality?
If you promise me quality, have you honestly compared yourself to the competition? Do you have to resort to tricks like "leading brand" (one of my favorites. you compare yourself to "leading brand" by picking your competition's bargain product that you and they both know is crap, while ignoring their "premium product"). If so, why? Is there a competitor that's actually higher quality?
These tricks force your perspective out of the hole that the commercial tries to channel you into. Once you do that, you can start to actually benefit from commercials!
The next trick is harder, and involves some actuall hard questions. You need to start asking yourself: "do I even want this class of product in the first place?"
I have no problem with ads for tampons, pads, etc. because I think most women will agree they are a good and necessary product. Imrpovements in that product are often a good thing and improve quality of life for many women. Since it's a stable market, the products actually do have to compete on improvements to the product, so everyone wins.
On the other hand, extruded cheese snack #147 is *not* something that you need in your life. The ad is still successful even if you end up buying the competition because it has convinced you that you need to to buy extruded cheese snacks at all, ever. The ad has essentially created a new market space, and just as Linux vendors don't much care which Linux you go with as long as you stop running Windows (it all serves to expand and validate the Linux market) the cheese snack vendors just want you to avoid asking "why do I need a cheese snack?"
(repost for those like me who don't read mish mash)
Well, as a Communication Strategist and Designer, (aka, layman's tongue Marketer) I have to say, "Yep, this'd be the next step."
What is sorely missing from most all of the comments thus far is the declaration of what marketing is.
Everything produced "nowadays" (as in for the past 30 years) considers marketing, everyone makes their "informed decisions" about products that, generally, were created to fulfill a market segment. *GASP* IMPOSSIBLE!?
Yes, utility has a lot to do with marketing, hence versions and price ranges and upgrades and add-ons.
Sure, the color of a plastic strip sewn into the side of a Nike shoe, the positioning of products on shelves (companies purchase shelf space and position, it's not just up to the major food chains to throw the product wherever they want), the graphic design is focus tested for years... and none of this considers the marketshare strategies (when to saturate, when to disappear, when to recampaign)... but this is just the skin of marketing.
What is at the heart of marketing? Basically: finding out what people want, and giving it to them. Do not confuse the more sensationalist tactics of marketing (superbowl commercials, sex, et al) with marketing itself... besides, if you claim you can ignore commercials well, fine, show me how you ignore forming an image of a pink elephant when I mention a pink elephant. That's now in there, at least for a little while, in that real estate known as your brain.
What would I have to do to get to to remember pink elephants for longer (don't answer that)?
This handy MRI would tell me what YOU want, essentially, without worrying about the noise.
Y'know, simplifying the signal chain as much as possible? I just finished reading about a campaign with a sporting good company that got the permission of a store to place cameras into the store to monitor how certain point of purchase displays were being used. Using this information, a new (and improved) point of purchase display was produced and sales of product X increase.
People in the store know they're being "watched" and enter an agreement to the surveillance by default inside the store.
I wonder if there's a petition I can join to battle surveillance cameras in commercial spaces! Basically: since when is telling me what you want such a bad thing? Especially since I'm asking you? Are you scared because I might tap in on the "purchase mindlessly instinct" and present a commercial not unlike the cat food commercials that were designed to get cats all in a tizzy? That I can fire a sort of Valis beam from the TV that 'forces' you into a neurological, and ultimately consumer, response?
I guess the fear is that this could lead into forcing people to do what they don't want, like making you smile when electrocuted. But as user testing stands right now, there's nothing inherently (or even remotely) evil about polling 50,000 people, getting the information, and producing a product that, for that segment, would appear to be successful.
And, uh, yeah, if I presented data to a client that stated "in 50,000 MRIs which told us that certain regions of the brain in these people exhibited pleasure" that's a hell of a lot more impressive and realistic than saying "I asked 50,000 people and they told me."
Bottomline: don't sign up for the MRI focus groups, that way the products won't necessarily be made for you and you can complain that things aren't the way you'd like them... that's fair. But this whole "marketing is automatically evil" spiel is ill-informed. I'm sure the Psychic Friends told you that, though.
-- The truth is the only thing that nobody will believe.
On second thought, it probably wouldn't take off. How would you market it?
"or whatever passes for yuppie fun (Heinekens)"
As someone who lives in the Netherlands (home of Heineken), I find that extremely funny. Here we have a saying: "Grolsh [or better yet Hertog Jan; now that's a damn fine beer] in, Heineken out".
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Areas of the brain can be lit up that the subject is unaware of.
You need to have some amount of free will to understand when it's being impinged on. If you don't feel even a little twinge whenever you think about others controlling your life, it means you are devoid of free will and have no ambition of possesing it.
Getting a person who has free will to do something aginst his will requires breaking of that will in some manner. Breaking of free will is the science of marketing. This is the science television viewers subject themselves to for extended periods of time.
You are not invincible, you will not live forever, you are vulnerable to suggestion, you can be broken. Control the information that goes into your head.