Neuromarketing: brain
scam or valuable tool?
Marketers are turning to neuroscience to better understand
consumers' reactions to brands and advertising, but how much
can such techniques really tell us? Amanda Wilkinson reports
If only marketers could realise
their dream of iK-ingable to trigger
a "buy button" in consuniej-s'
brains. Although this is the sttiff
of fantasy, marketers and agencies
are turning to neuroscience in a
bid to better understand consumer
reactions to brands, products and
marketing messages.
One particular facet, functional
magnetic resonance imaging
(I'MKI) (jr brain scanning ofTers
a way of mapping tbe degree to
which certain areas of the brain
are activated when exposed to different
stimuli.
Large packaged goods companies
bave used I'MKI to assess the
merits of new priHluct development
and packaging design. In the car
iiKhistry DaimlerChryslcr has
funded variotis "neuromarketing"
studies, incluiling brain scanning,
to discover how consumers evaluate
car exteriors. Two years ago
Ford also backed a number of
neuromarketing experiments.
inchnhng monitoring [KYiple's brain
aciivity when they wnlched programmes
interspersed with ads.
T!ie fMKI techniiiue has even
been applied to a version of the
"Pepsi Challenge" by Read Montague,
a neuroscientist at Baylor
College of Medicine in Houston.
Texas. \V\\cn drunk. Iwitli colas weiv
shouii to significantly activate (Kills
of the brain linked to pleasuiT. Montague
concluded tbat as most subjects
sail! they preferred Coke,
factor's other than taste had inlluenced
their choice, such as associations
with a ftin lifestyle develoix^l
through years of advertising.
Focus groups or questionnairebased
quantitative studies have
been criticised for putting consumers
in situations where they
don't always say what they mean
or mean what they say .Advocates
of IMRI say tbat luilike these more
ti-aditiona! research techniques.
fMRI monitoi's w!ial people are
really thinking,
.Attracted by tbe apparent level
of objectivity. i'HI) Media used
fMRI at the end of last year to
22
The brain game: Modern-day marketers are hoping that neuroscience and
its related technologies can aid them in their quest for consumer insight
measure how effective different
media are in delivering vai'ious
types of coiiuiuuiicatidii models.
Although tbe nicdia woi'ld bas
more than its fair share of facts
and figures such as coverage, target
atidience pi-ojX'nsit ies. and costper-
thotisand (CPM) impacts. PHD
Media executive planning director
Mark Holden says these are insufficient
because they can only tell
you how to reach consumers and
not how to intluence them: "Thei'e
is a gap between tbe charts and
what is relevant."
PHI) bas been woi'king witb
Neur'osense, ati Oxford-based consultancy
wbicb specialises in tbe
use of cognitive neuroscience to
gain insights into human behaviour
Neurosense scanned the
brainsofiiO people and monitored
their reactions to H7 ads using a
variety of media.
The reactions of five art^as of
the brain were recorded, including
the amygdala, which indicates
emotionand isdeemed important
for encotuaging an audience to
appraise or reappraise how they
feel ahout a brand, product or service;
and the ventrolateral frontal
cortex, which indicates working
memory and is useful to activate
when communicating information
that is of low interest.
The results, now maile public
for the fu'st time, show tbat press
and outdoor were highly effect ive
in communicating messages to
people who are ah'eady aware of
the stimuli within the ad. Press
also offered the lienefit of being
ahie to deliver content-rich information.
Television was useful in
stimulating long-term memories
and emotions, which are imijortant
torestablisbingbi-ands and changing
perceptions. Radio performed
we!! in making audiences process
information of low inter'est. Whi!e
these are unii|ur strengths, each
meditun was also found to be able
t<i acbieve different I'esults.
These findings have nr)w heen
integrated into a planning tool,
which through a series of <itiestions
devised by a'seaix'b and strategy
consultancy Acacia Avenue,
allows the agency to wor'k out the
most appi'opriate communication
model titu of a possible six. including,
for instance, communicating
a low-interest message. Tbe system
thi-nestahl ishes which regiotis
of the brain need to be activated
and the most effective media r'otites
for t!ie task, indexing and ranking
them against one another, .-\udicnt
e im|)act data and media and
proihiciion costs are then fused
into the model to give an overall
scf)ref()i-each medium.
Although the system is based
on scientific research. Holden is
k(?entostressthat it should not act
as a si raitjacket". but as guidance
in deciding wbich form of media
should be used. HiU some industry
figui'es believe that i'MUI-based
sttuiies are basud on a false environment.
Vizetim strategy direc
tor Matt Andrews says; "fMRI is
conducted in an unreal laboratory
situation, yet consumers arc subject
to all sorts of intluences
around t!iem all f»f the time."
But hi' admits ihe need to know
more aUiut how consumers'minds
work and claims; "Ninety |)er cent
of what you believe is driven by
yotu' subconscious; the choices you
make in lifi'. the hrands you buy
and tbe media you consume."
\'izfum bas bougbt consumer psychology
comi^any Consydiam.
which specialises in rmdcrstanding
bow cotistuners relate to
brands on a subcon.scious level.
Ogiivy & Mather exectitive
planning director Mark Karls is
another fMRI S( cptic and questions
its application in assessing
advertisingand types of media; "If
you use tlic neuro brain scan to see
if the hap|)y l)it of tbe brain ligbts
up you are missing the point. No
comintmication works on an individual
alone; the key influences
ai'e h'om other peoi)le."
Bamlios Nwphytou. an account
planner'with Bartle Bogle Hegarty
who bas a .Master's degi'ee in cognitive
science, believes that there
MARKETING WEEK FEBRUARY 3 2005
tf- I
COMMERCIAL
Exercising caution: American group
Commercial Aiert sounds a warning
are so many \ariables in the ways
that advertising is delivered and
consumet! that any tbrni of effectiveness
model using fMRI technology
shouid he used with
caution. He warns that clients with
large budgets cou!d latt lion tothe
objectivity of fMRI as a "cr'utch"
tojustify decisions. w!iich in tur'n
coirld result in stitled creativity
Accortiirig to Dr Gemma Caher't
of Neuro.sense. it is because of that
ohjectivity that more marketing
companies ar'e turning to neuroscience
to gauge consumer reaction
to new products, packaging
an<i advertising. In one instance,
after conducting DlRl research,
the company was able to tell a
client that consumers would not
take to a particular new pr'oduet
variant. In fact, the product had
already failed in the VS.
But many marketers ar'e fearful
of talking about tbeir experiments
for' fear of cr'iticism from
lobby groups. In the US. not-for
profit organisation Commercial
Alert has campaigned against tbe
use of neui'omarketing. and fMKI
in particular, claiming that neiuoinarket
ing is being used to manipulate
consumers' behaviour In
(!efence of fMRI. Calvert s;iys; "The
market isjusttningtounder'stand
what constmiers want so that it can
give it to them."
However-, Calvert admits tbat
although fMRI can Iw tailored to Vii
certain circumstances and outside
influences with additional questions,
it is complementary toother
researcb methods such as focus
groups. Caroline Whitehall a cofounder
and strategist at .Acacia
.Avenue agrees; "fMRI is not going
to provide the answer For instance,
it can't predict future behaviour
and it can't account for context or
explain exactly why jKopIe react to
advertising in the way they do.
unless you do the researcb and then
interview the test suhjects."
ForthetimelM>ingat least, marketing
and advertising are to
I'emain cr'eative arts, not formulaic
models. •
scam or valuable tool?
Marketers are turning to neuroscience to better understand
consumers' reactions to brands and advertising, but how much
can such techniques really tell us? Amanda Wilkinson reports
If only marketers could realise
their dream of iK-ingable to trigger
a "buy button" in consuniej-s'
brains. Although this is the sttiff
of fantasy, marketers and agencies
are turning to neuroscience in a
bid to better understand consumer
reactions to brands, products and
marketing messages.
One particular facet, functional
magnetic resonance imaging
(I'MKI) (jr brain scanning ofTers
a way of mapping tbe degree to
which certain areas of the brain
are activated when exposed to different
stimuli.
Large packaged goods companies
bave used I'MKI to assess the
merits of new priHluct development
and packaging design. In the car
iiKhistry DaimlerChryslcr has
funded variotis "neuromarketing"
studies, incluiling brain scanning,
to discover how consumers evaluate
car exteriors. Two years ago
Ford also backed a number of
neuromarketing experiments.
inchnhng monitoring [KYiple's brain
aciivity when they wnlched programmes
interspersed with ads.
T!ie fMKI techniiiue has even
been applied to a version of the
"Pepsi Challenge" by Read Montague,
a neuroscientist at Baylor
College of Medicine in Houston.
Texas. \V\\cn drunk. Iwitli colas weiv
shouii to significantly activate (Kills
of the brain linked to pleasuiT. Montague
concluded tbat as most subjects
sail! they preferred Coke,
factor's other than taste had inlluenced
their choice, such as associations
with a ftin lifestyle develoix^l
through years of advertising.
Focus groups or questionnairebased
quantitative studies have
been criticised for putting consumers
in situations where they
don't always say what they mean
or mean what they say .Advocates
of IMRI say tbat luilike these more
ti-aditiona! research techniques.
fMRI monitoi's w!ial people are
really thinking,
.Attracted by tbe apparent level
of objectivity. i'HI) Media used
fMRI at the end of last year to
22
The brain game: Modern-day marketers are hoping that neuroscience and
its related technologies can aid them in their quest for consumer insight
measure how effective different
media are in delivering vai'ious
types of coiiuiuuiicatidii models.
Although tbe nicdia woi'ld bas
more than its fair share of facts
and figures such as coverage, target
atidience pi-ojX'nsit ies. and costper-
thotisand (CPM) impacts. PHD
Media executive planning director
Mark Holden says these are insufficient
because they can only tell
you how to reach consumers and
not how to intluence them: "Thei'e
is a gap between tbe charts and
what is relevant."
PHI) bas been woi'king witb
Neur'osense, ati Oxford-based consultancy
wbicb specialises in tbe
use of cognitive neuroscience to
gain insights into human behaviour
Neurosense scanned the
brainsofiiO people and monitored
their reactions to H7 ads using a
variety of media.
The reactions of five art^as of
the brain were recorded, including
the amygdala, which indicates
emotionand isdeemed important
for encotuaging an audience to
appraise or reappraise how they
feel ahout a brand, product or service;
and the ventrolateral frontal
cortex, which indicates working
memory and is useful to activate
when communicating information
that is of low interest.
The results, now maile public
for the fu'st time, show tbat press
and outdoor were highly effect ive
in communicating messages to
people who are ah'eady aware of
the stimuli within the ad. Press
also offered the lienefit of being
ahie to deliver content-rich information.
Television was useful in
stimulating long-term memories
and emotions, which are imijortant
torestablisbingbi-ands and changing
perceptions. Radio performed
we!! in making audiences process
information of low inter'est. Whi!e
these are unii|ur strengths, each
meditun was also found to be able
t<i acbieve different I'esults.
These findings have nr)w heen
integrated into a planning tool,
which through a series of <itiestions
devised by a'seaix'b and strategy
consultancy Acacia Avenue,
allows the agency to wor'k out the
most appi'opriate communication
model titu of a possible six. including,
for instance, communicating
a low-interest message. Tbe system
thi-nestahl ishes which regiotis
of the brain need to be activated
and the most effective media r'otites
for t!ie task, indexing and ranking
them against one another, .-\udicnt
e im|)act data and media and
proihiciion costs are then fused
into the model to give an overall
scf)ref()i-each medium.
Although the system is based
on scientific research. Holden is
k(?entostressthat it should not act
as a si raitjacket". but as guidance
in deciding wbich form of media
should be used. HiU some industry
figui'es believe that i'MUI-based
sttuiies are basud on a false environment.
Vizetim strategy direc
tor Matt Andrews says; "fMRI is
conducted in an unreal laboratory
situation, yet consumers arc subject
to all sorts of intluences
around t!iem all f»f the time."
But hi' admits ihe need to know
more aUiut how consumers'minds
work and claims; "Ninety |)er cent
of what you believe is driven by
yotu' subconscious; the choices you
make in lifi'. the hrands you buy
and tbe media you consume."
\'izfum bas bougbt consumer psychology
comi^any Consydiam.
which specialises in rmdcrstanding
bow cotistuners relate to
brands on a subcon.scious level.
Ogiivy & Mather exectitive
planning director Mark Karls is
another fMRI S( cptic and questions
its application in assessing
advertisingand types of media; "If
you use tlic neuro brain scan to see
if the hap|)y l)it of tbe brain ligbts
up you are missing the point. No
comintmication works on an individual
alone; the key influences
ai'e h'om other peoi)le."
Bamlios Nwphytou. an account
planner'with Bartle Bogle Hegarty
who bas a .Master's degi'ee in cognitive
science, believes that there
MARKETING WEEK FEBRUARY 3 2005
tf- I
COMMERCIAL
Exercising caution: American group
Commercial Aiert sounds a warning
are so many \ariables in the ways
that advertising is delivered and
consumet! that any tbrni of effectiveness
model using fMRI technology
shouid he used with
caution. He warns that clients with
large budgets cou!d latt lion tothe
objectivity of fMRI as a "cr'utch"
tojustify decisions. w!iich in tur'n
coirld result in stitled creativity
Accortiirig to Dr Gemma Caher't
of Neuro.sense. it is because of that
ohjectivity that more marketing
companies ar'e turning to neuroscience
to gauge consumer reaction
to new products, packaging
an<i advertising. In one instance,
after conducting DlRl research,
the company was able to tell a
client that consumers would not
take to a particular new pr'oduet
variant. In fact, the product had
already failed in the VS.
But many marketers ar'e fearful
of talking about tbeir experiments
for' fear of cr'iticism from
lobby groups. In the US. not-for
profit organisation Commercial
Alert has campaigned against tbe
use of neui'omarketing. and fMKI
in particular, claiming that neiuoinarket
ing is being used to manipulate
consumers' behaviour In
(!efence of fMRI. Calvert s;iys; "The
market isjusttningtounder'stand
what constmiers want so that it can
give it to them."
However-, Calvert admits tbat
although fMRI can Iw tailored to Vii
certain circumstances and outside
influences with additional questions,
it is complementary toother
researcb methods such as focus
groups. Caroline Whitehall a cofounder
and strategist at .Acacia
.Avenue agrees; "fMRI is not going
to provide the answer For instance,
it can't predict future behaviour
and it can't account for context or
explain exactly why jKopIe react to
advertising in the way they do.
unless you do the researcb and then
interview the test suhjects."
ForthetimelM>ingat least, marketing
and advertising are to
I'emain cr'eative arts, not formulaic
models. •
No comments:
Post a Comment