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.
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
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.
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!
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?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
To make guys buy: Gorgeous women implying the purchase of a product makes said guy more attractive.
To make women buy: "Sale"
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.
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.
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.
"Imagine a stealthy hand reaching into your pocket. For the rest of eternity."
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.
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.
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!!
Memorize THIS. Think of nothing else! WOOOEEEEEEOOOOOOOO.
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.
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'.
Lois: What pointless commercials. They certainly don't make me want a Mintos! Brian: Totally ineffective! Peter: Must... Kill... Lincoln...
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
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.
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.
I'm a beta, so I'm happy leaving these smart thoughts to you.
John
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
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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...
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'.
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
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.
They will not reach my "buy button"
t h.html
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&heal
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
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
Advertising should not be deductable as a business expense. It should come directly out of the bottom line. That would reduce ad clutter.
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.
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
Also, what if there are 5 brands that all match your criteria?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
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...
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