Slashdot Mirror


Neuromarketers Pick the Brains of Consumers

Pickens points out a story at The Guardian about the development of neuromarketing, the method by which advertisers track signals inside the brain to roughly extrapolate how a consumer reacts to products and advertisements. We've discussed this technique in the past, but now consulting firms are appearing who have begun to use this research to increase the effectiveness of their marketing practices. The author also notes a paper which elaborates on the scientific details (PDF). "At McLean Hospital, a prestigious psychiatric institution run by Harvard University, an advertising agency recently sponsored an experiment in which the brains of half-a-dozen young whiskey drinkers were scanned. The goal, according to a report in Business Week, was 'to gauge the emotional power of various images, including college kids drinking cocktails on spring break, twentysomethings with flasks around a campfire, and older guys at a swanky bar'. The results were used to fine-tune an ad campaign for the maker of Jack Daniels."

10 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. It probably isn't illegal now ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but it probably should be.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:It probably isn't illegal now ... by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only probable result is that marketing campaigns will seem even more boorish and annoying to demographic outliers as the campaigns become tuned to the desires of core members of the target demographic.

      No skin off my back... I haven't actually paid attention to a commercial for years, and I only read print ads that are in scientific and tech related publications.

      While on the subject, I have often thought it would be nice if ads were filled with enough technical data about a product to perform a comparative evaluation against similar product ads. I doubt that will ever happen, though.

    2. Re:It probably isn't illegal now ... by Selanit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No skin off my back... I haven't actually paid attention to a commercial for years, and I only read print ads that are in scientific and tech related publications.

      Interesting. I'm sure the marketers are pleased. The less conscious you are of their message, the less capable you are of resisting it.

    3. Re:It probably isn't illegal now ... by Cecil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think marketers are annoying because they tell me to buy things I don't want. It's not the buying that bothers me, because it never happens. It's the telling. Over, and over, and over, without providing me a way to say "NO!"

      You said it perfectly right here: "marketers are merely helping you fulfill this need by pushing past other products' attempts to get you to purchase them."

      This is the crux of the problem, because it belies a conceit that marketers have: that their product is a better choice than all competitors for their entire target group. This is unspeakably arrogant for starters, and unbelievably annoying when, naturally, every marketer believes this about their product, so you get 100 products all arrogantly claiming to be the right choice for me and in all likelihood drowning out the one choice that is in fact right for me, which in my case is almost never the one with the biggest pockets.

    4. Re:It probably isn't illegal now ... by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...a need already exists ("I need social acceptance" - or something along those lines). With this research, the marketers are merely helping you fulfill this need by pushing past other products' attempts to get you to purchase them.

      Thats the point, the need they exploit has nothing to do with the product they sell. Budweiser doesn't make me more popular with the ladies, nor the life of the party (unless the lady is a urinal, and the party is the hopping mens room culture). Car X doesn't make me a sexy, rich, race car driver. Nikes and Gatorade don't make me any less of a nonathletic geek. And the last time I drank a liquor that was advertised I didn't get suave, unless suave really means rowdy, sweaty, and hitting on fat chicks.

      Advertising usually goes for cheap psychological gimmicks, rather than actually explaining why Pepsi is better than Coke, or telling me why a crappy plastic mop is better than the one I own.

      In short, they lie. Advertising is just manipulation, and I, for one, do not like to be manipulated. If advertising actually told me WHY I need the product, I might be convinced, giving a genuine need.

      Also I think there is a backlash because it is EVERYWHERE. You can't escape it, EVER. Every bus (school, or public), every show, every game, every webpage, the sky, the roads, etc... all deluge us constantly with the same cheap psychological gimmicks. They are tacky, ugly, and distractive (the latter being the goal).

      They also lead to a superficial culture, since people actually buy into them. I once knew a girl who had a Nike "swoosh" tattooed on her arm, and a Calvin pissing on a Chevy logo on her truck. I asked her why. She told me that she agreed with what Nike stood for (crappy over-priced tennis shoes mad in asian sweatshops?), and that anyone who didn't like Ford was a pussy. We are bombarded with these stupid images so much that they HAVE TO influence our psychology, self, and culture. Its another step away from reality. Branding isn't real. /rant

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    5. Re:It probably isn't illegal now ... by foobsr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their objective is to provide you with information that makes you want their product ...

      In my days, the objective of marketing was to boost profits, and the ultimate wet dream was to find a means to make people addicted.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  2. Similar to Interface by QuantumFTL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is similar to a major plot device in Neal Stephenson's Interface (don't worry, no referral).

    In the book the people backing the lead character's bid for the presidency have a virtual "focus group" of people across the nation that watch his speeches. They are able to make adjustments to the speeches in real time by monitoring the reactions of the focus group's vitals.

    I, for one, think that truth is not only stranger than fiction, but quickly becoming creepier as well.

  3. Cue the chorus... by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...of people who believe advertising doesn't affect them. Why would such incredible sums be spent on it if it were ineffective? Advertising is the most pervasive system of propaganda ever developed, and to pretend it doesn't affect us -- all of us -- is to bury one's head in the sand.

    More than to brainwash us to buy individual products, the main work that advertising performs is to condition our basic assumptions about how we as individuals relate to other individuals and objects. Almost all ads say similar things to us; things like that freedom can be reduced to that of the marketplace, that our individuality is defined by our consumption choices, that we are always, always lacking *something* in ourselves but that happiness and completeness are only a purchase away...

    And no, I'm not trying to deny the influence our marketing-saturated world has had on *me*. I just resent it, and the marketeers who helped create such a system.

  4. This is creepy, but what's really new here? by Conspicuous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, marketers using technology to quite literally get inside your head is a very creepy prospect. But marketers have been using everything at their disposal to get into your head since forever. How is this different?

    Personally I find the fact that there's a multi-trillion dollar industry working full time in an effort to manipulate my conscious and subconscious mind into believing that corporation X is my friend and that I desperately need they're crap in order to be a worthwhile individual already is creepy enough.
    The fact that this industry's influence is so pervasive they can subject each of us to thousands of hours of their propaganda before we're even old enough to think makes that doubly so. There is good research showing that more 4 year olds now recognise the mcdonalds logo that most common animals or shapes.

    I also particularly love this

    to gauge the emotional power of various images, including college kids drinking cocktails on spring break, twentysomethings with flasks around a campfire, and older guys at a swanky bar'. The results were used to fine-tune an ad campaign for the maker of Jack Daniels. Scientific research on how to better push drugs. Lovely. You'd think there were more serious problems for neuroscientists to be working on than how to get more people to destroy their brains with JD. I also love how this fact elicits absolutely no comment in the article, imagine the media reaction if the same technology was found being used to push marijuana.
  5. Who's marketing to whom?? by bjbest · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've seen the news stories on neuro-marketing before. My purely "gut" feeling is that try to collerate imagery with brain activity, and trying to find the magic solution to push the "buy it now, buy it now button in your mind is all a bunch of baloney and it proves that the "neuromarketers" have successfully marketed themselves to major advertisers.

    The neuromarketers dazzle the advertisers with high tech research tools and high-concept pseudoscience and charge a lot of money for the privlidge. Quite a scam.

    What upsets me is that the waiting lists for MRI scans for legitiment medical uses can be weeks or even months long (in Canada at least), while these expensive machines, and the scarce qualified persons that operate them, are tied up for completely "frivilous", and likely totally useless purposes.