Slashdot Mirror


More on Neuroscience and Marketing

SLiK812 writes "The NYTimes is running a story about how marketing companies are using neuroscience to determine how to reach a consumer's buy button more efficiently. A quote from the article, 'At issue is whether marketers can exploit advances in brain science to make more effective commercials. Is there a "buy button" in the brain? Some corporations have teamed up with neuroscientists to find out. Recent experiments in so-called neuromarketing have explored reactions to movie trailers, choices about automobiles, the appeal of a pretty face and gut reactions to political campaign advertising, as well as the power of brand loyalty.' Some groups have branded this as Orwellian. I pretty sure I saw the child of this tactic in Futurama somewhere." There's a related story in the The Independent. We've had previous stories on using MRI scans to market products.

271 comments

  1. Great! more ads by stanmann · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now along with Radio guy(who advertises serious stuff) Radio Female( who pushes the sensitivity button) TV baby( who pushes the happy button) we have research into the buy button that allegedly will induce me to buy something before I even see it, sort of like the LotR Trilogy box platinum extended boxed set with gondor I ordered today.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    1. Re:Great! more ads by vettemph · · Score: 2, Interesting
      will induce me to buy something before I even see it

      It will induce you to buy something to solve a problem that you didn't know you have.

      Providing a solution is the easy part, convincing you that you have the problem is key.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    2. Re:Great! more ads by Hentai · · Score: 1

      of like the LotR Trilogy box platinum extended boxed set with gondor I ordered today.

      That's out!? WHERE!?!?!

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    3. Re:Great! more ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      next up- attractive women will be used to sell things

    4. Re:Great! more ads by stanmann · · Score: 1

      For delivery ~December 14.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  2. Party Identification? by drlake · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hmmm, maybe THIS explains why people are still willing to vote for Bush? :)

    1. Re:Party Identification? by tanglewilde · · Score: 1

      I concur. Kerry is infinitely worse than Bush.

    2. Re:Party Identification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard to see how it could get any worse. The same was said before Clinton's first turn, especially after the Dems also cleaned up on the Congressional races, too. Of course, that was undone two years later on the Congressional side, Contract with America, and all that jizz.

    3. Re:Party Identification? by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Infinitely eh?

      heh... well it's amazing how the oil prices have skyrocked with Bush II in office. and oh once again we have no healthcare bill. oo oo and stem cells! yeah, Bush II is the first one to provide funding, because there were no bills in any prior legislation. so that is an apples:oranges comparison. and not to mention Bush II's restrictions and the lip-service to the media.

      yeah. Bush II is gen, uh i mean a real, uh i mean, uh, uh, ahh "duhhh yeah i'm smart. cee? i gott a deeplommah from yayle datt my dadddy buyed me"

      bah. Bush II is a punk. pull thy head from thy arse, and smell thine reality, o' pre-pubescent one. Bush II: Bush Harder is just a bad sequel to a bad movie.

    4. Re:Party Identification? by drlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice to see that some of the mods don't bother reading the linked ads in the original message before downrating posts. My post was A) not off-topic and B) not trolling. Apparently irony is lost at times around here, but I'm not surprised.

      To elaborate, there is nothing all that surprising about this for those of us who study politics, since modern politics is really about brand-marketing. Candidates are packaged and presented in ways designed to appeal to us on a gut level rather than with regard to their actual policy positions.

      This is magnified by the role of political parties, since a candidates political party is in fact a brand. Over 60% of the electorate still consider themselves members of one of the two major parties. Most party members will vote for candidates of their party, regardless of what that candidate says or does. This holds even though most of those claiming party membership don't even know what the party stands for.

      In political campaigns, the cognitive effects of this are readily apparent by listening to how people react to the different candidates. Those with stronger partisan identification will filter the 'news' in such a way that it more neatly fits their biases - ergo 'Coke tastes sweeter'.

    5. Re:Party Identification? by tanglewilde · · Score: 1

      Obviously only metaphorically. This really isn't the right place to discuss this so I'll say it simply: While neither candidate's views are close to what I would, I can think of no case where Kerry's views are closer to mine that Bush's. In tandem, pointing out any flaw that Bush has is meaningless as he is still the better of the only two viable options. I'll not argue he is without flaws.

    6. Re:Party Identification? by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know what you mean. (No, I really do understand what you're trying to say).

      Besides, I was tricked into replying to your post by a very sly, clever, dangerous little man. (yes, u know who u are, you monkey....yeah you with the chickens...)

      hahaha

      Nah, regardless of the matter, I am glad you're not an "undecided" or "ooo i can't choose" blah blah. Just make sure you go vote :-D most states have early voting so that should help the /.'ing of the polls. Wooo!!

      Anyway, have fun and happy slashing-of-dots!

    7. Re:Party Identification? by tabrnaker · · Score: 0

      Have you people even watched the debates? You could have replaced bush with a frustrated/confused monkey and not even noticed a difference. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but that guy comes off as really stupid and dense. No wonder nobody takes the states that seriously anymore.

    8. Re:Party Identification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton's first turn

      "term".

  3. futurama by dark_requiem · · Score: 5, Funny

    Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?" Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

    1. Re:futurama by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > That's not funny, that's obvious

      That's what comedy is most of the time. The obvious things that are pointed out to you in a nonobvious way.

    2. Re:futurama by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      Yes, I believe that comedy is both:

      a) logical (as you put it, 'obvious')

      b) surprising

      However, just about everyone that I have ever explained this to has violently disagreed. That's how I know it has to be true.

      For example, the worlds oldest joke (picture cavewoman running towards her mate):

      Cavewoman: "Ug, ug, my mother is trapped in a cave with a sabertooth tiger!"

      Mate: "What do I care what happens to a sabertooth tiger?"

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  4. Orwellian? by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Folks, it's not Orwellian unless it is backed by a totalitarian state. Most of your fears would be better directed at a Huxleyan future.

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    1. Re:Orwellian? by dark_requiem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It could still be considered Orwellian. Don't discount our dear old friends the Thought Police. The Orwellian fear is that this could be exploited to monitor people for deviant thoughts and preferences. The Huxleyan (never heard that term before, but I like it. Don't mind if I steal it) fear is the more obvious one that people's preferences can be dictated to them via advances in neurophysiology.

    2. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid of the Gilliam present.

    3. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be Orwellian after Nov 2. All hail the Department of Homeland Thought Control, brought to you by the people who gave you Library Patron Records surveillance, the No-Fly List, and no-bid contracts. Don't worry, we only want to control you for your safety. Now stay tuned for a scary public notice commercial containing embedded symbols of fear.

    4. Re:Orwellian? by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

      Whew. That's a relief!

    5. Re:Orwellian? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 3, Funny
      would be better directed at a Huxleyan future.

      Huxley? Why would I want a future based on the Cosby Show?

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    6. Re:Orwellian? by Jtheletter · · Score: 5, Informative
      Folks, it's not Orwellian unless it is backed by a totalitarian state. Most of your fears would be better directed at a Huxleyan future.

      Heh, most of your readers would be better directed at a dictionary. ;)

      Incidentally, for those like myself who haven't heard of this term, here you go.
      Don't say I never gave ya nothing.

      (excerpted from here) "What [Thomas] Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility"

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    7. Re:Orwellian? by boa13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How true! I saw Brazil recently. I was amazed at the number of similarities with our present situation, a bureaucracy officially fighting "terrorists" but never really achieving it, closely controlling the citizens, and mostly caring about its own business and not giving sh1t about others. Clearly the work of a great and accurate visionnary.

      Consumers against terrorism! -- That is the text of a sign carried by a protester in the movie, some gullible guy believing what TV shows him, so close to our reality!

    8. Re:Orwellian? by jafac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True.

      The political landscape of the US was changed forever when Nixon's election commitee began using modern marketing techniques to sell their candidate like a packaged product.

      This science has been elevated to an artform by the likes of Karl Rove, who has become quite adept at figuring out how to push some people's "VOTE" button. And worse still, he's figured out how to get people so disgusted and turned off, that they abstain from voting altogether, leading to the abysimal voter turnouts of the last several elections.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    9. Re:Orwellian? by curt_k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ehh, a ruling elite that _is_ the state (state totalitarianism, the overt evil of _1984_) is not terribly different practically than a ruling elite that overwhelms, undermines, and corrupts the state (as capitalism must attempt to do, and has to a large extent).

      _1984_ can most easily be read as an attack on state totalitarianism (e.g., the Soviets), but at a structural level it teaches us quite well about capitalism (corporatism) triumphiant.

      BTW, the NYT article reminds me of a conversation with a friend about if psychology is amoral or essentially morally biased towards the good. I'm a grad student in psychology, and I was sickened to realize that psychology is essentially amoral -- it can be used to manipulate people to act in another's interest than their own, it can be used for torture, etc. _But_, practioners of psychology must choose to be moral, as human beings, not as a field. The field is a tool, the person who uses it has the soul (and chooses to respect it or not).

    10. Re:Orwellian? by the_meager · · Score: 1

      "Huxley? Why would I want a future based on the Cosby show?"

      LoL. I wish I had mod points.

      --
      Speckpot?
    11. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aldous Huxley.
      I don't know where you got Thomas from, but if you're referring to the writer of "Brave new world", it was Aldous Huxley.

    12. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thank you for that!

      In my opinion, "Orwellian" is a seriously overused term, more or less a cliché.

      But that's not something which irritates me in itself.. what irritates me is that the overuse seems to imply that '1984' was the first dystopic (opposite of utopia) vision ever written, it wasn't.

      Huxley's "Brave new world" wasn't either.. but it's a far more interesting one. "1984" is a pretty clean-cut and simple book. (probably why it's so popular) It's an indictment of totalitarianim and tyranny. You start off hating Big Brother on page one, and you end the book hating him even more.

      "Brave new world" on the other hand doesn't make things easy on the reader, because in it, there isn't any Big Brother. The presumptive tyrant, 'world controller' Mustafa Mond (gotta love the name) turns out not to be evil, but to be a rational, educated, and even likable character.

      After reading the book, there's no question the world described is totalitarian.. But in a rational and utilitarian world.. a tyranny of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'.

      The question you're left with is what to do about it?

      Anyway.. read the book, folks.. and "1984" won't look so interesting anymore.

    13. Re:Orwellian? by misleb · · Score: 1

      I guess that depends on which Huxley book you are referring to. Seems to me that I would rather like an "Island" society. OF course, I wouldn't like it to end the way "Island" does, but you get the idea.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    14. Re:Orwellian? by Oblio · · Score: 1

      Voter turnout was higher in 2000 than in 1996. It was slightly lower than in 1992.

      http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

      I don't think that Bush's team keeps people home, rather they are probably driving more opponents to the booths than Dole's team did. (I have no idea how they work to their base).

      --
      Pax -- Ob
    15. Re:Orwellian? by ChiRaven · · Score: 1

      There hasn't been a Presidential candidate in my memory (going back to the first Eisenhower campaign) who was NOT sold "like a packaged product". And as for Karl Rove, he's just today's equivalent of Jim Farley with 21st century technology. And Karl's involvement is about to make this election the best attended in many years, it looks like.

    16. Re:Orwellian? by misleb · · Score: 1

      Oh wait. You probably meant Thomas Huxley.. not Aldous Huxley. Yeah, a Huxleyan future would suck.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    17. Re:Orwellian? by Tree131 · · Score: 1

      Sort of like the society in "Demolition Man."
      There is actually a reference to Huxley in the naming of one of the characters. The trivia section for the movie is an interesting read....

    18. Re:Orwellian? by arlandbayes · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thomas Huxley was a British biologist.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H._Huxley
      Aldous is Thomas' grandson.

    19. Re:Orwellian? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      That would be Huxtable, not Huxley

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    20. Re:Orwellian? by the_meager · · Score: 1

      Such a shame I didn't pick up on that...

      My aunt would be so disappointed with me...

      --
      Speckpot?
    21. Re:Orwellian? by WillWare · · Score: 1
      The quoted article continues: An Orwellian world is much easier to recognize, and to oppose, than a Huxleyan... We take arms ...buttressed by the spirit of Milton, Bacon, Voltaire, Goethe and Jefferson. But what if there are no cries of anguish to be heard? Who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements? To whom do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse dissolves into giggles? What is the antidote to a culture's being drained by laughter?

      If one puts aside the trivial, there is a grimness to life. There is unhappiness, poverty, social unfairness, illness, and death. Every now and then somebody cures a specific disease (though less and less in recent decades) but the great mass of dissatisfaction remains essentially unchanged. Social issues are very rarely addressed successfully.

      Anybody who puts down his distractions will be faced with that reality. We mostly can't stand that experience so we pick up our distractions again. When people notice that stuff and talk about it, we tell them to stop being a bummer.

      New distractions are required frequently so we don't have time to remember we're distracting ourselves, and we just think it's how life really is. This makes the vendors of distractions wealthy. It's big business.

      I once went to a great dharma talk by a teacher from Hawaii. He talked about another teacher in Thailand whose great innovation was to bring dissatisfaction out of the closet -- people normally try to avoid talking about it, turn it into a taboo, say that talking about is wimpy and whiney. This guy brought it out into the light and encouraged his students to look at it from every angle, and grapple with their reactions to it.

      I won't say I went home and followed that advice. Trying that would have at least been interesting, and at best might have made me a much happier person in the long run. But it was an interesting talk. If I ever go to Hawaii, I hope to find that guy again.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    22. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about a hodgkin and huxleyan future? full of single-cell recordings and circuit models of neurons. that would be great.

    23. Re:Orwellian? by senatorpjt · · Score: 2, Funny

      A friend of mine once said about this - "Orwell was a bitter man, but he never thought we'd actually BUY the fucking telescreens"

    24. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha.. you learn something every day!

      But I still think it was Aldous the linked site was referring to. It doesn't seem like Thomas was much of a dystopian.

    25. Re:Orwellian? by Annoying · · Score: 1

      Having read them both myself, I preferred 1984. It has a more clear demonstration of how the system supporting big brother works. Everything from rewriting history to double speak is elaborated on enough to make parallels to the real world. Things are called Orwellian because Orwell saw things which are used more and more in the modern world. I prefer the book which has a clear and unambigous message about where these kinds of things which are currently possible can lead over one about a world that cannot be (yet) with cloning and genetic engineering and such.

    26. Re:Orwellian? by plover · · Score: 1
      Isn't that just the most ironic outcome possible? That Karl Rove, Puppeteer Extraordinaire, Viceroy to George the Younger, Prince of the Mayberry Machiavellis, is actually making our democracy stronger and more fair!

      What a concept, and who ever would have seen that coming! Wow! "What a country!"

      --
      John
    27. Re:Orwellian? by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Anybody who puts down his distractions will be faced with that reality. We mostly can't stand that experience so we pick up our distractions again. When people notice that stuff and talk about it, we tell them to stop being a bummer.

      New distractions are required frequently so we don't have time to remember we're distracting ourselves, and we just think it's how life really is. This makes the vendors of distractions wealthy. It's big business.


      Sgt: Ho-ly Jesus! What the fuck is that? WHAT IS THAT PRIVATE PYLE???

      Det. Goren: Sir it's BS sir!

      Sgt: BS!?? And how did it get here??

      Det. Goren: Sir I took from slashdot sir!

      What kinda bullshit is that? "we don't have time to remember we're distracting ourselves, and we think it's how life really is"? What is it we're distracting ourselves from with entertainment? Going to work, or getting old? Life is what you make of it. You're gonna get old and die, if you're lucky. So on the way, just try to have fun. For some people that's feeding starving kids in Africa, for some it's having a few kids and a dog and a white picket fence. For some it's a collection of DVDs so big you'd wanna climb to the top and stick a flag in it. Who fuckin cares?

      Big business may encourage the decline of freedoms to peddle their wares, but the product itself doesn't cause it.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    28. Re:Orwellian? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      I would have thought this was referring to Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley.

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    29. Re:Orwellian? by jnana · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're correct. The parent must have mistakenly inserted "[Thomas]" instead of "[Aldous]". It is the Aldous Huxley of Brave New World and (especially) Island fame who is clearly the correct Huxley.

    30. Re:Orwellian? by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      "When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility"


      There are lots of places where this has happened quite some time ago.

      A more important question is : "Is there a way back ?"
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    31. Re:Orwellian? by ChronoWiz · · Score: 1

      Brave New World AKA Aldous' Wet Dream

      All the men in the elivator had had her.
      "pneumatic"

    32. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How true! I saw Brazil recently. I was amazed at the number of similarities with our present situation, a bureaucracy officially fighting "terrorists" but never really achieving it, closely controlling the citizens, and mostly caring about its own business and not giving sh1t about others. Clearly the work of a great and accurate visionnary."

      I originally watched Brazil long, long time ago and then again few months back. This time around the similarities to reality were indeed kinda creepy.

    33. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cut the crap ; there is no difference between a product and the corporation ; they're both existing to make money!
      "
      Life is what you make of it. You're gonna get old and die, if you're lucky. So on the way, just try to have fun. For some people that's feeding starving kids in Africa, for some it's having a few kids and a dog and a white picket fence. For some it's a collection of DVDs so big you'd wanna climb to the top and stick a flag in it. Who fuckin cares?"

      Thats complete bullshit ; there is noticeable difference between producers and consummers.

      Consummers make sure, consciously or not (you seem to be conscious), that they can get hold of their amusement drugs whilst producers (people who build their lives out of themselves) simply try to satisfy themselves through their unicity.

      I despise amorph dvd collectors, technogeeks who indulge in buying to counterbalance their social inadaptability which itself was created by the very same groups who planed to make dvd collection a trend.

      Action-reaction, corporations are the new Governors and Gfunk&co (visibly the majority) seems to be ok with that ; that goes to show how deep the penetration suceeded.

      I despise consensu makers because war is growling and your dvd player wont change anything about that.
      It might even speed up the process, since if you had a social life you might have realized that man=/=money+corps.Arrrgh its awful to discover, day after day, empty people who buy into the (deep manly voice) "im in control baybee"...

      You control nothing when you degenerate in your tv room or code some app or make dry flower bouquets or collect owl miniatures or cut your lawn to perfection or buy on the web or vote ; ultimately you only control your self-annihilation through routine, boredom and submission.

      Of course thats not sadly limited to the US of A, its certainly came from there but is now covering the West more and more ; the West ISNT/WASNT Amerika (otherwise WW3 would be long past).

      Europe sux America which itselfs fucks the World.

      Id rather have the West disappear than all of Earth disappear because of feckin' mindless yanks...

      I say, nothing will change because americans are pussies ; they arent warriors, they arent idealists and they arent revolutionnaries.
      I'd say here in europe its the same except we have 4x more historic background ; but sadly a son of a bitch, wether Yank or Euro, still is a bastard.
      The only difference is the flag.

    34. Re:Orwellian? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Every now and then somebody cures a specific disease

      I was under the impression that the last big "cure" was Polio in the 50s (although a vaccine & a cure are quite a bit different). What has been cured since then?

    35. Re:Orwellian? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > empty people who buy into

      Are they only empty because they don't agree with your views? Americans aren't as stupid as you seem to think. If they are perfectly contented knowing what is going on in the world and still just sitting around watching TV because that's what makes them happy, who are you to say their lives are empty?

      > You control nothing when you degenerate in your tv room or code some app

      Unless you are are the leader of a country, no one controls anything of importance. About the only control anyone else has is the remote in the living room.

      > Amerika

      America. Not sure if it was an "intentional typo," but as much as you might not like to hear it, that's not a very good insult (assuming it was intentional).

      > Id rather have the West disappear than all of Earth disappear because of feckin' mindless yanks...

      That's pretty ignorant. The U.S. has every interest in not destroying the world. If we destroyed the world, there would be no more slave labor, nobody to sell our overpriced junk to, no one to kill for oil. No, staying alive is the first step in making a profit, which is the primary motivator for the U.S. government (AKA American corporations).

      > americans are pussies ; they arent warriors,

      Yet conveniently, when the topic changes to war, suddenly Americans are ruthless aggressors who will start a war for any (bad) reason. You have a slightly flawed view of Americans. It's not that we are pussies, it's that we don't give a shit about you (generally, not everyone is like that). We are perfectly contented how we are, so we want it to stay this way. That's why some people like Bush (OK, there are some mindless "fecks" then). They became overrun with emotion after an attack that had no direct effect on them, and Bush acted like he could do something to keep the status quo inside the country. It may be the position that arises from being an "imperialist empire," but not liking us for it doesn't change the fact.

      Yeah, I'm discontented with the country. I think the Iraqi war was total B.S. & Bush should be held accountable. I don't agree that the ends justify the means (in this case). I hate the average American city-dweller & ignorant rednecks. I think Bush using God's name to push his agenda should be considered a personal insult to anyone of any religion. I want to see Washington D.C. -- and California too, mostly Hollywood -- go up in a nuclear blaze of glory. My opinions on these topics, however, have no impact on the realities of them, except at the voting booth (theoretically).

    36. Re:Orwellian? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I was sickened to realize that psychology is essentially amoral

      Why were you sickened? Are you taking psychology to help you become a minister or something? Any truly scientific field that I can think of requires amorality. When you bring morals into play, you limit yourself to things that are considered "good." I'm sure many good things have come out of bad actions.

      However, I don't completely agree that psychology is amoral. It's just that the morality part of it coincides with commonly-held morals so you don't see it. Wouldn't a psychologist consider cannibalism a socially deviant behavior? Wouldn't that be because it is considered morally wrong? What other reason is there? Some human tribes, as I'm sure you are well aware, have practiced cannibalism in the past (probably still) as part of their culture. Does that make their culture inherently evil? How about immoral? I don't believe so.

      This doesn't express my position very well, because I can't really say it in words. It's like saying "good and evil don't exist," although clearly, they do exist as observations of an action. Two people can see the same action and have different responses though, which is why morality isn't concrete.

    37. Re:Orwellian? by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Yes, you're correct. The parent must have mistakenly inserted "[Thomas]" instead of "[Aldous]". It is the Aldous Huxley of Brave New World and (especially) Island fame who is clearly the correct Huxley.

      Whoops! Thanks Slashdot. Keeping armchair physicists, philosophers, and "IANAL" lawyers error-free since [insert /. founding year here]!

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    38. Re:Orwellian? by mink · · Score: 1
      Getting back to advertising this makes me think of that movie Looker.

      In it Digital Matrix Inc. had some spiffy tech they were about to launch that they could add to advertisement to induce people to buy.

      This was on top of the computer simulations and determination of the exact place for every element of an advert for maximum effect. To the point they start digitizing models and getting rid of the pesky IP hogging fleshbags.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    39. Re:Orwellian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thoughfulness.

  5. So What? by moehoward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Marketers and salespeople have been doing this since the dawn of trade. What's the big deal? Just another stupid reason for michael to have a hissy fit over "evil corporations"?

    "Flash!!! People who sell stuff try to get people to buy more of it! Film at 11!!!!"

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:So What? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Yes, except that prior to say, 1960 or so, these salesmen were more properly known as con artists and flimflam men.

      The only reason to allow people to be aggressive when selling something, is that their product might otherwise be desired except that people have a hard time discovering it. When they no longer desire it at all, and salesmen exist only to manipulate you into buying something totally worthless, then salesmanship itself is useless to society.

      Society (and individuals like yourself, should you ever pull your head out of your ass) have the right to discuss whether that point has been reached, and also the right to limit it if it has.

    2. Re:So What? by serutan · · Score: 1

      The So-What is that when marketers and others get better and better at using the workings of human psychology to exert influence, eventually the definition of "free choice" loses meaning. At some point advertisers have such a psychological advantage that their techniques stop being persuasion and start being weapons.

      I think we have already passed that point. People alive today are no less intelligent than their great great grandparents on the farm, but a much higher percentage of us seem to have lost all common sense when it comes to spending money. The average American family today carries, I believe, $8000 in credit card debt. That's normal behavior for normal people nowadays. But normal people don't spontaneously decide to go massively into debt, or to accumulate so much stuff that they need to rent storage places to keep it in. They have to be induced into that kind of irrational behavior, in ways that work on their insecurities, desire to be loved and so forth, things that are as basic to human nature as breathing in and out. Expecting people to be abnormally resistant to modern marketing techniques is as unreasonable as expecting them to become martial arts experts so that mugging can be legal.

      Theoretically, if you want to avoid advertising you are free to turn off your television and radio, stop surfing the web, and generally withdraw from contact with the world. So in that sense it's your free choice to expose yourself to constant sales bombardment. But on the other hand, becoming a hermit isn't a reasonable expectation of anyone. Normal behavior is to associate with people around you and take part in the same cultural activities they do. I don't think wanting to walk around in public without developing irrational consumption habits is any less reasonable than wanting to breathe the air without getting lung cancer or swim in the river without getting dioxin poisoning.

    3. Re:So What? by Sein · · Score: 1

      No, that's incorrect. Marketers and sales people have been doing this since at least the 19th century. Case in point, P.T. Barnum, who never said that line attributed to him about suckers.

      Next up was Albert Lasker, Meyer Lansky and Bruce Barton.

      But the guy who had them all beat cold was Claude Hopkins, the author of "Scientific Advertising". That period marks the end of the transition period from guesswork of the early ad men into marketing as practiced today. Depending on how you want to stretch the data, you're off by a century or at a minimum 40 years.

    4. Re:So What? by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      The reason many people buy so much crap is because they don't stop to think about whether they already have something that will work. I've seen people buy countertop pizza cookers, why? They also have a microwave and an oven with their stove; why not use one of those to cook the pizza? There are people who have every type of household cleaner on the market, when they are all made from about 4 or 5 basic ingredients. There was once a time when people made their own cleaning products and their houses were no less clean than they are now.

      The answer isn't to withdraw from society to avoid seeing ads, but to just stop and think before spending money. Think of spending money as a bad thing, to only be done when necessary, and you'll find that it's perfectly possible to get by without $8000 in credit card debt.

    5. Re:So What? by dark_requiem · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right, people do have to be induced to this kind of behavior. Now if I wanted to do that, how would I go about it? I would start by transforming money into a non-objective substance I could create at whim. I would then spend 80 years convincing people that my arbitrary creation of fiat currency was the only thing stabilizing their economy. I'd further start shouting about waging a "war on poverty", and once I had convinced people they had a "duty" to help those "less fortunate" (i.e., less successful, less capable), I'd begin stealing from the successful to pay the unsuccessful. This would limit incentive to produce, i.e. profit motive, because people would learn two lessons:

      1.) Even if you work to earn a living, your money will be stolen to give to those who cannot earn it, because they cannot earn it, and
      2.) If you cannot or will not earn a living, the government will provide it for you, either by taking from those who do earn a living, or making up new money.

      Most people don't understand, and don't bother to learn, the complex relation that exists between interest, inflation, central banking, fiat currency, government wealth redistribution, and all the other sure signs your economy has collapsed into unsustainable socialist democratic rule, which brings me to the other part of the scam.

      I'd further convince people that, despite the present condition of their government being a direct affront to the constitution (for example, massive legislative and war-making powers vested in a near-supreme executive), the nation was intended to be, and therefore is, a direct democracy, and the will of the majority will circumvent the "inalienable" rights of all others (for example, property rights like the right to keep wealth you have created).

      Once you have reached this point, you have created generations unfamiliar with the concepts of self-reliance (they get their income, in whole or in part, from the government) and personal responsibility (even if they don't agree with the welfare state, they perpetuate its existence with excuses like "Well, sure I'll take a welfare check. After all, my tax dollars paid for it, so I'm just getting mine back."), who believe they have a sanction to lay first claim to the property, rights, and lives of others by virtue of belonging to "The Majority". In this state, people naturally assume little if any responsibility for their financial condition, as they've rationalized away their oposition to socialism and have no desire for self-reliance, because they never saw any example of its benefits. So, without knowing their system is unsustainable, they willingly go into debt on the assumption their government will take care of them. How? SHHH!!! Don't ask questions like that, just assume it will work, or you might jinx the whole thing!

      The truth is that if people are made to be dependant on a government, their personal responsibility collapses, and of course they will buy on a whim. The government will bail them out, they can keep borrowing, they can dig deeper in, and they really don't believe anyone will ever call in the debt. Well, we've been accumulating debt as a nation for well over a century, we're about to accumulate $15 trillion more from social insecurity when the boomers retire, and our international creditors are going to start getting nervous. Don't blame the marketers, they're just working with what we've been giving them, and what we're giving them is what most people have been screaming for as an ideal, and what we've been practicing on a national scale, whether they admit it or not.

    6. Re:So What? by serutan · · Score: 1

      Well that's a very typical reaction -- it's their own damn fault. If they just had more self control they wouldn't have a problem.

      That's very true. But my point is that resistance to modern psychological advertising techniques is not a normal ability, it's an exceptional ability. Otherwise more people WOULD stop and think before buying, and the ads wouldn't work as well as they do. Modern life tends to punish people for being average, which I don't think is right. After all, they're the majority.

      Unfortunately I have nothing to suggest to fix the situation. Any attempt to regulate advertising runs into the good old Freedom of Speech defense. The problem is that there's no effective way to distinguish between Speech and Hypnotism.

    7. Re:So What? by serutan · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting scenario, but I seriously doubt that modern American overconsumption is the result of a long-term government plot, or that anybody in the advertising industry is a willing party to socialism, income tax or a welfare state. I really think the only thing going on is sellers trying as hard as they can to sell more stuff.

      There are good comments in this thread. Too bad hardly anybody will read them because the main comment got modded down.

    8. Re:So What? by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      I think you just hit on an even bigger problem. People are not satisfied with their lives and think they will gain satisfaction from obtaining more material posessions. Lucky for me, I learned at a young age that it does not work that way, but many people don't figure this out. It's a very natural reaction to unhappiness, which most people will encounter at some point in their lives. As far as fixing the problem, there is no easy way. Consumer education is the only hope, but there are many people and companies that would like to obstruct that since it would mean reduced profits.

    9. Re:So What? by AlephNot · · Score: 1

      Are you familiar with the philosophy of Objectivism? Your comment follows Objectivist thought very closely; if you're not familiar with Objectivism, you should read some about it.

      --
      "Feel a glory in so rolling / on the human heart a stone" --E. A. Poe, "The Bells"
  6. More than a buy-button by fembots · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think a brain analysis is an effective way to determine consumer behaviour.

    Our behaviour is most likely shaped by the environment and condition we're experiencing.

    Truth to be told, any sports car will trigger my buy-button, but can I afford to buy it?

    1. Re:More than a buy-button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean sports car, like Ferarri Enzo, Lotus Elise Sport, etc.? Or Monte Carlo SS with NASCAR package?

    2. Re:More than a buy-button by wattersa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Truth to be told, any sports car will trigger my buy-button, but can I afford to buy it?

      "Thanks to our low introductory APR, you can!"

      "Thought you couldn't own a Benz? Think again!"

      "Let BMW Certified Preowned vehicles find you the car of your dreams...at a practical price!"

      This is a science-- note that in the radio ads they never tell you what the APR is unless it's "zero percent" or close to it. They make you want the item with positive images and thoughts and they defer the "bad news" as long as possible until the very end of the transaction, after you've decided you want the item so even if you know you probably can't afford it, someone will "work with you" (with you, not on you, lol) to establish a sense of rapport that will make you think you're getting a good deal. Even if you back out, there's some hapless sucker who won't. Despite decades of study and improved learning techniques, human nature hasn't changed all that much.

    3. Re:More than a buy-button by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe my own consumer behavior is not normal, but the more I see something aggressively marketed, the more I am convinced I don't need it. If the item provided great value and was a good deal, people would be lining up to buy it on their own and advertising wouldn't really be necessary. Relentless advertising and sales efforts are only needed to override peoples' logical thought processes to get them to make an impulsive buy decision before they can come to their senses and talk themselves out of it.

    4. Re:More than a buy-button by 6.023e23 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Despite decades of study and improved learning techniques, human nature hasn't changed all that much.

      Of course that goes hand in hand with decades (and tens/hundreds of millions of dollars) of research that has been done by the marketing companies to determine the best selling methods and how to (ab)use human psychology to the benefit of the sellers.

      I wouldn't say I'm immune (on some level virtually nobody is), but having been around it for a long time I'm fairly desensitized and it is truly amazing to sit back and watch/listen to all the advertising/marketing and realize just how well they press the buttons and work the puppet strings every day.

      Of course this is not confined to sales, look at the media in general. I'm sure they'll be all over this concept as well.

      Turning to neuroscience is not so much a new concept as it is a furtherance of a well-defined practice. It started with simple things such as buyer surveys or even just paying attention to buyer behavior. Then it got more formalized as it turned to psychology once it was realized that psychology could be ab(used) in that manner. Neuroscience is the next step.

      Lots of greats things are going to come from neuroscience over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, this is some of the crap that will cling to those advances.

    5. Re:More than a buy-button by yali · · Score: 1
      I don't think a brain analysis is an effective way to determine consumer behaviour... Our behaviour is most likely shaped by the environment and condition we're experiencing.

      Did you really mean to use the present tense? You don't believe that people learn anything ever?

      Regardless, all psychologically meaningful behavior involves the brain, whether it is behavior attributable to the present situation, to learning from past experiences, to genetic predispositions, or to interactions among those. Questions about the usefulness of specific techniques (like fMRI) have more to do with the limits of current technology than with underlying reality, because the underlying reality is that your brain is involved in everything that you think, feel, or do.

      For that very reason, merely showing that some part of the brain "lights up" during some behavior is thoroughly uninteresting. Fortunately, a lot of behavioral neuroscience research is more sophisticated than that (even if public accounts gravitate toward, "Ooh, look at the pretty pictures of brains!")

    6. Re:More than a buy-button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I don't think a brain analysis is an effective way to determine consumer behaviour.
      >Our behaviour is most likely shaped by the environment and condition we're experiencing.
      >Truth to be told, any sports car will trigger my buy-button, but can I afford to buy it?

      Clearly, you have a simple brain that's not worth studying then. I'll keep studying my rats that seem a bit more complex than you (i am a neuroscientist).

      If you cannot afford to buy then marketers tend not care (one further reason not to study you).
      The question is, if you have money and choice what will you buy? Porsche or Ferrari?

      Buying decisions such as these are not stimulus-response pairs but complex processes modulated by experiences etc. It's not about milage at this point. Hence, if marketers manage to create BRANDS that stay with you after the ad is gone, they've won.

      Neuroscience is just the latest tool to help
      marketers figure out how to make good brands.

    7. Re:More than a buy-button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did this modded up?

      Measuring your brain activity takes into account all those factors, by measuring your response as a whole.

      Therefore, they measure whether or not you think it's too expensive, forget the subjectivity of the actual price relative to your income; and, moreover, whether or not you think being expensive is good or bad. Pinning the particulars down might involved, but that's probably not important right now. A short term problem is to know about the final outcome - purchase or no purchase. After more research has been done to identify specific regions of the brain for specific products (attributes, product history, etc.), quite a bit of cross filtering could be done and it just gets better from there.

      Also, your affordability example is poorly conceived. Have you noticed that most people purchase things they can't afford? Such as cars, and houses -- another revenue generating stream solved that problem, it's called financing. This indicates that the environmental conditions that you want to cite are largely irrelevant. People want what they want for emotional reasons; I look good in these pants. I know, I'll charge them!

      Why don't you think a little bit before you prattle off some shit on /. about what great truth you can reveal to us about human behaviour? Keeping reading the comments, eventually you'll get to the stuff about Huxley...

    8. Re:More than a buy-button by benhocking · · Score: 1
      Despite decades of study and improved learning techniques, human nature hasn't changed all that much.

      Actually, over the decades, I think we have changed. When my grandparents were still alive, they would fall for things (e.g., mail scams, although luckily they had people around them who would explain that these were scams) that I know my parents were cynical enough not to fall for (and, yes, they had good educations). And I see my parents fall for (rather inocuous) internet scams (such as those letters you forward to all), where my first instinct is to go to Snopes and verify the veracity of such stories - knowing, of course, that just because it's not on Snopes doesn't make it true, either. I've done my best to educate my parents in this regard, and I think it's paid off some, but my point is this:

      Over the generations, as new advertising techniques are developed, the generations that grow up with them are more immune to them than the generations that did not. This probably also correlates with us being more cynical/less trusting.

      --
      Ben Hocking
      Need a professional organizer?
    9. Re:More than a buy-button by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > The question is, if you have money and choice what will you buy? Porsche or Ferrari?

      Or 50 Kias. 50 Kias will probably last a lot longer than a single sports car.

    10. Re:More than a buy-button by wattersa · · Score: 1

      I guess some day we will fall for scams our kids think are stupid. I think that's destiny for every parent ;-)

  7. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Push all the buttons you want, I can always unpush them. Ha!

  8. Sex Sells by igzat · · Score: 0

    If they need to do a whole study into neuroscience to figure out that Britney Spears face helps sell more cokes than some other, this sounds like a big waste of money to me. All I can say is Duh!

    1. Re:Sex Sells by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      She endorsed Pepsi, not Coke. And apparently it worked, because I remember that. Unfortunately for them, I don't really like either cola so their mindfuck was just a waste.

    2. Re:Sex Sells by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The term the grandparent poster used was "cokes" not "Coke". It seems that in some places, the term "coke" as applied to soft-drinks has become a synonym for "brand-name cola"... I can't tell you how often I've seen the term used that way in restaurants that didn't even serve cocacola at all.

    3. Re:Sex Sells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather hear someone ask for a coke than a 'pop'

      "Hey let's all get some pop!"

      annoying, very very annoying. Which is what the midwest seems to be good at, giving us such wonderful things as Bush as prez, Insane Clown Posse, and backyard wrestling. Woooo-weeeeee what a time!

      Can't wait until we can just turn the farms over to the robots and move the bumpkins so they're forced to experience and learn new things that culture provides.

    4. Re:Sex Sells by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

      If only I had some mod points to give you.

    5. Re:Sex Sells by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

      How I got to this thread:

      Step 1. Read subject of article and thought "Hmmm, let's see who on /. knows shit about advertising"
      Step 2. Ctrl-F, "sex"

      wait a second...of course! I've figured out Stage 2!

      1. Think of something to sell
      2. Make people think it will get them laid
      3. Profit!!!!!!!

      well that problems solved, now onto NP-complete...

  9. Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by grunt107 · · Score: 4, Funny

    To make guys buy: Gorgeous women implying the purchase of a product makes said guy more attractive.

    To make women buy: "Sale"

    1. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make the economy explode: offer sale prices to gorgeous women in exchange for implying the purchase of a product makes guys more attractive.

    2. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's funny how many people, men and women, will buy anything that is perceived to be a bargain, even if it is no bargain at all. That is why items that are stacked in a pyramid at the end of an aisle with a big price sign on them will sell better, even if there has been no reduction in price. Not too long ago I was buying contact lens saline and I noticed the bottles were available in a twin pack. Then I noticed individual bottles, which were priced at less than half of the twin pack price. Had I not looked, I would have thought the twin pack was a better deal and ended up paying a full dollar more. I'm sure people fall for this all the time, especially those who cannot do math in their heads.

    3. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wish the car ads on TV would cut out all the crap and just get to the point:

      <CheesyVoiceOver>Introducing the new Nissan 6000sux. This car WILL get you laid</CheesyVoiceOver>

    4. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Obligatory Monty Python quote)

      A neighborhood "lady" greets another one returning from a shopping trip pulling a large industrial item on a dolly.

      "Whatcha got there?"

      "A piston engine."

      "Whydja go and buy that for?"

      "It was a bargain!"

    5. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Thangodin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like the answer isn't already obvious: fear.

      Playing on fear hits on the second level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, safety. This has to be satisfied before love, self-esteem, or self-actualization. Targetting this hits us at the mammalian level, even below the monkey. Only raw physical drives come before this. This is why SUV's are selling so well. Car buyers have been convinced that SUV's are safer. In fact, they're not--their center of gravity is too high for their wheel base, and their size and weight makes them less maneuverable, making accidents more likely and more deadly when they happen. But the perception, fostered by advertising, has made them a runaway success.

      This also explains why politics has been so warped since 9/11. All those alerts are scaring the hell out of people who haven't applied a little statistical perspective and realized that even in 2001, your chances of being killed by a terrorist were less than being killed by lightning. By the same reasoning, we should all stop travelling in cars because your chance of dying in a car crash is several orders of magnitude greater. But rationality doesn't even get a chance at this level.

      It also explains why Democrats are more frightened by footing of 9/11 than Republicans. Republicans actually think Bush is doing a good job against terrorism, while Democrats are aware that the invasion in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and may make the problem worse by aggravating Islamic paranoia. In other words, Democrats see 9/11 as a threat which has not yet been dealt with properly.

      Understanding the role of fear in people's choices explains a lot of things: the War on Drugs (fear of gangs), McCarthyism (fear of Communism), Fundamentalism (fear of uncertainty), and knee-jerk patriotism (fear of foreigners.) Whenever you see people acting like lemurs, it's a pretty good indication that this is what's happening. And the best advertisement of this is the 6:00 news, where no news is good news, and the entire program is spent on statistical anomalies.

      Advertising just rides on the coattails of bad journalism.

    6. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how many people, men and women, will buy anything that is perceived to be a bargain, even if it is no bargain at all.

      Yes, that is the entire basis for eBay. If I had a dollar for every time I have seen a bid on an item much higher than RRP, and much higher than the "Buy It Now" price from the same seller, I would be a millionaire.

      I was recently buying an SD card, and saw one with a current bid of $90, then two items below it, the same product from the same seller with "Buy it now $75".

    7. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Saeger · · Score: 1
      To make guys buy: Gorgeous women implying the purchase of a product makes said guy more attractive.

      Really, only dumb Homer Simpson-type guys are influenced by that kind of thing. Everybody else with an ounce of healthy cynicism and an extra IQ point or two recognizes that content-free crap as an obvious attempt at mental engineering.

      To make smart guys buy: Show unbiased feature comparisons, reviews, and price comparisons, so we know the meat of what we're getting and how much of a profit margin we're being raped for.

      To make smart guys buy (#2): Make sure there are fewer smart guys being added to the population by Leaving Every Child Behind (except the rich ones).

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    8. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, I noticed the same thing with someone's bottled reverse osmosis filtered water. The large container 2 and 1/2 gallons iirc was more expensive per gallon than the individual one gallon containers which I thought was weird.

    9. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "even in 2001, your chances of being killed by a terrorist were less than being killed by lightning"

      Sorry, I just hate it when people pull statistics out of their butt.

      "During the past 30 years, lightning killed an average of 67 people per year in the United States based on documented cases."

      http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/overview.htm

      I think more than 67 people died in 9/11.

    10. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I just hate it when people lie using statistics.

      How many people in the USA died from lighting strikes in 2003?
      How many from terrorist attacks?

      To be (more) fair, you have to use the average over some period of time.
      I am nearly 50 years old.
      Based on the quote you gave, approximately 67*50=3350 people have died from lightning strikes in my lifetime.
      I don't recall the exact number of people that died on 2001-09-11, but I think that it was less than 3000.
      Add to that the number of people in the USA that have died from other terrorist attacks in the past 50 years (such as the first WTC bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, etc.), and it looks like it's a wash.

    11. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Everybody else with an ounce of healthy cynicism and an extra IQ point or two

      Keep in mind that half the population is below-average...

    12. Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons' by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      Hey, don't single people out like that. It's not just the conservatives/GOP/fundies. There's fear of losing your job (when the jobless rate is dropping), fear of economic depression (when the industrial index is at a 20yr high), fear of Greedy Big Corporations, and fear of governmental conspiracy (well...just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you). Those are all traditional gold mines for the Democratic party.

      Libertarians, Greens, etc all have their own pet fears/gold mines. I'm not saying the GOP doesn't do it, to deny it would be just stupid. But to just point the finger at one party and say "THEY ARE FEAR MONGERS!!!!" is simply playing on fear, as well.

      And bad journalism is advertising. They are selling your eyeballs.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

  10. Marketing strategies by AdvancedLoser · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope this research will do away with the plethora of commercials aimed at the idiots among us who will buy anything based on what they are told about the product.

  11. This can only mean one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Further research into this area is a good thing for the consumer, as it can only lead to one thing.
    More babes selling beer.

  12. Subliminal messaging? by NetNifty · · Score: 1

    Wasnt subliminal messaging tested in the 1950s by the CIA, for something like this? I seem to remember an experiment where they used subliminal messaging and increased the purchase of popcorn in a cinema by around 50%.

    1. Re:Subliminal messaging? by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      Yeah, supposedly they found a particular sequence of flashing lights of particular colors that could be used to fashion signs for popcorn and refreshments that made people more inclined to purchase said products.

    2. Re:Subliminal messaging? by Da+Fokka · · Score: 5, Informative
      That's an urban legend. See Snopes.

      Quote:
      You see, Vicary lied about the results of his experiment. When he was challenged to repeat the test by the president of the Psychological Corporation, Dr. Henry Link, Vicary's duplication of his original experiment produced no significant increase in popcorn or Coca-Cola sales. Eventually Vicary confessed that he had falsified the data from his first experiments, and some critics have since expressed doubts that he actually conducted his infamous Ft. Lee experiment at all.

    3. Re:Subliminal messaging? by dark_requiem · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lois: What pointless commercials. They certainly don't make me want a Mintos! Brian: Totally ineffective! Peter: Must... Kill... Lincoln...

    4. Re:Subliminal messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to my Learning and Behavior professor (who has written many books on behaviorism) subliminal messaging to control behavior has since been shown to not work at all.

    5. Re:Subliminal messaging? by Carnildo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Recent experiments have shown that subliminal messaging works, but the effect wears off after a second or so.

      One experiment consisted of a subject sitting in front of a computer screen. The screen would blink briefly (about 1/100 of a second) and then show a list of words. The subject would then pick a word randomly. It turns out that if one of the words was displayed during the blink, the subject would almost always pick that one, but if no word was shown, if a word not in the list was shown, or if the delay between the blink and the list showing up is more than a second, word selection is random.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  13. Resistance is futile... by XCorvis · · Score: 0

    Is anyone doing research into resisting this kind of stuff? Anti-brainwashing techniques? Peril-sensitive glasses?

    1. Re:Resistance is futile... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Is anyone doing research into resisting this kind of stuff? Anti-brainwashing techniques? Peril-sensitive glasses?

      I find poverty works quite well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  14. interesting, but doesn't seem groundbreaking... by discontinuity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems that in many cases these studies are confirming long-held beliefs rather than breaking new ground. E.g.,:

    The study showed that some people did not choose a drink based on taste alone, Dr. Montague said. They chose a drink plus what it conjured up to their medial prefrontal cortex, namely the strong brand identity of Coca-Cola, he said.

    I was pretty confident in that conclusion without the fMRI.

    1. Re:interesting, but doesn't seem groundbreaking... by payndz · · Score: 3, Interesting
      They chose a drink plus what it conjured up to their medial prefrontal cortex, namely the strong brand identity of Coca-Cola, he said.

      Heh.

      I used to drink Coke, until I thought, 'Hang on, what's this doing to my teeth?'

      So I switched to Diet Coke. Until I thought, 'Hang on, if I want to drink a fizzy brown liquid that tastes like battery acid, I can buy own-brand cola from the supermarket for a quarter of the price.'

      So I switched to that. Until I thought, 'Hang on! Why am I drinking stuff that tastes like battery acid at all?'

      Wow, was the cola industry pissed!

      (I also stopped eating at fast food joints about six months ago. Man, if another billion or so people do the same, those evil megacorps are *really* in trouble, huh?)

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    2. Re:interesting, but doesn't seem groundbreaking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhh.... tiptoe, remember? Don't wake the sheeple.

    3. Re:interesting, but doesn't seem groundbreaking... by thogard · · Score: 1

      Don't the blind taste tests show some interesting results as well? The coke / pepsi / rc taste tests tends to show very odd results such as most brand drinkers can't tell. Those that can tell fit in a different group where it seems like coke drinkers tend to prefer coke, then pepsi then Rc while Pepsi and RC drinkers tend to prefer rc, pepsi then coke. I expect that is a result of the perceived sweetness. Depending on the region where you do this test, you may find that the local water has a major influence in the results as well. Coke seems to be the least sensitive to be local water where Dr Pepper is the most. Once again, you don't need and MRI to tell you this.

    4. Re:interesting, but doesn't seem groundbreaking... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Coke and Diet Coke do about the same to the teeth. Coke has sugar, so it is worse, but both are strong acids (they taste like battery acid because they taste like an other acid...).

      I hate anything with carbonated water, so it is easy for me sitting on the sidelines to laugh at those who love the junk. I do eat fast food, but I'm careful about what I allow subway to put on my lunch. Ends up being healthier than most of the lunches I could get.

  15. Next step by neves · · Score: 1

    Create a pill to make you buy more. Or even better: something to spray inside shopping centers.

    1. Re:Next step by plover · · Score: 1
      It's been done.

      Disney has had odor emitters strategically placed along Main Street in DisneyWorld for over a decade now. They keep a faint scent of chocolate in the air to attract you down Main Street, and even if you don't stop at the chocolate shop, you at least aren't repulsed by the overwhelming scent of two-year-old children in need of diapers.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Next step by hornrimsylvia · · Score: 1

      1. cigarettes 2. chocolate 3. crack!

    3. Re:Next step by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > 1. cigarettes 2. chocolate 3. crack!

      4. ??? 5. Voter registrations!

    4. Re:Next step by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The tobacco companies have been doing it for decades as well. They use the term "lift" and "rise" to describe how smoke rises. They want the smoke to rise very slowly so it has a better chance to remind another addict that they need to light up so they cut their drug with some nasty chemicals to keep the smoke from going up too fast as well as preserve some of the smell/stench for as long as they can.

    5. Re:Next step by 6.023e23 · · Score: 1
      Anyone who has walked anywhere near a Victoria's Secret fragrance store or a Yankee Candle Shop in the mall has already experienced this big time. It actually can make me sick if the smells are too strong or are certain fragrances.

      Scent is a VERY strong evocator of human emotion and behavior, in fact arguably stronger than sight and sound combined (think I'm wrong? Try comparing the arousal of a picture of a beautiful woman with the sound of a beautiful woman with the scent of a beautiful woman - or substitute something else like a steak, flowers, the beach, etc). It was a sad day when marketers realized the selling power of this.

    6. Re:Next step by misleb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unmotivated? Materialistic consumerism got you down? Try Paxil today!

      Disclamer: May cause abdominal discomfort, decreased sexual functioning. May steal your girlfriend and key your car. Paxil is not right for everyone. Ask your dealer^H^H^H^H^Hdoctor if Paxil is right for you.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    7. Re:Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "dealer^H^H^H^H^Hdoctor"

      could you please explain what this means... is it sort of like *cough*----- *cough* ?

    8. Re:Next step by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > > "dealer^H^H^H^H^Hdoctor"
      > could you please explain what this means

      ^H means backspace, so it's sorta' like *cough*-ing.

  16. Please, just take it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Marketers:

    Here, just take my damn money! Now leave me alone!

  17. Bah. It's an old idea, and it's pretty much... by Sein · · Score: 3, Interesting

    True.

    For a given value of true.

    "People buy from emotion and justify with logic" has been around since the turn of the last century among a certain segment of the marketing people.

    The new bit I suppose is to try to pinpoint the triggers more exactly, to reduce those unpleasant random variables like human free will and choice and stuff. It's so much easier if "They" can just model you on a mainframe, debit your account, and ship you whatever it is you're supposed to buy from them next, I suppose. Not that this is what they think they're aiming for, but I doubt the net effect will be any different.

  18. Soon, the GREAT CLEANSING will occur! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Imagine a stealthy hand reaching into your pocket. For the rest of eternity."

  19. This kind of thing... by marktaw.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This kind of thing has been around for a long time. The basis is a Behaviorist view of the world that says that given a certain stimulus, most of us (enough of us) will respond in a certain way. Marketing from that viewpoint becomes about pushing the right buttons, and finding better and better ways of pushing those buttons.

    Your opinion on how good or evil this kind of thing is may come from how much you agree with that viewpoint. Can marketers refine their science to such a point where you have almost no choice but to buy what they tell you?

    Depending on which side of the coin you fall on, this is all either smoke & mirrors, or cutting-edge research that will eventually rule the world.

    1. Re:This kind of thing... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Assuming the Behaviorist view is accurate, it raises an interesting question: What stimuli have driven marketers into their "chosen" profession?

      Another interesting question: Assuming that our present social institutions are the result of naturally-occuring stimuli, what are we complaining about? I mean, obviously our complaints are in response to stimuli, rather than the result of freely-operating reason, but doesn't that mean our complaints have no real value as ideas? And doesn't it mean that our current social institutions--including marketing, terrorism, trade monopolies, et al--aren't "bad"? After all, they'd just be natural responses to natural stimuli, right? It's just what we do, under the circumstances. How could we do any different?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  20. This is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't read the article, but one would think that advertisements maximizing activation in brain areas associated with reward, like certain aspects of prefrontal cortex would be most effective.

  21. Not Gonna Happen by Pugio · · Score: 2, Funny
    Even if this is possible, and doable in the near future, there will definitely be laws put out to regulate this sort of thing. The same thing is true for those subliminal advertising gimmicks where they pop up a picture of something for a split second and let your subconscious register it. There are laws governing that and there will be laws governing this too.

    That being said: You are getting sleeeeeepppy. Loooook at the preeety ligghts on my siiiitteeee. You waaaannntt to buyyyy myyy wireless frooog.You waaaanntt to buyyy the froooogg!!

    1. Re:Not Gonna Happen by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      Great, that sounds like just the thing we need: more legislation protecting us from ourselves. The only way they could legislate something like this is through a direct denial of free will. The only way one could be compelled to buy something in this manner (i.e. they have no choice) is if one was incapable of making independent decisions. Legislating the end of free will: the ultimate goal of AmSoc (that's American Socialism; for the uninitiated, you no longer live in a capitalist constitutional republic, but a socialist democracy).

    2. Re:Not Gonna Happen by Hamster+Of+Death · · Score: 1

      Can I get free shipping on that frog?

    3. Re:Not Gonna Happen by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
      > Even if this is possible, and doable in the near future, there will definitely be laws put out to regulate this sort of thing. The same thing is true for those subliminal advertising gimmicks where they pop up a picture of something for a split second and let your subconscious register it. There are laws governing that and there will be laws governing this too.
      >
      > That being said: You are getting sleeeeeepppy. Loooook at the preeety ligghts on my siiiitteeee. You waaaannntt to buyyyy myyy wireless frooog.You waaaanntt to buyyy the froooogg!!

      So we before adjusting the phase coil emitters on our tinfoil hat and running away into the swamp, we can wait until we see the legislation that prohibits using the technology for commercial purposes, but claims that the First Amendment right to free expression requires that political parties be permitted to use it.

      Hell, I didn't even know I owned a swamp.

      ...want some frogs?

    4. Re:Not Gonna Happen by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      Great, that sounds like just the thing we need: more legislation protecting us from ourselves. The only way they could legislate something like this is through a direct denial of free will.

      If you don't know what's happening, then how can you be expected to protect yourself?

      I suppose you think that the laws which stop people from forcibly addicting people to crack or methamphetamines (by strapping them down & repeatedly exposing them until they were addicted) are an infringement on the liberty of drug dealers to open new business markets.

    5. Re:Not Gonna Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you will have a choice, either buy their product or die from a lethal chemical imbalance in the brain. Last time I checked, there were laws against pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "buy this product or die", even though you would still have the choice to buy it or not.

    6. Re:Not Gonna Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well actually, materialism (I'm assuming you're a materialist) and free will are incompatible. People's actions are determined by their physical makeup over which they clearly have no control (otherwise they'd have to be the cause of themselves which is impossible). Therefore people don't have free will (in the sense that justifies holding them morally responsible for their actions).

    7. Re:Not Gonna Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that "subliminal advertising" doesn't work worth a crap, right? It sure sounds very nice, but most research done on the subject declares it bunk.

      "the current consensus among marketing professionals is that subliminal advertising is ineffective and can be counter-productive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message

      I, for one, try to upset the tinfoil hat types as little as possible. They've got enough to worry about.

    8. Re:Not Gonna Happen by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      Don't be an ass, no one forces you to watch TV, this is not "A Clockwork Orange". Straping someone down and doping them up (and I've never heard of this happening. If you can find one verifiable incident of this, I'd be surprised) has a couple of legal names: assault and kidnapping.

  22. Here's a workaround by darth_MALL · · Score: 2, Informative

    Memorize THIS. Think of nothing else! WOOOEEEEEEOOOOOOOO.

  23. Let's not overreact... by katsiris · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is hardly a new thing. Marketing firms have been using psychology as a tool for developing more effective ads since the stone age. Neuroscience is just an extension of what they know about what people respond to, I don't think it's any reason to be concerned.

    In the end, you either have control over your urges, wants, and needs, or you don't. You either are in control of yourself or you're not. If you're not, then you've probably accrued all sorts of gadgets, toys, and things you don't really need. And doubtless you have/had sex with anyone that got you remotely excited. Actually, that doesn't sound so bad...

    Really, though, we are either in control of our faculties or we are not. If we're not, then we're just animals with no will. If we are, then this is no more concerning then someone plucking your heart strings to sell insurance. I highly doubt there is some subversive way they can force us to buy against our will using some sort of deep-seated neurological button. A shopping spree isn't exactly a survival mechanism.

    1. Re:Let's not overreact... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Really, though, we are either in control of our faculties or we are not. If we're not, then we're just animals with no will. If we are, then this is no more concerning then someone plucking your heart strings to sell insurance. I highly doubt there is some subversive way they can force us to buy against our will using some sort of deep-seated neurological button. A shopping spree isn't exactly a survival mechanism.

      But what is the "we" that is "in control?" I suspect that much of the time, when we think that we are in control, we are like the little kid you see at the arcade, having a great time playing a video game--except that he never put in a quarter, and he is only "playing" the attract mode. In other words, I think that our conscious mind mainly explains our decisions to itself, and probably makes very few of them.

      It's not a matter of having control or not having control. Perhaps you actually make most of your decisions based on rational cost-benefit analysis, but at some point, you still have to factor in what you want--and that is an emotional matter. And if you are like most people, you probably have desires that are to some extent contradictory. So while an ad may not be able to force you to do something irrational, it may be able to present a purchase to you in the most favorable possible light, reminding you of the motivations that you have that would support that purchase.

    2. Re:Let's not overreact... by katsiris · · Score: 1
      An interesting supposition, but that doesn't really account for counter-culture which I'd say is perhaps part rebellion against the very thing you talk about and perhaps part people developing their own tastes.

      You are correct though that there is a certain emotional/base urge behind all this, but I doubt highly that these urges could ever rival our more primal ones which we resist or at least veil all the time. I did use the example of sex earlier, but there are certainly others. Not eating when there's food in front of us and we're starving happens often enough too. At least to me.

      That said, I have no doubt that as marketing becomes more 'sophisticated', more and more people will find themselves sucked in - not necessarily against their will, but because they have been conditioned to like this and dislike that. Some people are sheep and take things at face value. They will be the ones affected, but that has little to do with marketing and everything to do with them.

    3. Re:Let's not overreact... by sv0f · · Score: 1

      When John Watson, the father of American behaviorism, was kicked out of the academy for marrying his graduate student, he went to Madison Avenue and made a fortune as an advertising executive.

      This was in the first half of the 20th century.

  24. Are commercials effective? by k98sven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really, before trying to make their commercials more effective, perhaps they should find out if their commercials are effective.

    I'm not saying marketing doesn't work.. Obviously people need to know about you and your product if you're going to sell anything.

    But, from what I understand.. there's a lot of theories at the bottom of today's marketing that don't make sense to me.

    For instance, marketing generally tries to target young people. Not because they are consumers, but on the theory that consumption patterns like brand loyalty are set at a young age, and kept through life.

    Now.. how can they possibly know that? If they're studying middle-aged people now, then they're learning that the advertising of the 70's was effective. Then. And quite a lot has changed in both advertising and how people relate to it since then.

    So really.. it seems to me to be a good question whether neuroscience will help much, because the critical attitude of science seems to go straight out the window once something becomes a 'marketing theory'.

    1. Re:Are commercials effective? by Sein · · Score: 1

      This is why Direct Response marketers despise advertising agencies and the academic theorists.

      Unfortunately, Direct Response marketing varies from the ethical(Google adwords), to the slightly obtrusive(CasaleMedia banners), via the cheesy (popups), the really cheesy(multiple popups), and the downright illegal (Drive-by download, spam) - and their dirtworld equivalent.

      But broadly, advertising is either "Brand" advertising, or it's "Act now" advertising. Brand advertising works in a saturated market with lots of competitionb - you are fighting for midshare in a zero-sum economy. Direct-response works best in underdeveloped or niche markets and it tends to go straight for the sale

      From this, the Direct Response marketers measure reliable percentages of buyers per 1000 exposures; and then they incrementally change the ad subtly and test that as compulsively as anyone's ever debugged a perl script. It's the style that's most appropriate to small budgets without millions to blow on advertising - unfortunately, the only examples you see on TV are mind-bogglingly lame infomercials on at night...

    2. Re:Are commercials effective? by ghqman · · Score: 1

      Older people will generally buy products targetted at younger people, but not vice-versa. Ever notice that even on the ads for products targetted at seniors they typically use the youngest possible senior?

    3. Re:Are commercials effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true at all. Think pre-teens.

    4. Re:Are commercials effective? by thogard · · Score: 1

      Commercials are effective. They aren't effective at getting the consumer to part with their cash for the product shown but they are very effective at getting the company to part with its cash for the ads. An advertising agency doesn't need to sell the end product, they only need to sell the ad.

      The internet came around and for once in the recent history of ads, there was immediate feedback and that showed the ads didn't work as well as anyone in the ad agencies claimed.

      The only fact that science shows about ads is that we are all over saturated with ads and ignore them most of the time. The only way to change that is reduce the ads we see but too many competing ad sources won't ever let that happen so their product has less real value every year.

    5. Re:Are commercials effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If they're studying middle-aged people now, then they're learning that the advertising of the 70's was effective

      Yep, that's why I'm smoking Kools and washing my hair with Gee, Your Hair Smell Terrific and still asking people "Are you the Green Phantom?"

  25. How do we filter out ads by alaivfc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It surprises me that, what I would consider to be a more pertinent study, has not been done: how do people filter out advertisements? Everyone is focused on what sticks; however, it may be equally as valuable, if not more so, to determine what does not stick - what we don't even notice. Perhaps this has to do with the get quick attitude of our society. Finding what sticks goes towards the goal of making another "1984" commercial that catches everyone's imagination. However, finding what does not stick allows you to build a much more lasting brand. To do this kind of brand building you don't need to make an immediate impression, you just need to slowly infiltrate people's conciousness. I wonder why large corporations and these researchers don't look at this more often

    1. Re:How do we filter out ads by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      It surprises me that, what I would consider to be a more pertinent study, has not been done: how do people filter out advertisements?
      Personally, I use Firefox and some tricky CSS. Shhhh!
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  26. science lends itself to marketing mind-control by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    that was the title for the story I submitted to /.
    call me a grouser but check out some of the other links too http://science.slashdot.org/~museumpeace/journal/

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  27. Enough is enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The more those bastards try to make me want to buy stuff, the less stuff I want to buy. When I do buy, I buy the stuff that doesn't flood my life with annoying ads.

  28. this has been going on for some time by ashot · · Score: 1

    I am taking a graduate class in cognitive science and half of the students are business or marketing majors. One of our guest lecturers, who studies child development also teaches a class in the business school.

    --
    -ashot
  29. My "buy" button is simple... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    1. Is the product interesting to me personally?
    2. If I buy this, will I still be able to eat and pay rent next month?
    If the answer to both questions is yes, my "buy" button has officially been pressed, and unless someone (such as my wife, who incidentally is much better at saving money than I am) talks me out of it, I'll be buying it within the next few days.
    1. Re:My "buy" button is simple... by DrMyke · · Score: 0

      3. Will the product not break 1 day after the warrenty expires.

      Nothing worse than to pay good $$ for something that jsut breaks, usually im too lazy to take it back or return it.

      --

      -DrMyke
      "mmmmmmmmm, doughnuts" - H.J.Simpson; super genius
    2. Re:My "buy" button is simple... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1

      If I buy this, will I still be able to eat and pay rent next month?

      I can think of far better things to do with your money then eat your rent...

    3. Re:My "buy" button is simple... by misleb · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Criteria 1 is more complicated than you make it sound. Marketing isn't just about catering to people's personal interests, it is about creating them. I think you would be surprised how many of what you call personal interestes are actually created by marketing starting at a very young age. Can you really know what interests are your own original desires and which have been implanted there by years of exposure to marketing?

      Also, what if there are 5 brands that all match your criteria?

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    4. Re:My "buy" button is simple... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I can think of far better things to do with your money then eat your rent...

      I'll bet his landlord wishes he wouldn't do that!

      I just can't keep up with slang these days, I've heard it called 'moving the mail', but never 'paying the rent'

  30. Re:Bah. It's an old idea, and it's pretty much... by MrsPReDiToR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Careful, soon you'll begin to believe in the Matrix!
    On a serious note you can easily see when you make points like this where stories like The Matrix get their ideas from. Every government in every country be they dictator of elected officials would find it so much easier to manage their country if they could do away with freedom of choice and run everything to a prescribed formula. Hence the occurences of so many dictators, and 'tin foil hat' paranoia's. We are controlled by one force or another on a daily basis we just don't notice most of the time because we are too busy getting on with what we belive is our life. How much of it is influenced do we really ever know? Maybe just maybe dictators aren't clever or powerful they're just lazy. Its far easier to control a nation if you take away their choices.

    --
    It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
  31. thank god for aspergers syndrome by avandesande · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    none of this stuff works on me

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  32. Huxleyan! by plover · · Score: 3, Funny
    I'm glad you're an Alpha, and can think of these smart things.

    I'm a beta, so I'm happy leaving these smart thoughts to you.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Huxleyan! by dark_requiem · · Score: 2, Funny

      And don't you forget it you damn dirty Beta! Why don't you go do some manual labor?! And all your complaining leads me to suspect you haven't been taking your soma!

    2. Re:Huxleyan! by Hentai · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's deltas, vagina-boy. Betas are clerical.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    3. Re:Huxleyan! by dark_requiem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, gimme a break, I read BNW five years ago! Uh-oh, looks like my conditioning is starting to fail! Guess I'm up for another round of indoctrination!

    4. Re:Huxleyan! by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      Calm down, I know it's frightening here for you deltas. Would you like an extra dose of Soma?

    5. Re:Huxleyan! by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      now now, that was uncalled for.

    6. Re:Huxleyan! by Hentai · · Score: 1

      You're right. I should have said "birth-boy"; it would have been less ambiguous. I decided to lean towards an insult that would have the same emotive impact (albiet for different reasons) in our culture AND theirs, which only managed to confuse the distinctions I was trying to make.

      My bad.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
  33. It sounds sneaky... by NaugaHunter · · Score: 1

    But it's still better than Blipverts.

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
  34. If these companies by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    Put a metric shitload of money in my bank account they would find my buy button pretty quickly.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:If these companies by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      metric shitload... what's that in libraries of congress?

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    2. Re:If these companies by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      metric shitload... what's that in libraries of congress?

      42

    3. Re:If these companies by G-funk · · Score: 1

      I dunno about LOC, but it's about 2.8 Old English Fucktons.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  35. Subtleties by Dreamwalkerofyore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its not like companies haven't done reaserch on this before. There are many many subtle tactics used in commercials nowadays. The most obvious one is how everything is priced at 19.95 instead of 20$, because we subconsiously think that we are getting a bargain out of it. There is a whole department in most corperations devoted to this kind of stuff (Public Relations). This just makes it easier for companies to pick up more of those little subtleties, so instead of having to have a focus group you just have a CAT scan.

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    1. Re:Subtleties by cynical+kane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, things are priced at 1 cent or 5 cents less than a dollar so that the cashier would have to use the register most times a sale is made, which would help prevent cashiers from stealing from the store.

    2. Re:Subtleties by Viceman001 · · Score: 1

      I've never thought about why stuff was always $**.95 before, but that's spot on. It doesn't seem to work on me, I always just say it costs '20 bucks' if it's 19.95. But, I've talked to family and friends about products before, and I say it's $20 when looking at an ad, they look at it and say, no, it's 19.95.

      --
      "It's not the despair, I can take the despair, it's the hope that's killing me!"
    3. Re:Subtleties by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      To me, all those 9's and 5's make something look expensive. If I see a zero, it seems more affordable. To me, 99 cents "feels more" than 1 dollar (since 99 is more than 1). Of course, retailers that actually use whole numbers ($20 instead of $19.95) also seem more honest.

    4. Re:Subtleties by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That seems to be true for many people who were trained in the "new math" (that started in the 60's and was widespread in the '80s) and happen to not suck at numbers. My problem is for some reason I think that 18 is close to 19 but the 19 to 20 change is larger. Maybe its all those silly hexadecimal numbers I deal with. $19 plus 1 is $1A?

      Another odd thing is how people cope with number and compound number. For example we all think of "six" as one number but our concept of 6 is different than 35 which we have been taught is 30+5. There are some interesting psychological effects of that compared to numbers such as a score or a dozen. Most languages have one word for numbers up to 12 and a few numbers above that (20, 40, 50, 100 are common) and will use compound concects on larger number such as 4 x score + 7 or MXIII. In many older languages you will have the word for 40 meaning the same as "a lot". The old english money system is an another example of stirling and pence prices. You wouldn't seen a price in the US as 3 quarters and 4 pennys but that exact sort of thing was common all over the world less than 50 years ago. It seems that precise number usage in the general population seems to be quite recent.

    5. Re:Subtleties by Hobbex · · Score: 1


      This would be a very good theory except that in the US sales tax is added to the advertised price, so buying something costing $1.95 you pay the cashier $2.06 or something anyways (this is also the reason why you pockets inevitably fill up with change in America, when they do not in Europe).

  36. Not more advertising, LESS advertising by Lispy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if I am the only one who feels he has been watching less ads in the last few years than ever before in my life. I now own a HD-based videorecorder that allows me to skip ads. What's more I feel my TV-consumption is at an alltime low due to crappy programming and the PC as a competitor. Although I find myself in need of a Robo-Cola from time to time. ;-)

    Online I use Firefox with Adblock so I hardly read any ads on the web, ever.
    I switched to Linux three years ago and my daily dose of desktop advertising (ICQ, Splashscreens, branded bootscreens) went down to zero.

    While I am on the outside (beware) I am mostly reading books or listening to commercial-break-free MP3 music (during subway rides or on the bus) and when I am out at night I try to avoid "the hip joint (TM)" where all those guerilla-marketing groups show up. I prefer small, subculture clubs with decent pricing and good music (including hot AND smart girls).

    So, I guess I am much less under the commercial thumb then I was back in 1995...

    1. Re:Not more advertising, LESS advertising by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Agreed, only I don't have a TV set in my appartment, so it's even easier.

    2. Re:Not more advertising, LESS advertising by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Ok... so what?

      What is the point of this post? What does it have to do with neuroscience? Are you suggesting that Coke could sell more cans of soda by advertising less?

      Are you just bragging?

      I don't get it.

    3. Re:Not more advertising, LESS advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you just bragging?

      Yes, it would appear that he is bragging.

    4. Re:Not more advertising, LESS advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is saying that "You too can avoid advertising, just by switching to Firefox(TM) and a MythTV(TM), while listening to an iPod(TM) and going out to the local Goth Club(TM)".

    5. Re:Not more advertising, LESS advertising by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Online I use Firefox with Adblock

      you just convinced me to follow your example.
      Actually, all the damn flashing ads I saw today did more to convince me than you, but you reminded me that what I want is called "adblock". So, thanks, and my eyeballs thank you too. : )

      Damn flashing ads... its the <blink> tag horror all over again!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  37. An interesting wrinkle by maximino · · Score: 1

    Marketers might not want to embrace this too much; it might actually reveal that some of their favorite (read: profitable) techniques don't actually work. Remember how it turned out that no one clicked on banner ads? Like that.

    1. Re:An interesting wrinkle by Sein · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's why the CPM of banner ads dropped from $400 to $4 - because the people footing the bill got results, but not results worth spending that kinda money.

      Notice how there's no end in sight for how expensive Pay-per-click keywords can become? That's because advertisers are bidding more on areas where they actually make money, and leaving the other crap behind. Now, if we could just do something about the damn click fraud...

  38. Buy Button? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course there's a buy button: naked women.

    1. Re:Buy Button? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should have "Buy buttons" ON naked women.

    2. Re:Buy Button? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      That would be the belly button!

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  39. Mind tricks by alw53 · · Score: 1

    Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me, boy.

  40. What a waste of money. by baadfood · · Score: 1

    Like they need a MRI scanner to tell them that Ill buy anything endorsed with gratutious breast images. *sheesh*

    1. Re:What a waste of money. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. I am just waiting for future commercials to reveal it ALL.

      Unfortunately you might end up seeing more parts than you want. Sears hardware, Pizza Hut, Oscar meyer weeners...

    2. Re:What a waste of money. by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      So have you noticed there's this popular product, a cupcake called a Hostess snowball? This best selling line is made in domed shapes, has a white, creamy filling, is covered with pink icing and dusted with coconut (to make the association with milk, maybe?), and they sell them in twin packs in a mostly transparent wrapper.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  41. Much better Futurama by Jerf · · Score: 4, Funny
    Sorry, but this one is much more on topic. (Think about how one would create such a ball if you don't quite get why.)
    Fry: I just saw something incredibly cool. A big floating ball that lit up with every colour of the rainbow, plus some new ones that were so beautiful I fell to my knees and cried.

    Amy: Was it out in front of Discount Shoe Outlet?

    Fry: Yeah.

    Amy: They have a college kid wear that to attract customers.

    Fry: Well I don't care if it was some dork in a costume. For one brief moment I felt the heartbeat of creation. And it was one with my own.

    Amy: Big deal.

    Bender: We all feel like that all the time. You don't hear us gassin' on about it.
    3ACV15, "I Dated A Robot"
  42. any 'puter by Skeptical1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    can be hacked. The human mind is probably more full of holes than Windoze.

    1. Re:any 'puter by tool462 · · Score: 1
      The human mind is probably more full of holes than Windoze.

      7, by my count.

  43. nothing more than the brain by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    And what are "we," anyway? What's doing the experiencing? Is it the soul? Or could it be.. wait, wait, don't tell me! could it be....... the brain?

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  44. Fiddling at the Margins by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

    At a basic level, marketing is about conveying information to the consumer, and consumers make decisions in their self-interest. The economic history of the world pretty much confirms the truth of this.

    A well-designed marketing campaign may increase Coke's market share over Pepsi, and may even expand the overall market for soft drinks, but fundamentally, consumers drink soft drinks because they enjoy them, and any market expansion is likely the result of increased awareness that such enjoyable consumables exist. To the extent that Coke actually differs from Pepsi (I'm not saying it does), competitive marketing is useful in highlighting the difference, to the benefit of the consumer.

    Speaking as a consumer, I resent the implication that I'm some sort of automaton influenced by "neuro-advertising", and that I need government protection from the big, bad, marketers. I can handle my own consumption decisions, thankyouverymuch.

    --
    Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    1. Re:Fiddling at the Margins by misleb · · Score: 1
      At a basic level, marketing is about conveying information to the consumer, and consumers make decisions in their self-interest. The economic history of the world pretty much confirms the truth of this.

      No, that is advertising, not marketing. Marketing doesn't really convey anything to the consumer. Marketing is a long(ish) term strategy for advertising.

      Speaking as a consumer, I resent the implication that I'm some sort of automaton influenced by "neuro-advertising",

      Resent it all you want, but that doesn't make it untrue. The fact is that, to some degree, your choices, desires, and interests can be manipulated by third parties. If this weren't the case, advertising would be nothing more than a list of bullet points describing the benefits of a given product.

      I need government protection from the big, bad, marketers.

      They may or may not be bad, but they are definitly big. It is a huge industry and you should never underestimate its influence on your life. They certainly don't.

      I can handle my own consumption decisions, thankyouverymuch.

      Indeed. Marketers are counting on it.

      -mattnew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  45. My buy button is pretty simple by KjetilK · · Score: 1
    just give me all the information about the product. I tend to buy the stuff that I have the most information about. The most efficient marketeer to me is one who can give the most information in the shortest time.

    What I want is a database with what can be given in terms of objective information, third party reviews , etc. Then it is much easier for me to buy the product that is most suitable to me. When I can do that capitalism would work well.

    If they have to try subliminal messages on me to lure me into buying, it has to be because the product doesn't have any merits on its own, and I'm really not interested. Besides, the economy is finite, I can't see any good reasons for this...

    --
    Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  46. Time for Some Piognant Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maynard, of Tool & A Perfect Circle wanted me to show you guys this:

    Imagine - Real Stream

    Treat others as you want to be treated.

  47. why does my link to Times art. work by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    when the link in the /. article puts a "please register" page in my face?
    I offered this story to /. and put more links in it becuase I found some relevant background that amplifies the story. For instance, have you heard of using neural net programming to uncover buying patterns from analysis of "shopping cart" contents? you can bet Amazon has.

    but what has vulcan eugenics got to do with ANYTHING?

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  48. Won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trouble with neuroscientists is that they forget that the systems that they are studying are *alive*.

    If they identify a "buy" part of the brain, our brains will just reconfigure around the new ads. Living things do that you know.

  49. Buy Button by SagaLore · · Score: 1

    I think my wife has a Buy Button. If something has "sale" on it or comes with a coupon, her button gets pressed.

    1. Re:Buy Button by vettemph · · Score: 1
      my wife has a Buy Button


      ^ Slashdots token married guy.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  50. What a waste of money. by Thatto · · Score: 1

    Not that I think that the research is not valuable, but c'mon. Spend the cash looking for the fountain of youth.
    IMHO, there is no given set of stimuli that will cause a person's logic and reason to fail and become a spending machine... that takes years of brainwashing, consumer competition, and a free-market economy. :-P

  51. The Buy button... by vettemph · · Score: 0, Redundant


    Of course there is a buy button. It looks like a pair of boobs.

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  52. Fishing lures are not designed to catch fish. by karlandtanya · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They're designed to catch fishermen.


    Of course, you see right through this. You're far too intelligent to be fooled by these techniques. But, if you choose to, you can use them to manipulate your own mind. And, your customers, of course, will be completely taken in! Our new high-tech mental marketing tools have shiny new MRI technology. Not at all the same as that other new agey junk--nosiree! To sell your product, you MUST buy ours!


    Wanna buy a lure?


    Wanna laugh at the fishermen?

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:Fishing lures are not designed to catch fish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you mention that.

      I have noticed that people in marketing are often the most receptive to all this marketing crap.

    2. Re:Fishing lures are not designed to catch fish. by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
      They have to be. If you don't believe it, it's hard to sell it.


      I speak from experience: One summer during college, I worked as a direct-marketer for a knife company. It was the classic high-pressure scam. The "training" they gave us was essentially indoctrination that marketing/sales were the driving forces of society. Without going into detail, I will say it was rather cultish.


      And, yes, I did sell the hell out of those knives. Until my bullshit sensors finally couldn't take it anymore and I could no longer maintain the delusions from training. Still worked hard, went out, tried to sell those knives: 8-12 hours a day. But once I quit believing in the bullshit, I never made another sale.


      My wife and I still have the knives I used for the demos. They're actually fairly decent products; we still use them. Worth nowhere near the "six-eleven" (never "dollars" when you're selling--that's money!) that I used to get for a set.


      If you ever get the opportunity to do this sort of job (direct marketing, Best Buy sales, used car salesman) for a summer or as a side job , I strongly suggest that you take it. You may find that you get a real insight into the attitudes and methods of the marketers whose job it is to manipulate your perceptions.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  53. The Problem... by weston · · Score: 1

    ...is choice. /neo

  54. on the plus side... by wattersa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One aspect of marketing/advertising/design is ergonomics and human factors, which helps advertisers structure their materials in the most logical fashion for the way people process information. Just look at any cover of Cosmopolitan and you'll see the end result of years of studies of the scanning people do when they see a document. Important elements seem to jump out at you without you even realizing it, and if you have time you can read the smaller text under each element to find out more. Cosmo, ironically, probably has one of the best-designed magazine covers. Color, layout, subject matter ("SEX" or related words are the lead/top priority item on every cover) and other design elements are used to great effect. The end result is that you look at the magazine, your eye traverses multiple times across the impossibly beautiful woman whose style (if you're a woman) you want to emulate and you then want to buy it, or you don't want to buy it because you don't really read Cosmo. This is why they sell them in checkout lines-- they're an impulse item for non-subscribers. Same thing with Maxim, Playboy, and other glossy magazines.

    Compare a well-designed magazine cover like Cosmo with an ugly or poorly designed cover like TV Guide or Hot Rod magazine and you'll see who has the best understanding of human factors. Cosmo is pleasant to look at, "Guns" magazine really isn't, even if you are an enthusiast.

    I for one welcome our new human factor-embracing overlords-- as long as they don't beam ads into my head.

    1. Re:on the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, I wonder how many copies of Time was sold.

      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0 ,16641,1101040920,00.html

    2. Re:on the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to wonder at certain marketing techniques, because apparently _someone_ is affected by them. In many cases, this makes me despair for the human race.

      Magazines at checkouts. Political advertising. TV ads where you can't figure out what the hell they're talking about. Any product that claims to be the best. Any ad that spews fuzzy intangibles that have nothing to do with the product. Any ad that uses the imperative mood - Buy this! You can't miss this! (No, and Oh yes I can, respectively.)

      Anyone else think that logic, reasoning, and media analysis should be basic school subjects?

  55. haha by u-238 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    the most sickening perversion of science to date. this will be used in the future for justification of communism, anarchism, etc

  56. Addictions by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    That article in the Indy, which focusses on the soda market, overlooked the effects of addiction. I used to have a major problem with cravings for sugar, particularly sodas. Four months ago I read a friend's online diary where she said that she had gone cold turkey and stopped drinking soda four years ago. I was inspired to go cold turkey as well. In the first few weeks, the sight of a coke sign or a carboard cut-out of a sparkling glass of Pepsi at KFC was enough to give me cravings (which I thankfully resisted) but nowadays I find this kind of advertising having less of an effect on me. I still get the occasional little craving, but since soda has been well and truly purged from my system, it's no longer the overpowering urge that once propelled me out of the office and to the nearest vending machine.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  57. Looking in the wrong place by mukund · · Score: 1

    Companies have a buy button already which make men buy faster and without much thought:

    Women.

    --
    Banu
  58. Insulted by research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who has epilepsy, I'm insulted that marketers would consult with neorogists to find ways for people to simply "buy" more "stuff". Neurology is a difficult field to pursue, requires a lot of education and continual learning. I at least hope whatever funding is gained from this is passed on to a better cause.

  59. Re:Bah. It's an old idea, and it's pretty much... by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

    It's so much easier if "They" can just model you on a mainframe, debit your account, and ship you whatever it is you're supposed to buy from them next,

    Gee...sounds just like my Columbia House Music subscription. Although it is better now, than when they used to mail me LPs every month that had to be mailed back to them...

    --
    "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
    Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  60. Desire by Bluelive · · Score: 1

    If something like that would work it would cause economic breakdown. Capitalism only works if the buyer searches for products they actually want/need at the best quality and lowest price. Break any of those and its something else.

    1. Re:Desire by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
      Capitalism only works if the buyer searches for products they actually want/need at the best quality and lowest price.
      So how do you explain those two big companies making a fortune selling overpriced sugared water to the masses? How do you explain European car manufacturers selling arguably lower quality cars than the Japanese but charging higher prices and getting away with it because of their pre-established image and prestige? (Note: Lexus may be a big status symbol in the US but in Europe it's still Mercedes and BMW that command the most prestige.)

      The marketing of products and services on their perceived value has been a feature of capitalism for a long time. Did you know that the majority of the cost of perfume is in the marketing and packaging? If someone were to sell it by the gallon in a tin can, people wouldn't buy it. When microwave ovens came along with digital controls, manufacturers still charged more for the digital controls even though they were cheaper and easier to produce than the old mechanical ones because that's what the public thought they should cost.

      Look at the Volkswagen-Audi group. They're masters of badge engineering. They can charge a small fortune for a Golf but sell virtually the same car for a lot less with the SEAT or Skoda badges on the front.

      It's all about perception.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Desire by Bluelive · · Score: 1

      Image can offset quality. Being a rational buyer might be the best for our wallets, it just too cummbersome most of the time. Current culture 'likes' highly marketed goods, hopefully that will decline and prices will drop and quality will go up. Just remember that everytime your annoyed by a commerical that its payed for by someone why liked the commercial enough to buy the product. Brand clothing prices are probably 30-50% made up of marketing costs.

  61. Even worse if politicians are targeted by cryophan · · Score: 1

    It will really get bad when corporate lobbyists target our politicians with these kinds of techniques.

  62. Re:Bah. It's an old idea, and it's pretty much... by Sein · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but they still have to hook you on it first

    This is research into hooking you more effectively on the first contact - for whatever they have in mind next. Continuity programs are an old device - Benjamin Franklin started the first "Book of the Month" club back before the Revolution.

    But they still need to hook you first, right? It's not like they can determine that you fit the profile for their current "widget" and just ship it to you without consulting you and getting you to say "sure!" first.

    Yet, anyway.
    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=125916 &cid=10565621

  63. so sorry by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They will not reach my "buy button"
    I despise commercials. They are nothing less than constant brainwashing. The more they hammer me with BS commercials, the more I am turned off to that product. Most commercials are so offensive and annoying that I only have to see it ONCE to be forever turned off to the product.

    I know what I need. I go to the store and buy only the things I MUST have. I do not buy extra things, I don't "browse" or "shop", I buy.

    I can't hit the SHUT UP button on the remote fast enough when a commercial comes on.

    I wish the U$$A had commercial free TV like the UK does, or at least did have at one time.
    I would pay for commercial free TV.

    -
    http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/health/docs/tv&healt h.html

    Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000
    Number of TV commercials seen by the average person by age 65: 2 million
    Percentage of survey participants (1993) who said that TV commercials
    aimed at children make them too materialistic: 92
    Rank of food products/fast-food restaurants among TV advertisements to kids: 1
    Total spending by 100 leading TV advertisers in 1993: $15 billion

    1. Re:so sorry by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      I hear you! Just recently, I was reading (in disgust) PETA propoganda directed against KFC because one of KFC's suppliers has video footage of a slaughterhouse employee playing soccer with a chicken. Of course, this wasn't KFC's fault, and the constant banter about chickens being sentient beings was starting to make me hungry, so on my lunch break it was off to the Colonel's for a bucket of Extra Crispy! Mmmm, sentience...

    2. Re:so sorry by Algan · · Score: 1

      I would pay for commercial free TV

      It's called Tivo. Since I got mine I haven't watched one commercial. And yes, you will have to pay for it.

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    3. Re:so sorry by Sein · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you're in the counter-marketing demographic. Thing is, TV advertising isn't all there is to marketing. In fact, advertising is probably the least important factor in marketing a product.

      Why do you think the new iPods come in such a wide range of colours and designs? Marketing starts by defining the marketing universe you're trying to reach to sell your product to. The specific media channel is completely irrelevant.

      Much as Madison Avenue and other advertising agencies would like to pretend otherwise, most marketing starts at the beginning of the product cycle, not at the beginning of the sales cycle when there's a finished product to bring to market.

    4. Re:so sorry by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      Oh and one thing I forgot to mention.
      I am anti big business. I despise global corporations with a passion. They are destroyers, they bring nothing but misery to the many and nirvana and untold riches to the very few elite at the very top. Everyone else suffers. Big business is bad for everyone, bad for the economy, bad for people, bad for the environment, bad for planet earth.

      No, I'm not a left winger. No, I'm not a right winger. No, I'm not an anarchist.

      I'm pro "little guy". I'm pro Earth. I'm pro small business. I'm pro environment.
      Big business is in direct conflict with the existence of all the things I believe in.

      Commercials suck the weak minded into the spiral that feeds the global machinery that crushes everything under it.

  64. Oversaturation by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no fixed target. It is a cat-and-mouse game. If they did find a particular pattern that triggered buying, eventually people would grow overly accustomed to it and tune out, requiring something new.

    Generally a successful ad will create more of the same or more like it, making people grow weary of that technique or pattern.

    The first Macintosh ad was unique for its time, but the concept has been copied too often. Big Brother is sales-people, big corporations, lawyers, etc. in various variations on the theme.

    Their research might work on a cave-man who wondered into town, but not those overwelmed by ads.

    1. Re:Oversaturation by mewphobia · · Score: 1
      There is no fixed target. It is a cat-and-mouse game.

      I've got to disagree. How about sex? Sex sells. It's in our nature. We're not going to just stop wanting to reproduce because we see sex everywhere. If we adapted to not wanting sex, we'd die out. So it's not going to happen.

      Sometimes cliche's work too - and that's the product of something being repeated ad nausium.

    2. Re:Oversaturation by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I've got to disagree. How about sex? Sex sells. It's in our nature.

      Yes, but it also taints the reputation of a product and the broadcaster. You can only do it so much before turning into the Slut Channel.

  65. The best way to get someone to buy stuff... by rubberbando · · Score: 1

    is to make it a bargain...

    I only eat off the 99cent/dollar menu when I eat fast food. I don't drink soda/pop anymore when I eat out, I stick to water. Its rare for me to spend over $3 on a meal when I eat out.

    When I shop for groceries, I only tend to buy stuff that is on sale that actually is a bargain. I never pay more than $2 for a box of cereal. Never more than $2.50 for a gallon of milk. Never more than a dollar for bread. Around a dollar for a dozen eggs. I rarely spend over $1.50 for a meal when I eat at home.

    I have the same kind of standards for buying/using gasoline. I will walk instead of driving at every chance I get. Prices are too high right now to justify driving around for everything ($2.30 for a gallon of regular where I live).

    When it comes to buying cds. I usually don't bother anymore. Why should I pay a fixed price of about $15 for 1 or 2 good songs? If I want to hear those songs, I'll just listen to the radio since they tend to play the same songs over and over again. Plus listening to the radio is free.

    When it comes to software. I used to buy alot of it. Nowadays, I just look for freeware for the task as I don't believe in pirating.

    Anyways, enough of that rant. What I want to say is companies need to look into making better products at better prices to get people to buy, not look into some sort of mind control.

    Live long and be frugal...

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
    1. Re:The best way to get someone to buy stuff... by My_Dirty_Facist_Ass · · Score: 0

      I think corporations are onto the idea that mind control will be cheaper than making better products at better prices. If you can sell an icebox to an Alaskan native, at that point you don't much need to concern yourself with the quality of the icebox.

  66. Re:any 'puter + self programing by Eryximachus · · Score: 1

    Yes. How self programing is the human mind? It might be possible for it to patch itself if it knew enough about the techniques likely to be used on it. So knowing how people are going to try to manipulate you is usualy a good thing. Then again someone may come up with an attack on the human mind that only works if the target knows about the attack, or a similar attack.

  67. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they say is true.

  68. This can be used for good by iriemon · · Score: 1

    This kind of research can also be used to counter what the marketers are doing. If there are recognizable techniques being used based on this research they can be jammed/subverted. Look at what the good folks at Adbusters are doing.

  69. Make advertising non-deductable by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Advertising should not be deductable as a business expense. It should come directly out of the bottom line. That would reduce ad clutter.

    1. Re:Make advertising non-deductable by Jin+Wicked · · Score: 1

      It would probably be better to make it deductible up to a point. Small brands and new businesses need advertising to stay afloat and have people know they exist.

      The most obnoxious advertising is, for the most part, being used by the largest companies, so putting an arbitrary cap on deducting advertising expenses (like $100k or something) would enable small businesses to grow while still shutting out a lot of the most intrusive ads.

      --
      My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
  70. I have a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about employing everyone, instead of trying to trick people into spending money they dont have why dont we employ everyone so we can afford to buy their stupid useless crap that we dont want but they keep trying to convince us we need.

  71. gooey by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Is there any specific "button" for any behavior in the brain? Or is this science as doomed as the "pseudoscience of cool" they debunk in Wired?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  72. neural networks by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 1

    Neural nets are an actual indirect application of neuroscience to marketing. Uh, they _are_ inspired in the brain, you know.

    For those on the outside, uh, neural nets are structured compositions of nonlinear activation functions that can represent with an arbitrary precision a wide class of mappings between two hypercubes of arbitrary dimension.

    Uh, neural nets learn stuff by example. Like bayesian spam filters, only better & smarter.

    So, given vital stats from a sample population and a human-produced classification of those people, the neural net can generalize that info.

    It's a very interesting field, and very underemployed by open source hackers in their hacking.

  73. The buy button. Simple... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
    ...boobies.

    The catch is that boobies are also associated with another button - the embarassment button. The trick is not to trigger the buy button, but to set up an untraceable system of micropayments so I can buy as many boobie pictures as I like without my embarassment button being pressed.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  74. I got them beat! by FFFish · · Score: 1

    'cause I'm batshit insane! Muuuuahahahaha! They'll never get to me!

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  75. Guess I have the recessive gene then. by Gldm · · Score: 1

    Advertising makes me want to NOT buy the product of whoever's annoying me the most. Example: I was fairly impressed by Capital One's ads for "no hassle" credit cards. Since I despise being hassled, I considered applying for one. But then I started getting tons of popups for them when I used my web based email, so I decided they were too annoying and hipocritical, so I didn't get one.

    Few things piss me off as much as "The Twenty" in movie theaters. It's downright insulting. The ads are all short attention span even though you're basicly a captive audience. And then they have the balls to REVIEW THE CRAP YOU JUST SAW at the end of it, in case you forgot something that made you want to claw your eyes out. This is before the 15 mins of trailers and after the half hour of advertising slides you're subjected to when you try to get to a movie early enough to get a decent seat.

    Whatever happened to it being free services (like broadcast TV) had advertising, and pay services (like movies and cable) were ad free? That was THE ENTIRE POINT OF PAYING FOR THEM!

    I'd gladly pay someone to reduce the amount of advertising bullshit in my life, in fact I've considered starting a business that does just that, if I could find the capital.

    P.S. Firefox doesn't block everything, unless you want to spend eternity editing adblock filters. It's also been the #1 most crash-prone app on my system in the last year.

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    1. Re:Guess I have the recessive gene then. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      P.S. Firefox doesn't block everything, unless you want to spend eternity editing adblock filters. It's also been the #1 most crash-prone app on my system in the last year.

      Mozilla *never* crashes for me, on Windows (don't know about Linux). Maybe it's just a FireFox thing? Might want to try Mozilla itself ...

      It did take me a while to set up my ad filters, but now the web is a dream. On the rare occasion that I see an ad, if it bothers me (which is the point, right?) I just right click it and add a new filter. I'm pretty aggressive with my wildcards, though ("*/ads/*" is fine with me).

  76. Re:Time for Some Piognant Video by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

    Wow. Just... wow. Thanks, AC.

  77. Tomb Raider by mekanizer · · Score: 1

    I guess the big boobs were just here by pure hasard.

  78. Anything but THAT! by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

    Targetting this hits us at the mammalian level, even below the monkey.

    No! Don't hit me below the monkey!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  79. ethics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not devote research to makeing the product better instead of devoting research into tricking consumers into buying crap. Make a good procut that people want to buy, it solves thier problem, its novel, it doesnt have any restrictive junk on it, and its priced reasonable.

  80. Odd pricing & passive cross-selling by westendgirl · · Score: 1
    Pricing at (e.g.) $19.95 has been an effective tactic for many companies, as it distracts the customer from the higher price point. But an even more effective technique is odd pricing, where the company prices things at $19.43 or $20.38. This makes many customers think that the company's prices more accurately reflect the real cost.

    Another tactic is passive cross selling. This is where a retailer puts dissimilar products side-by-side because stats show that people will buy the item as an impulse buy. An oft-cited example is where Wal-Mart has put beer/snacks beside baby diapers. Studies showed that fathers were running to Wal-Mart to pick up diapers and that they would snap up beer/snacks, if those were close by. (I live in Canada, where we don't have beer in stores. However, last night at Safeway, I noticed that the toilet paper & paper towels are in the same aisle as the chips and pop.) And those tactics don't rely on neuromarketing.

    --

    -- SYS 64738 --

  81. Better causes by westendgirl · · Score: 1
    I understand your sentiments. I'm a marketer who's very interested in how to support people during the buying cycle. I'm interested in determining stages of the buying cycle and the different needs of customers at each stage. I try to create tools that will help move prospective customers through these stages and eventually lead them to buy again and tell others to try the product.

    I recognize that many people feel such marketing practices are scary or evil. However, the academic study (and real world testing) of these theories has applications for much more noble causes. For example, the technology adoption lifecycle, made famous by Crossing the Chasm, can actually be applied to social marketing -- helping people adopt safer or beneficial behaviours. In fact, the tech adoption lifecycle is actually based on the works of Jacques Ellul and Everett Rogers. These academics looked into ways to help farmers use hybrid corn seeds and techniques for encouraging women in Lesotho to use solar ovens (instead of dangerous fuel-based ovens that blew up). Because of funding of business applications for technology adoption, we now have more insights about helping people try all sorts of new things. For example, some challenges with AIDS education can be overcome by identifying where the individual is in the buying/trying cycle and then developing tools to help them move to the next stage. Tech marketers might call a key reference a "change agent", but, in an African village struck by AIDS, that "change agent" might be the local religious leader or a respected teacher. You could also use social marketing principles to encourage people with chronic diseases to take their medications or engage in beneficial behaviours -- or you could focus on public education programs that change the way people think about individuals who have diseases.

    Since neuromarketing is a new concept, I'm not able to cite examples of noble applications. However, I suspect that you'll see the same sort of spill over that occurred with technology adoption and customer buying cycles. And some of the funding going toward helping neurologists study customers will help fund researchers whose real "sideline" interests are in less profitable areas.

    --

    -- SYS 64738 --

  82. ZikZak corp says: by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

    We just need to get Edison Carter out of the way. Lets slip him a special neuro-stim braclet, so he'll be too busy buying crap to foil our plot.

    --

    Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  83. Claude Hopkins by serutan · · Score: 1
    Just a little more info... Hopkins wrote his book in 1927 and it is still widely read. But it didn't have much impact on the advertising industry until it was republished in the 1950s. Quoting from the Marketing Hall of Fame (italics are mine):
    In 1923 he wrote a slender book which was published by the advertising agency Lord & Thomas... He called it "Scientific Advertising" and almost 30 years later it was re-published by Alfred Politz, eminent researcher and devotee of the scientific marketing and advertising because "the most concentrated wealth of useful discoveries [about advertising] was presented by Claude Hopkins" and because "present-day advertising research has a long way to go before it reaches the level of Claude Hopkins' contributions to efficient advertising".
    So although a few people figured out some modern advertising techniques a long time earlier, their real impact on society started in the 50s when Madison Avenue recognized their importance and started using them widely.
    1. Re:Claude Hopkins by Sein · · Score: 1

      Depends on which marketing industry you think of.

      It's been a big hit in the direct marketing/mail order industry since its release, and David Ogilvy used it lots - you can see that all through "My life in Advertising" although I suppose that kinda falls in under the whole Madison Avenue label.

      Ogilvy and Mathers is a pretty big Madison Avenue agency...

  84. I love Bees. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    I just realized why the marketing/writers of the "I Love Bees!" game wanted players to get all those people to "Salute the Camera".

    Every person who has to stand in a public mall and feel stupid saluting a camera is going to want to know "Why?".

    This means that the player on the phone is going to have to make some effort to explain it to them, which means that person is going to want to go home and log onto the Bees game and become the next potential customer when Halo-2 ships.

    A crafty marketing tactic which makes me want to NEVER buy their video game, EVER. I don't like deliberately manipulative crap like that. If you want to sell something, make it good, and tell people it's available and allow them to choose whether or not they want to buy it. --You can certainly make an interactive game like the Bees thing, but don't be a crafty bastard about it.

    While I recognize that people can be VERY effectively manipulated into doing what you want them to do without their realizing it, (like invading foreign countries for no good reason), I strongly feel that the practice is disrespectful and degrading. --If I wouldn't do it to my friends, then I wouldn't do it to somebody I don't know.

    Again, I have to tip the hat to the Slashdot editors for grouping this story along with several other stories about marketing. That kind of editing can increase awareness in readers by providing different perspectives on the same subject matter. Good job!


    -FL

  85. Alcohol by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Your reaction is similar to my own.

    But I also recognize that I am still a victim of marketing manipulation.

    Much of my behavior is the direct result of marketing.

    Such as preferring women with shaved legs. This is an almost universal trait in men and it drives women to buy razors, --and a thousand other beauty products, for that matter. --Which in turn makes having self-esteem a conditional thing which can only be satisfied by the purchasing of certain products. They advertise anti-depressants like Prozac in women's magazines, because "No guy would want to love a women who has 'mood swings'".

    The greatest achievement of advertising is that people have been conned into believing that they are not affected by advertising.

    I don't even own a television. Most of the damaging behavior modification which happens as a result of television is not even related to overt ads. --And being aware that modification techniques are being used, contrary to popular belief, offers almost zero protection.

    The fact of the matter is that CRTs which strobes at television frequencies cause people to slip into a trance state which enables messages and modifications to much more easily bypass the conscious level and plug directly into the core of the mind. This is not theory. The effects of television are measurable in the physiological state of the viewer as well as psychological. Reduced metabolic rates, defined changes in frontal lobe activity. It's all there, and it's well understood.

    Do you like women with shaved legs? Do you believe in terrorists? Would you get nervous and uncomfortable if somebody accused you of being a 'conspiracy theorist'? How deeply are those reactions seated?

    How much of you is really You?

    Saying "I'm not affected by advertising because I understand how it works," is rather like saying the same thing about alcohol. The only protection is awareness and avoidance.


    -FL

  86. Difference between men and women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From an old joke :):

    Men will buy an overpriced item they need. Women will buy a bargain (saled) item they don't need.

  87. Bill Hicks on advertising by nickco3 · · Score: 1

    Here is the ultimate television commercial they want to do. Here's the woman's face. Beautiful. Camera pulls back: naked breasts. Camera pulls back, she's totally naked, legs apart, two fingers between them. And it just says "Drink Coke". Now, I don't know the connection, here, but Coke is on my shopping list this week. No, I don't know the connection. Yes, I am buying a lot of these products. The teeth are rotting out of my head, and I'm glued to the television.

    --
    -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
  88. Fear as motivator by scottme · · Score: 1
    In UK, the BBC is tonight screening the first of a series of programmes called The Power of Nightmares which makes exactly this point, according to its trailers.
    This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media.

    I will definitely be watching.
  89. Is it just me... by RichardX · · Score: 1

    Or does anyone else feel a sudden overwhelming urge to buy a slashdot subscription...

    --
    Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  90. Who're the real targets? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    Everyone is missing the point here. Assume I'm the marketing VP of mega-corp. I can either try to hypnotize millions of people to buy our product, or I can hypnotize the CEO into giving me a big raise. (hmm, decisions, decisions) This technology isn't scary in the way that it will be used against average consumers, it's scary when it's used against world leaders and people in power.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  91. The Fundamentals? of Contract Law... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    A basic fundamental for a Contract to be Non-Voidable is to have a "Meeting of the Minds".

    People that are Insane, or a Child, or "Under the Influence..." that have created contracts can later "Void" the contract?

  92. Put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh.

    I'm a pseudo-intellectual who thinks that by not drinking softdrinks I am not only helping myself, but also contributing to the destruction of large corporations which I percieve as evil because that is what I have been told to think. When I finally realized that I have not inspired any change, and that the corporation doesn't care if I buy their product or not, I will have to find another way to justify my mediocre existence.

    "Image is nothing. Obey your thirst."

    -KarmaTroll

  93. Dough! You save one trip to the store! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you buy twin-pack you do not have to come to store soon so it saves your time and money!

    And some say we, blondes, are stupid, dough!