Slashdot Mirror
Who Really Won the Super Bowl?
BartlebyScrivener writes "In the latest development of the new field known as 'neuro marketing,' Marco Iacoboni and his group of researchers at the UCLA Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain responses in a group of subjects while they were watching this year's Super Bowl ads. The findings are reported at Edge: The Third Culture."
Why Rupert Murdoch of course...
Get your Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool Here for FREE! - http://fedora.redhat.com
The Referees, that's who. But I don't think that's the question they were asking.
In Soviet Russia, backwards is everything.
Considering the quantity of empty calories and assorted forms of alcohol consumed during normal SuperBowl viewing, I'm amazed they find any brain activity at all.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
The Steelers?
Do I get a prize if I guessed correctly?
As for measuring "neural response", that doesn't necessarily translate into revenue for advertisers. I'm sure I had a strong neural response when really crappy ads came on. I'm sure I also had a strong neural response to certain beer ads, but that's not going to get them any money since I drink beer only once or twice a year when tailgating.
There's far better ways for advertisers to measure the success of ad campaigns.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
.. I would like to see the neural response of slashdotters while reading this article, and see if the UCLA team really got their message through :)
There is a big jump in amygdala activity when the dinosaur crushes the caveman, as shown below. The scene looks funny and has been described as funny by lots of people, but your amygdala still perceives it as threatening, another example of disconnect between verbal reports on ads and brain activity while viewing the ads.
See, I don't see how there's necessarily a disconnect. So what if there's a threatening image that resonates with a part of the brain? That doesn't mean it can't be funny. Part of being human is having multiple reactions to the same stimulus. Ever ridden a roller coaster? Thrilling and scary at the same time, at least to me. I don't see this as being a disconnect; it's different portions of my self reacting in different ways.
That being said, the Burger King ad was awful.
The winner of the 2006 SuperBowl was:
a) The Pittsburg Steelers
b) The Seattle Seahawks
c) Bud Light
d) CowboyNeal
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
I couldn't tell you who won if my life depended on it, because I don't even know who was playing. I do know that it was played in Detroit, because I live in Michigan, and the local news media (even in other parts of the state) couldn't stop talking about that fact. I don't recall anyone mentioning the Lions, so I assume it was a couple other teams, but I don't follow basketball, so I couldn't name any off the top of my head.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Advertisers and marketeers are the scum of the Earth
Annoying. Yes. Bothersome. Yes. Scum of the Earth? They win out over child molesters, animal torturers, and Jim Jones?
I know a few marketing folks, and most of them are decent human beings, just like you and me, trying to earn a buck. Plus, how do you propose to have commerce without advertising?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Since over half of us Slashdotters don't RTFA, keep in mind they're talking about who won in ADVERTISING.
...what's a Super Bowl?
And I think I speak for all Slashdotters when I ask:
They clearly won the beer competition. They bought up all the beer ad space to silence the competition.
...on advertising on slashdot.
a) Pro-Microsoft ads on Slashdot suck
b) Ads on Slashdot suck
c) I didn't RTFA
d) Aren't they all ads?
Who really cares?
Those who wish to control their own lives and move beyond the existence as mere clients and consumers- those people ride
Oh really, and how do you respond to reports regarding certain of the more sedentary, perpetual viewers? We want answers Mr. Grossman.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
They win out over child molesters, animal torturers, and Jim Jones?
Well, you see, all those people are bad, but the bad things they do are to other people. Advertisers bother me.
OK, OK, we can compromise. They're all scum.
After RTFA, especially the analysis of the FedEx ad, I am left with the following alternative hypothesis to the author - maybe it actually IS funny, and maybe the study doesn't really reveal what the author thinks it reveals. Of course, as usual, when someone wants to get up on their soapbox and look all clever and such they get complete lockbrain and ignore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis they are trying to support. Does this remind anyone of any other frequent topics on /.?
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
Actually, I'm not going to comment on the ref's, other than to state my opinion that they made quite a few more bad calls against Seattle than against whoever the other team was. But it always seems like the team I'm rooting for is getting picked on, so I'm going to just assume that it's not the refs, it's me. If only the rest of the sports fans out there could figure that out.
I find the article interesting as much for the results as for the method. Like my opinion of the calling of the game, I had a different opinion of some of the commercials they mentioned specifically. Of course with a sample size of only 5, that's little surprise. I for one, don't even remember the "I'm going to Disneyland" commercial they ranked highly, but my favorite was the Fed Ex commercial which scored near the bottom in their study.
Of course, it sounds like this was a proof of concept type study rather than a marketing analysis, so the actual rankings aren't really as important as having differentiable data (for the moment). But I do have to say, the study sounds very promising since it placed Burger Kings commercials at the bottom of the stack, where it belongs. I haven't been able to go near a Burger King since they started doing such weird crap on TV. For example: Women wearing Bavarian outfits pouring ranch dressing all over themselves from 5 gallon buckets...WTF, mate?
If you are interested in the history of the public relations and marketing industry and the theory behind modern advertising, you should check out the English documentary "The Century of the Self". You can find a tracker at:
? TorrentID=911
http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php
Freudian psychology has had more of an influence on advertisers then real science.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
"There is a large increase in neural activity in the amygdala when the dinosaur crushes the caveman.
Ya, its called the "oh snap! PwneD!!" factor...
"Mirror neuron activity in the right posterior inferior frontal gyrus - indicating identification and empathy - while watching the Disney/NFL ad.
mmmm, doubtfull but I will buy it... who did they study, a minni van salesman?
"While actualy watching the game, many had markedly high neuron registry in the indontgive arats posterior area, as well as frontal cranium muscle spasms that included hand to forward scull whacking, and simultanious verbal cues, such as "Doh!"..."
Belive it or not I made that last one up...
OTOH, the purpose of comercials on the super bowl and other self service events like the olympics might be quite different. In these cases the commercials are to link the product to the percieved excitement and cache of the event, thus building brand loyalty. This is no small matter, as store brands are subverting the brands,and brand premiums are not as high as they once were. As such, the commercial seem to best work when they provide a 'comic relief' to the tension of the event. In effect, the commercials are merely a short entertainment featuring the produc in question. If this is the case, then perhaps brain activity is relevent, if the brain activity reflects an appreciation for the gag, and not just an acknowledgement of the product. If the consumer appreates the commercial, then the consumer might be more willing to pay or utilize the brand.
This was, IMHO, the big mistake made by the internet bust companies, and still is made today. Firms think that the because of a huge audience the superbowl in a good place to launch new products, and sometimes it does work, like the 1984 Mac ad. But it seems to me that within the context of the superbowl people want entertainment more that the pushing of new product, and the money would be better spent on more targeted ads. Sure the superbowl will insure that everyone knows your name, but it does not seem to mean that they will make any special effort to buy your producrt. If we are talking beer, they might grab a bud instead of a coors, but that does not mean they will make an effort to learn to use a computer to buy the pet supplies they can get almost as cheap down the street.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
This experiment measured reactions in people's brains as they viewed Super Bowl ads. What it didn't measure, however, was to what extent, if any, the ads changed people's recognition or feeling about the brands they were supposed to be selling.
An ad could have left a big impact on a person, but done a very poor job of establishing/reinforcing its brand. It would have been more interesting to see an experiment trying to measure if the ads actually did what they were supposed to do.
-- dR.fuZZo
Anybody who watched half the beer ads, or the ad for godaddy had to recognize that they were aiming a whole lot lower than the brain.
Yep, they didn't generate activity in the frontal lobes. I'm sure the ad designers would be shocked
First an admission that I am not in the advertising business so what do I know ?
Still, I should think that an advertisement that passes through the ether into the space between ones ears and then evaporates and is as forgetten aferwards as if it had never been shown at all, does not seem to me to be an effective ad.
Product recognition, Brand recognition ? Maybe if the ad is run so many times that it is bludgeoned into the memory with the primary virtue of becoming an annoyance. Maybe then. Otherwise, not likely.
So, what then ? How about an advertisment so creative, and with brand recognition so inextricably crafted into the entertainment that it literally BURNS its message into ones mind.
Well then. Since the SuperBowl, which advertisement have you been remarking about to your friends ? Discussing perhaps the cleverness of it ? And how it hit your funnybone with its abrupt end ? Which ad, has all the dialogue in catchy well delivered gibberish which you remember in impressions and find eloquent despite that it is just jabbering ? Which ad has such out of place and outlandish subtitling that the entire premise is utterly and undeniably ridiculous ? Which ad do you actually look forward to seeing, even though you have seen it before ?
Which One ?
That one is the Winner, hands down.
define: surreal
e /Lie/glossary.html
strange or bizarre.
http://www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/litnumsit
maybe I Should just turn off the computer and go for a walk
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Allow me to summarize this article for you all:
We have no detailed understanding of how the brain works, but look at the pretty lights! Some areas of the brain light up for Commericial A and others light up for Commercial B. Wow! What does it mean? Maybe it means that we can predict behavior based on gross neural activation/deactivation patterns... but maybe it doesn't.
Can we have some more funding now? And, say, I'm thirsty. Who's up for a beer?
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
At least last year we got to see some BOOB on tele :)
Can someone please explain this to a non-American? I hate ads; as soon as they start I zap away (or more likely these days: I skip them), but this sounds like watching the ads during the Superbowl (I gather it's a big sport event?) is almost a bigger event than the Superbowl itself. What the hell?!?! Why would someone want to watch advertisements?
The Seahawks.
I live in Germany and took Monday off so that I could stay up to watch the game in the middle of the night.
What I thought was kindof interesting, is that the broadcast of the game here was American commercial free. What they did was run spots promoting the carrying network instead, but no commercials.
Kindof too bad. The Superbowl commercials are usually pretty good.
Oh well!
Clearly it was the researchers who won. They get a bunch of press over the some expensive advertisements paid for by other people. Very smart, those research people.
I'm not a fan of American football (as opposed to soccer, which the rest of the world calls football), but SuperBowl parties are generally worth attending. So my wife and I went to one. We walked in and asked, "So who do you think will win -- the Knicks or the Blue Jays?"
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Fantastic!
Comedy is a threatening situation that gets the other guy, not you, because he's a putz, and you're not, so you experience the vicarious superiority of having survived the threat. No threat, no sense of superiority, no comedy.
A response to the first guy to respond to you brings up the study that I wanted to bring up that mentions that this is the kind of humor most appreciate by my fellow Americans and by Canadians, but there are other kinds of humor out there.
Humor that comes from reacting to very confusing and wrong stimuli is another type, which is a roundabout way of describing surrealist humor. Here's the joke that some Europeans found most funny:
Q1: "Why do ducks have flat feet?"
A1: "To stamp out fires."
Q2: "Why do elephants have flat feet?"
A2: "To stamp out burning ducks."
Never forget that there's also the *cough* fine art of the pun. Puns are another expression of humor generated by causing your brain to fire in ways that it normally wouldn't. My absolute favorite form of comedy -- escalation humor -- is about taking a situation and making it progressively more and more screwed up and incongruous by adding comments about the situation. Surreal humor is the core of why Monty Python and Douglas Adams are funny.
Also, as an aside, I think you're missing a vital element of humor found in the suffering of others. A lot of comedy can be found in things that are absolutely not the fault of the victim because we can empathize with them not just because we think they deserve it. An example would be the FedEx caveman commercial. The guy is fired for not fulfilling a boss's impossible demands. It's funny because we've all been there to some degree (and because of the surreal nature of the boss requiring something that doesn't yet exist).
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...is the person who said "screw football" and did something else! Bah football!
I don't know who won the Super Bowl, or even who played. But!
I can tell you who doesn't care: me.
Superbowl? Didn't know they were still running that. Figured everyone was watching Daytona 500 now.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I know a few marketing folks, and most of them are decent human beings, just like you and me, trying to earn a buck.
So are many used car salesmen.
So are many telemarketers.
So are many spammers.
What you do to make that buck and how you drain small bits of strangers lives matters more to me than how you treat your friends. The argument of "just trying to make a buck" has never held any water with me since drug dealers, pimps, and lobbyists are all "just trying to make a buck."
Marketing is not an inherently evil profession, but it has a lot of nasty excesses that involve deceit and forcing yourself into people's lives. Neuromarketing however, has evil written all over it. The whole goal of neuromarketing is to use psychology to figure out how to sell goods and impress brands on people by bypassing the reasoning centers of the brain as much as possible. They want to make sure that you subconsciously need a good that you wouldn't have cared for previously. It's an attempt at circumventing the security protections of conscious thought via "exploits" for the legacy systems in our mind. The goal of neuromarketing is nothing less than mass brainwashing for money.
Plus, how do you propose to have commerce without advertising?
With no advertising at all? You probably couldn't.
However, what most people think of when they say the word "marketing" with a sneer could easily be done without. It would require a change in law since advertising is currently the "local maxima" for the free market. People wouldn't do it if it didn't get results, and the social costs of out of control advertising are externalities that the free market forces businesses not to deal with.
Envision a world of "Pull Advertising," where companies register with information services (like catalogues or the WWW) and customers looking for a good or service go to search for it from information brokers instead of having it shoved in their face. Services would exist for helping people find goods in areas where they are not experts, and with the WWW reviews of goods become available.
No more junk mail of phone solicitations. No more billboards. Shopping plazas that look good instead of being a garish mismatch of "look at me!" storefronts. TV and radio without interruption. Kids that eat healthy instead of jumping up and down screaming for whatever candy, soda, or fast food they saw on their kids cartoon. You'd be able to live your life your own way without frenzied consumer culture dictating to everyone how you should live it instead.
This would require three things:
1) Laws deterring push advertising (like DNC lists, city beautification ordinances, etc.)
2) Efficient goods search services
3) Laws or other forces preventing paid-for preferred placing
This world has several downsides.
The first and foremost is the death of a lot of industries. Take radio, for instance. From a consumer standpoint, a single radio station is a public good. You can't stop people from listening. From a radio station's viewpoint, though, the ears of the listeners is a private good that is sold to advertisers and music companies (which is why a lot of radio sucks). With that market gone, conventional radio vanishes in favor of not-for-profit radio like NPR & college radio and scrambled radio like Sirius & XM.
This brings up the second disadvantage. This world makes certain goods a lot more expensive. TV & radio are once again examples. Many public services get a lot of their revenue from advertising. Public transportation is the most obvious, but school systems and even police departments have signed deals to cover the cost of operations by selling out. This pushes certain goods out of the price range of the poor and means a raise in taxes in some situations.
(On the other hand a lot of goods would become drastically cheaper. Pharmaceutical and food industries spend a massive chunk of their budgets on advertising t
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What I find most interesting is that watching a computer animation of a caveman being stomped by a giant dinosaur foot still fires off the "threat-detector" in the amygdala. It would be interesting to see what happens in the amygdala in response to even less realistic "violence," say a Road Runner cartoon.
Does slapstick humor require amygdala activation to be funny?
It won't be too long now before we start seeing blipverts.
Hands down the illest ventriloquist this side of the Mississippi River, Hah!
Word of mouth, review websites/magazines, and even general newsy outlets like papers and slashdot.
Magazines survive because of advertising in their pages. Take away ads, and be prepared to pay a lot more for the latest issue of your favorite mag.
Websites are either supported by subscription fees (rare) or by advertising.
Newspapers generate almost all of their revenue from advertising. Take a look at the classifieds, job ads, home listings, and inserts the next time you pick up the Sunday paper.
You've seen those funny looking boxes with corporate logos at the top of Slashdot stories, right?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ