Anna Peters
Neuromarketing isn’t a discipline that I’ve ever had a chance to work with. But a recent lunchtime chinwag on the application of brain studies to market research resulted in a lively debate. And if something can cause that much shouting around a lunch table, it must be worth investigating further…
Opponents of neuromarketing, Russ Wilson & Skaiste Trumpickaite argued that:
Neuromarketing is just not that useful because, right now, we only understand the basics; we can use techniques to tell us if there is an emotional response, but we don’t have the nuanced understanding to know if this is positive or negative.
Of course, combined with another form of research, neuromarketing helps to build a picture and a robust understanding of what is going on in consumer’s minds. But results from comparative studies between consumer reported emotions and neuromarketing studies are so similar we have to question what additional data is it bringing, and if it is worth the huge costs associated with brain-scanning equipment.
And it’s these prohibitive costs which have meant that base sizes remain low. So even if neuroscience did give us new insight, then could we truly trust it? The issue of trust issue is further brought to life by a few fishy studies that show that a dead salmon produced similar brain patterns to a human.
Proponents of Neuromarketing, Anna Corden & Anna Peters argued that:
- It has a strong academic heritage. Neuromarketing may have only been about for the last ten years, but neuroscience has a rich academic history and it has helped make a difference to lives, and ‘proper’ scientists are being acknowledged for their contributions in this area. If the discipline is so rooted in ‘proper’ science, then how can it be of limited interest to us as market researchers?
- The ethics are no more a worry than with any other research technique. The ethics of neuroscience are brought into question: what right do marketeers have to peer inside our brains? Perhaps my stance on this is a little too Bill Hicks, but I don’t think any marketer has the right to a consumers inner world without permission. More importantly, I don’t think this is a concern limited to neuromarketing: any research method that happens without informed consent is invasive and taking advantage of the consumer.
- It’s not as invasive as you might have thought. Brain machines and clunky scanners were brought to mind during our lunchtime debate – but technology is advancing so quickly that in just a few years’ time we won’t be limited to EEG machines. An example of this is the way that your iPhone can now collect biometric data, and who’s to say that the in the future neuroscientific interventions won’t be just as discrete.
- It’s part of a wider cultural conversation. Just last weekend the Barbican, London, hosted a ‘brain weekender’ – a public discourse that centred on the brain, consciousness and making sense of it all. And since neuromarketing is now a part of these wider cultural conversations, market researchers owe it to themselves to be a part of this conversation too.
The debate rages on
The lunchtime tussle wasn’t a debate between experts; it was just a conversation between enthusiasts with an opinion. And whilst enthusiasts will never be the people to close the debate once and for all, they will be the ones to keep it going. So what’s my perspective on Neuroscience now that we’ve had the lunchtime debate? Well, I certainly appreciate that today there are challenges to the true value that neuromarketing can bring to brand owners. But I have to say, I am a little bit seduced by the potential of tomorrow…what brand-owner doesn’t want to know what consumers really want? And ultimately, who doesn’t want greater self-insight?
3 comments
[…] The article is worth a read as it goes to briefly assess the different technologies on offer, many of which seem to involve off-putting acronyms. These include fMRI (Functional Magnetic resonance Imaging), EEG (Electro-Encephalography), as well as physiological measures (heart rate, changes in breathing etc), and eye-tracking. For an assessment of whether neuromarketing is bonkers or brilliant, check out this link. […]
[…] was compelled to reply to a blog post at ESOMAR, as seen here, and would like to share the comment here, with a few […]
Hello,
I find this an absolutely valid question, and while discussing this further over lunch, please consider the following:
* neuromarketing is not a unique and novel application of neuroscience outside it’s domain of origin. Psychology has used neuroscience for decades now, aka neuropsychology, and with great success in understanding and predicting behaviour. Neuroscience and physiology was the very part of the origin of psychology since the times of Fechner and Wundt more than a century ago. Why should this not be the case for understanding consumers and communication effects?
* We understand much more than the basics, but even for the basics, there is much added value. For example 1) knowing where people actually look (we are poor at knowing ourselves); 2) how we respond emotionally (also often unconsciously); and 3) how such initial responses predict likelihood of purchase/click/behaviour-of-choice. These are very straightforward questions that are “easy” to answer with neuroimaging and related measures, and yet can have profound insights to marketers.
* Whether neuromarketing works is actually not something that should be determined as a beauty contest. It’s an empirical question. Today, we see an increasing number of studies showing that neuromarketing predicts actual behaviour.
* on criticism from Wilson & Trumpickaite, it is true that many measures are bivalent, i.e. cannot tell us whether an elevated response is due to positive or negative responses. However, novel measures now allow better determination of this; and even for traditional measures, we usually operate in the neutral-to-positive scale, rarely we see customers run away screaming… This means that arousal responses are typically a signal of the positive relevance and appeal that a person ascribes to a stimulus
* thinking neuro informs your psychology: the way you use terms such as attention, memory, preference and choice are highly informed by the combined efforts of economics, psychology AND neuroscience. For example, there is solid evidence from neuroscience that we have (at least) two motivational systems with distinct speeds and processes. Not exactly the same as dual process theories, but then again converging evidence as such.
* fishy studies abound, but more than anything, this demonstrates an honest appeal to rigorous methodology in neuroimaging measures, not something that is problematic for neuromarketing only. Then again, if we are left with surveys, interviews and focus groups, then let’s take the discussion of validity here, too. We know that is a contentious topic
* Finally, while neuromarketing comes very much across as an assessment toolbox, it is so much more than this. When used properly, it is a strategic tool to shape the way information is conveyed to the recipients, how a brand is construed, and the way companies communicate. Think of neuromarketing not as something different from marketing, but a new leg to stand on that is based on rock solid science
I may be coloured on this aspect since I have spent the better parts of my life devoted to these questions. But I firmly believe that when we are able to sort out the snake oil and false promises in neuromarketing, and other places where neuro is used, we can focus on the true insights that can be gained. It’s a learning process for all sides, and I find that added value can be made on every step of the way for all participants.