Using Neuromarketing to Sell Products 398
Cyan Peppa writes "Marketplace on CBC, that's a Canadian station for you Americans, had an interesting story on neuromarketing tonight. '...Neuromarketing uses traditional neuroscientific methods to determine the drivers behind consumer choices. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), researchers map brain patterns of participants, to reveal how they respond to a particular advertisement or product. This information can be used as the basis for new advertising campaigns and branding techniques...'
Now, I'm no genius, but isn't something like this wrong? Personally, I don't like advertisements tapdancing on the chest of my own free will...What do you think?"
I dont see this (Score:2)
Re:I dont see this (Score:2, Insightful)
Ask people, they might just lie, or reply in a slightly distorded way.
By using MRI, scientists can know what parts of the brain are / may be stimulated by ads, so what kind of feelings we got when seeing / hearing it...
Of course it's not (only) because we think product A is funnier than product B that we buy A, other factors hopefully are taken into account too...
Re:I dont see this (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't tell what "feelings" a person is experiencing. Emotions aren't individually localizable to regions of the brain.
They can tell whether an area of the brain generally responsible for emotions (e.g., orbitofrontal cortex) is being engaged versus one generally responsible for deliberate reasoning (e.g., the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex). This could reveal whether an ad prompts emotional or logical responses, generally speaking.
But that's about it given the limitations of the technology and cognitive neuroscience.
Disclaimer: The site was borderline slashdotted so I couldn't read the source article.
Re:I dont see this (Score:2, Funny)
A really stupid ad gets shown, emotion region fires, face registers puzzlement. Therefore, we should show this ad. No wait, that's not right...
Re:I dont see this (Score:2, Insightful)
Better Mind Control Today (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that they are trying to monitor the stimulus response mechanism of the people involved.
I do not know of any scientific study or body of knowledge that directly studies the pathology of the stimulus response mechanism as a mechanism by itself. You have to go outside the mainstream sciences to see anything looking at the area. Psychoanlysis, for example, does not study this, and addresses it indirectly if ever. Psychiatry, with it's love affair for medication, is more of the same.
In fact this is the first such study that I have even heard of, and the use of it is not theraputic at all. Unless the therapy is that of weight reduction of an obese wallet.
A therapy would be interested in looking at stimulus response mechanisms, and learning to help people whose mechanisms are out of whack. {example: I knew a gal whose boy friends, each in turn, all that the same first name. creepy)
This is no such thing. It is research for better mind control of the consumer today.
You would thing that this would be a fruitful area for research if you actually wanted to help folks. But the money seems to be focused elsewhere. I wonder why?
Re:Better Mind Control Today (Score:3, Informative)
The idea is that areas that are being actively used will get increased blood flow, but this happens on the order of tens of seconds, so it doesn't really provide a detailed picture of brain activity.
There are two kinds of experimental designs one can employ with fMRI. You are referring to "block" designs, where in fact the neural response is aggregated over tens of seconds. However, "event-related" designs permit temporal resolutions of 1.5 seconds, and I have seen some studies that clam 0.5 seconds. So, fMRI can do a bit better time-wise than you think.
The other dimension of interest is spatial resolution. Just like a computer screen is composed of 2D pixels, fMRI partitions brains into 3D voxels. The smallest voxels sizes that current technologies allow is on the order of 10s of cubic mms. However, Logothetis and colleagues have pioneered more invasive techniques that allow voxels that are several orders of magnitude smaller. The only drawback is that they can't be used in humans.
However, advertisers can gain minute knowledge of how animals respond to different ads! Perhaps Alpo, Purina, and the like should use neuromarketing.
This sounds strangely familiar! (Score:5, Funny)
[The dream ends. Fry wakes up.]
Fry: Oh what a weird dream! I'll never get back to sleep!
[He falls asleep.]
[Scene: Planet Express: Lounge. The crew are sat around a table.]
Fry: So you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?
Leela: Of course.
Fry: But, how is that possible?
Farnsworth: It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. [He holds up an egg and injects it with liquid. The egg explodes.] Although in reality it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.
Fry: That's awful. It's like brainwashing.
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 20th 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 written on the sky. But not in dreams. No sirree!
Re:This sounds strangely familiar! (Score:2)
I'm a little slow (Score:2)
Is this saying that broadcast media is the injector? That it's creators are intentionally modifying our dreams for their own ends and that they don't care about the side effects?
Experimental subjects? Who'd stand for it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are the experimental subject people crazy?! I mean, what's the angle here? I mean, what do they say to putative volunteers, "Oh, we're going to bombard you with commercials and take pictures of your thoughts while we do it, so we can make more and more irresistable ads"? I don't get it.
I mean, the research is one thing. You have to admit that, since the crawling slime are running out of venues in which to place their scrofulous offerings, they must want to make them work better (although I doubt that will lessen the saturation level!). However, where (and how) are they finding their research subjects?
This isn't precisely the kind of research they can do on rhesus monkeys or something (although with the way ads are now, you'd think they were written by planaria for rhesus monkeys, or something), but who's giving that famous "informed consent"?
Eeek! An entirely new meaning of the ad-copy phrase "Not tested on animals"!
--shudder-- Ok, I'm scaring myself. I'd better stop now.
easy way around this scheme (Score:4, Funny)
then they will start showing you ads with b00bies on them...
yes, i know, im a genius !
Re:easy way around this scheme (Score:3, Funny)
then they will start showing you ads with b00bies on them...
And then for a split of a second, you think about taking a dump, and you get a commercial with a woman cleaning her bum with Charmin toilet paper...
Well, some people actually like watching that...
Re:easy way around this scheme (Score:2)
Or a movie starring Cartman's mom.
Re:easy way around this scheme (Score:2)
The French are WAY ahead of you... (Score:2)
Scan my brain (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... welcome to the modern world (Score:4, Insightful)
There isn't necessarily anything sinister about it.
Re:Um... welcome to the modern world (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Um... welcome to the modern world (Score:5, Insightful)
What we are really talking about is a group of people scanning peoples brain patterns in reaction to product images to find what can actually make us "behave the way they want [us] to" (direct quote)
There is something wrong about that. It kind of reminds me of the whole Snow Crash thing really.
Advertising is just a way to make something seem like it is worth more than it is. It sucks.
It's just taking things a step further... (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact of the matter is that all people walk through this world trying to impress images on others. We're the clever entrepeneur, the sports hero, or the trusted religious leader. In the end no matter the images that are pushed onto people, it doesn't hide the truth of what's underneath for long. The entrepeneur turns out to be a swindler, the sports hero's a thug, and the trusted religious leader is a child molester. So even with all the technology in the world, nobody's going to convince us that we should buy crap that is in fact crap.
Now, if they were pumping people with drugs, or something like that, that'd be a different story. Ultimately this will just refine their abilities a little bit more, and probably sell a few more things. They aren't telling us what to do, and we still possess free will, so I don't see the harm.
Frankly I'd rather that they had fewer more influential ads than slathering their advertising feces over any flat surface on planet earth. Maybe studies like this will help them realize that it's all becoming white noise and that we're just learning to ignore them.
Re:It's just taking things a step further... (Score:2)
Because the button pushers can lie and play mind games with the anxious marketers.
Been there, done that.
In the end no matter the images that are pushed onto people, it doesn't hide the truth of what's underneath for long. The entrepeneur turns out to be a swindler, the sports hero's a thug, and the trusted religious leader is a child molester.
And an ad exec is
So even with all the technology in the world, nobody's going to convince us that we should buy crap that is in fact crap.
Well.... How do you explain Amstel Light?
Re:It's just taking things a step further... (Score:2, Insightful)
The world of The Space Merchants [tripod.com] draws nearer every day.
DDB
Re:Um... welcome to the modern world (Score:2)
The word consumers shows how these people view us: Our purpose in life is to buy more stuff.
Since they want to sell us more stuff, and we don't necessarily need the things they make, they have to create an artificial need. This sort of sucks by definition, but it sucks even more if they're creating artificial needs by figuring out, at the neural level, how to convince us that we need their products. I think it is, indeed, scary shit.
Re:Um... welcome to the modern world (Score:5, Interesting)
I grew up with a lot of respect for advertizing, and as an art, I still do respect it. However, I've learned that like all profitable art, the field is mostly clogged with hacks.
Advertising need not be aimed at making a product look better than it is. In fact, some advertising does just the oposite (remember the "time to make the donuts" commercials? they actually tried to make donuts look as un-glamarous as possible, it was about service and dedication to the customer).
There are several kinds of ad:
1. The promise of return on investment (you will make money, or you will get babes, or your hair will grow back, peer aproval, etc). Tangible rewards promised. These are sometimes true and accurate, but often spurious.
2. The promise of instant gratification (mmm.... look at the tasty burger... do you really want to WAIT for someone to cook a non-fast-food burger?) These are often quite accurate, but far more manipulative than any other form of advertizing. It's also easy to combine this with the previous catagory.
3. The promise of quality. It's been said that you can sell a man his own shit as long as you tell him he's buying the highest quality shit. The best of this sort of ad, IMHO, was the razor ads where the guy talked about how the razor was so good he bought the company. Testimonials are one way you promise quality. Comparisons and tests are another (take the Pepsi Challenge, which was one of the most strikingly honest campaigns I've ever seen... people really did like the taste of Pepsi better when sampled fairly).
There are others, but that's most of them in a nutshell. Now, here's a little trick you can do. Watch the ads. PAY ATTENTION. Think to yourself, "why are you using this particular tactic?" For example, if you're promising me babes, why AREN'T you promising me quality? What other competing products CAN offer quality?
If you promise me quality, have you honestly compared yourself to the competition? Do you have to resort to tricks like "leading brand" (one of my favorites. you compare yourself to "leading brand" by picking your competition's bargain product that you and they both know is crap, while ignoring their "premium product"). If so, why? Is there a competitor that's actually higher quality?
These tricks force your perspective out of the hole that the commercial tries to channel you into. Once you do that, you can start to actually benefit from commercials!
The next trick is harder, and involves some actuall hard questions. You need to start asking yourself: "do I even want this class of product in the first place?"
I have no problem with ads for tampons, pads, etc. because I think most women will agree they are a good and necessary product. Imrpovements in that product are often a good thing and improve quality of life for many women. Since it's a stable market, the products actually do have to compete on improvements to the product, so everyone wins.
On the other hand, extruded cheese snack #147 is *not* something that you need in your life. The ad is still successful even if you end up buying the competition because it has convinced you that you need to to buy extruded cheese snacks at all, ever. The ad has essentially created a new market space, and just as Linux vendors don't much care which Linux you go with as long as you stop running Windows (it all serves to expand and validate the Linux market) the cheese snack vendors just want you to avoid asking "why do I need a cheese snack?"
Re:Um... welcome to the modern world (Score:3)
The reason this crap sontinues is because people have the attitude like the parent post. It is very sad that you just look at something like this and just say "welcome to the modern world" - when what you should be saying is "WTF? is this the modern world that I want to live in - perpetuate and create?" hell no.
An example of how bad marketing is can be found in alcohol advertising - some of the strongest marketing in the world.
michelob: started a marketing campaign some time ago that went like this:
ad 1: [party all taking place in a bottle] "Spend the holidays with Michelob" (I cant remember this exact phrase... but read on)
ad 2: [bunch of guys hanging out] "Make this weekend a Michelob weekend"
ad 3: [guys at a bar] "Put some weekend in your week"
ad 4: [all their new ads] "The night belongs to Michelob"
Now - the thing is that this campaign started with a seemingly not so sinister happy holiday scene (although the party was happening inside a beer bottle) but progressed to promoting partying with Michelob every night.
Another ad had two versions - one marketed towards whites and one towards blacks. The caption on the white version of the Ad said "Be a part of it" - the caption marketed towards blacks said "Forget about the rest"
marketing is very very subtle, powerful and sinister. Why is it sinister?
Take a look at the alcohols margins 50% of all the alcohol drank in the US is drank by only 10% of the drinkers. They market the idea that a "moderate" drinker has four drinks per night. Four per night is a lot.... not moderate.
All they care about is profits - not your well being, image or success. That is sinister.
But welcome to the modern world - too fucking bad buddy, this is how things are. Deal with it, no use trying to change the system - you're just one little guy. What could you possibly do to change anything? Anything at all? Nothing. Now get me another beer - I have better things to think about, like how cool I am when I am drunk.
This fucking world needs a wakeup call. Advertisers should be shot.
Garbage voodoo marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Garbage voodoo marketing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Garbage voodoo marketing (Score:2)
skepdic [skepdic.com]
try again. (Score:2)
Re:try again. (Score:3, Informative)
From this site [nlp.org]
The Amazing "Eat Popcorn," "Drink Coke" Hoax
How can we account for the widespread belief in subliminal persuasion ? There are several reasons why people find this rather odd proposition to have some merit. For one thing, most people believe that some sort of scientific study was done years ago which used subliminal messages to increase Coke and popcorn sales in a New Jersey movie theater. This became the paradigmatic case of subliminal persuasion.
There was a report in the media of an ostensible six-week study of patrons of a movie theater in Fort Lee, New Jersey, in 1956, where, the story went, advertising specialist James Vicary had secretly used a device on the movie projectors which flashed suggestions to buy popcorn and drink Coke. Vicary claimed to have increased Coke sales by 18.1% and popcorn sales by 57.7%. So well accepted was this claim that this apocryphal story is, I am told, still related in some undergraduate psychology classes as if it were a scientific study.
The reports of this fed the public fears and imagination in a powerful way which turned out to be much more potent than the method in Vicary's study. His study in fact turned out to be a hoax, as admitted by Vicary (Danzig, 1962) and demonstrated by repeated failures to replicate the supposed effect,. (Weir, 1984; Advertising Age, 1958). Nor have there ever been any successful replications to this date, or any clear evidence that subliminal messages can significantly influence behavior. What passes for evidence of subliminal persuasion is simply reliable evidence that subjects detect some stimuli that they are not aware of detecting, and that such perception can influence simple lexical priming tasks, not attitudes or behaviors.,,,,. (Pratkanis & Greenwald, 1988; McConnell. Cutler, and McNeil, 1958; Goldiamond, 1958; McConnell, 1966; McConnell, 1989a)
Here's how it works (Score:3, Funny)
MrMRI : Hey Mr advertising guy, we've got this great Idea.
MRAdd: What?
MrMRI: Just lie down here, keep still and I'll tell you...
half an hour later.
MrMRI wispers
MRMRI: Well, you get people to lie down in an MRI machine and user ther brain waves to sell.......
Re:Garbage voodoo marketing (Score:3, Interesting)
It's made for detecting tumors and stuff like that. So maybe they'll come out with the result that an unusual number of "neuromarketing" subjects are aware they have brain cancer
Even if you want to posit (which I don't) that you could determine emotions with this technique, have you ever BEEN in an MRI? I think the experience of sitting inside a metal tube for 20-30 minutes on end with loud clanging going on around you would throw up a ton of "noise" emotions that would be way more powerful than some crappy Nike ad.
Re:Garbage voodoo marketing (Score:2)
You're half right. MRI is used for probing the static structure of the brain, e.g., in search of tumors. functional MRI (fMRI) is used for measuring the dynamics of blood flow in the brain during performance of a task. It can, for example, indicate which areas of the brain are active when processing "emotional" stimuli, and therefore may be useful for advertisers who want an emotional, not logical reaction (e.g., the makers of weight loss supplements).
isn't something like this wrong? (Score:2, Funny)
Whereas today there are lots of commercials that annoy the SHIT out of a lot of people, but which happen to work all right at keeping the brand in people's minds, in the future commercials will be designed NOT to annoy people -- more specifically, me.
Aw, who am I kidding?
Market analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I dislike advertisements as much as the next guy, but what differentiates me (and most of hte geek community) from the next guy is that fact that I know how to look at an ad and know when I should and should not listen to what's being said. When someone watching an ad is aware of the techniques used to create the ad, it's not very likely to work.
Example: The annoying beer commercials designed to associate their beer with having fun. I know that's what they are doing, so I know to ignore the commercial.
I seriously doubt any ad developed using this technique will be so effective as to hinder my ability to logically conclude whether or not the product being advertised is actually worth spending money on.
Re:Market analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
What they are really trying to do is figure out WHY people respond they way they do, and come up with advertisements that highlight their best selling points.
Associating beer with fun is stupid. Associating beer with a PARTY is very good. What they want isn't for you to say, I'm having fun lets have a beer, instead they'd like you to think, hmmm big group of people coming over for football, I should get Budweiser. They want situational association with their product (Nasty stain? Tide works good for that, but wouldn't you rather put some Shout on that?)
The best marketing plays into those associations, then society advertises for them:
Stain removal gel that prevents stains from setting? No, Shout.
Adhesive gauze strip?
Acetametaphine?
Chlorine Bleach?
Pressed Chicken Strips?
Facial Tissue?
Visual associations are better than word associations though, even with their name. They've done studies that show when ask to name a battery, more than 50% of their study will say Energizer, most likely because it keeps going and going and going and going. When asked to DRAW a battery or describe one, (Do it yourself real quick) most of them draw a black round cylinder with a golden cap at the positive end. The Coppertop, Duracel. When people 'think' battery they think Energizer, but when they REACH for a battery, they picture a Duracel.
That is what the scientists want to tap into.
Re:Market analysis (Score:2)
whatever you think of and whatever you try to reach, when you go to the store there's only one brand of battery.
That is what redmond taps into for long time.
Re:Market analysis (Score:3, Funny)
Associating beer with fun is stupid.
You don't need fun to have alcohol.
wibstr.
Re:Market analysis (Score:2)
It's not Budweiser gets you Girls.
It's There is a better class of people. Innovative, fun, engaging. They have girls. Sometimes they even drink Budweiser.
That way the audience is left to decide... hey, my life isn't that great. I wish my life were like that... it might not seem very different, but is. For reference, check those Intel "Can a new computer change your life?" ads. Those things are fucking brilliant. Really.
Oooh. Also good are the Hyundai ads: "When you start ignoring trends..." blah blah blah. The down economy only applies to the suits on Wall St. Regular people can still buy a car on credit. C'mon. It'll be ok.
Re:Market analysis -- answers (Score:3)
Adhesive gauze strip?.....Store brand.
Acetametaphine?...........Store brand.
Chlorine Bleach?..........Store brand.
Pressed Chicken Strips?...Breast meat, not "pressed." (yuck)
Facial Tissue?............Store brand.
Battery?..................Cheapest. Alkaline.
Any questions?
Yeah, I'm jaded. Advertisers barely bother with me, so my favorite shows keep getting cancelled.
Re:Market analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
You sound so dismissive. Personally, I associate fun with having beer.
My problem with the beer ads is that they're pitching such lowbrow fun, or whatever passes for yuppie fun (Heinekens), or the promise that you can get tanked without getting fat (light "beer").
Anyway, liquor's quicker.
*
On a more sober note, advertising is largely an attempt to link your ego and libido with your product choices. (Occasionally it brings a new product to your attention that you might want to try.) This is kind of sad, like if I wear Nikes I'll be cool or beutiful women will want to sleep with me if only I drink that beer, but is does evidently work, and so we have all the bitter fighting over trademarks witnessed amply elsewhere in this forum. Personally I try to buy generics, but I'm old and out of the marketers prime demographic anyway. Next, they'll be trying to sell me Volvos and Preparation H, the antithesis to sex appeal. I'll take the Nikes first.
Re:Market analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who lives in the Netherlands (home of Heineken), I find that extremely funny. Here we have a saying: "Grolsh [or better yet Hertog Jan; now that's a damn fine beer] in, Heineken out".
Well technically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I don't like advertisements tapdancing on the chest of my own free will...What do you think
If they're able to build advertising to get you to buy the product from this "technology" you really don't have free will do you? They're just abusing you of the idea that you have free will.
Re:Well technically... (Score:2)
"Well, if I'm able to change all the numbers to 666, it wasn't really random, was it?"
That's basically what I think is going on here--brains and random number generators are both implemented in deterministic atoms (I guess), and though that means neither true free will nor true randomness can exist, there is still a very valid concept of pseudorandom, likewise I suppose when someone claims bizarro MRI technology will take away your free will, they really mean it takes away your "pseudo-free will", or something like that. A good stab a definition for pseudo-free will might be "the quality of being free from manipulation by other minds"
Self-control (Score:4, Insightful)
Bell's Theorem (Score:2)
A Fascinating Thought (Score:2, Funny)
Maxwell walks through the new Mall and a salesman pops out.
"Sir, would you like to browse our fine selection of silver hammers?"
Clang clang, Maxwell's silver hammer comes down upon his head. Silly scanners, should have scanned for psychopathic tendencies before scanning for a product wishlist.
How is this different? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only downside is that this may put some advertising people on the street. Boo hoo.
Hmm, no. (Score:2)
There's the problem right there. (Score:2)
You still believe in free will.
look... pretty girl... (Score:2)
Increased brain activity != purchase product... But I wonder if "lesbians still = ratings".
And for your viewing pleasure, all the above links are work safe.
Obligitory HHGTTG reference: (Score:2)
Ah, this must be what they call 'progress'...
=Smidge=
Wrong? (Score:2)
Um...while this is certainly an interesting story, and an indication of the ridiculous amount of money going into advertising research, I fail to see what's wrong with it.
It appears to me that all this company is doing using an MRI and a neuroscientist to analyse focus group results rather than a sociologist or a psychologist. Which is fine with me, if ad companies want to scientifically proove that the libido sections of men's brains have a stronger responce to the model with the cell phone, then the logic sections do to the cell phone and it's list of features, then that's their own business. Granted, this will increase the price of the product on which they're doing market neuro-research; but the market will ultimately determine the value of the research.
Either way it's not you're brain being explored. (Believe me if Madison Ave. were using an MRI on you you'd know) And too, this research could add more value to neuroscience in general than it does to marketing so it's a Good Thing in some ways...
When are advertisers going to learn ... (Score:2)
You want a product that sells?? Give it a flashy package and get some famous people to say it's "cool". Look at the mini-rc cars "whoa shaq plays with them, they must be cool", or look at a Buick ... okay wait, step back let's leave the buick's ...
My point is still clear though, it's not our brain waves, not how we were raised, what we really enjoy, ask yourselves, when was the last time you used EVERYTHING you buy??
Re:When are advertisers going to learn ... (Score:2)
Honestly... (Score:5, Funny)
I think you need a nice refreshing Coke.
Free Will? (Score:2)
It's only free will if someone lets you have free will.
No problem unless it's used by amoral marketers... (Score:2)
Wouldn't this be a cool add-on for Tivo, though? Include a headset that functions as a mind-operated remote control, and grabs all the marketroid data in the background. Oh, and look for telltales of anti-social behavior while you're at it. If the subject appears to be too anti-social, just send a command from TivoJusticeCentral to send a high-voltage current across the temples. Bang! A better society is just a programming choice away.
Not all marketing research is bad... (Score:2)
I don't need to know about womens clothing (not into that), or vinly siding (I rent).
*GASP*! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, except in Microsoft's case.
Free will? (Score:2)
Perhaps the problem is that you think you have free will... ;-)
Sounds a lot like... (Score:4, Interesting)
...the subliminal advertising that some theatre owners tried back in, what, the 50's or 60's. By flashing a single frame of a heaping bucket of buttery popcorn every once in a while during the movie they were able to convince the viewers that they should buy some popcorn during the intermission (remember those?). This practice was ruled illegal. I'm hoping that this ``neurological marketing'' is seen as the same thing as subliminal advertising. In fact, I'd bet that the marketing folks are really just trying to bring that idea back but are wrapping it up in a new name to fool people into believing that it's not so as to avoid the backlash they encountered in the past.
Re:Sounds a lot like... (Score:2)
Sounds a lot like ... an urban legend (Score:2, Informative)
Check those facts, please.
I like the little line on the bottom of article... (Score:2)
Bad Science (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, this is right up there with folks that tell you they can analyze alpha waves and tell you something about depression or your overall psychological health. (alpha waves are real and result from thalamo-cortical relays induced by relaxed eyes-closed wakefullness, but there is no evidence in the scientific record that indicates people can determine psychological health from their analysis).
The problem with work like this is that cortical patterns of activation are an emergent phenomenon that differs widely among different people which may reveal why DARPA is interested in "fingerprinting" brainwave patterns. But seriosly folks, lets have some studies that indicate emotive components can be accurately predicted from functional magnetic resonance imaging before we start foisting this crap on the unsuspecting public. (I presume they are using fMRI as plain old MRI simply looks at structure based on reconstruction of atomic "spins". Perhaps they are also using MRS or magnetic resonance spectroscopy as well, but I doubt it.)
seems like someone has done a good job marketing (Score:2)
Slowly, the Matrix gets to you... (Score:3, Funny)
Right now they catch up desires and wishes. Why not to think they soon they glue your mounth with a tube and pomp you with dogfood? And drill your skull to hammer your brain with the idea that you're eating the best dish on Earth?
Ads anti-capitalist? (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems to have more in common with communist propaganda than with core values of capitalism...
2c worth.
Ah... but you forgot one thing grasshopper!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Communist system has one hypnotizer...
Free Market system put hypnotizers in direct competition with each other!
I take your 2c, now you senseless!!! HA! HA! HA! Old Hong Kong Joke!
Not MRI (Score:4, Informative)
Check here [fmri.org] -- the first image you see is an overlay of functional hot spots (color) over a regular MRI (B&W). While on the topic of medical acronyms, there is not "CAT scan" anymore, it's CT for computed tomography. The earliest machines could only do axial cuts, hence "A" in CAT. But the public and TV shows like saying CAT. I used to work around CT, too, almost 20 years ago.
I'm jealous because I did research on psychiatric patients with MRI ten years ago, which was limited to detected tumors, atrophy, and other gross physical changes. That's very useful -- people with mental illnes have in some cases revealed what appears to be long-term degeneration marked by atrophy (shrinkage) of relevant lobes --but does not have the amazing possibilities of instantly detecting changes in brain activity. This is quite a bit short of reading your mind! Just 10 years ago the imaging MRI was a stunning achievement, now we're spoiled and moving into the next phase.
Is this research for marketing purposes invasive? Nah. It's just an (expensive) attempt to further quantify reaction to marketing, as has been done up to now with questionnaries and the like. It's not sneaky like subliminal advertising [google.com], which didn't work anyway despite being a compelling idea and making for a great episode of Columbo (conspiracy theorists disagree [searchlores.org]; scientists generally don't; but advertisers and maybe Republicans [salon.com] still try it anyway).
Anyway, advertisers have long had a general idea (sex) of (sex) what (sex) moves (sex) product (send me money). The marketers looking upon consumers as a horde of cattle, that's kind of patronizing, but it's nothing new.
Nothing new (Score:2)
And after much brain scanning... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And after much brain scanning... (Score:2)
Hence, the female stars wearing shoes all the time. I'm sorry, but high heels in bed is just going to rip up the sheets. And heels around the pool? Are you insane? Who wants a nice tan with shoe lines?
But it's really just about having a great pair of ... shoes. Yeah, shoes.
--mandi
Apple's Ellen Feiss commercial... (Score:2)
What the hell is wrong with this country? (Score:3, Insightful)
Science reporting misrepresents once again (Score:5, Informative)
They are purporting that with MRI scans of people's brains they can "read your unconscious thoughts", like some Orwellian nightmare and then pull these subconscious strings to get you to empty your wallet at the nearest GAP outlet.
Well, being myself a student of the cognitive sciences, I'd like to set a few things clear. The ability to "read thoughts" as purported by this article, while not technically false, is much more primitive than you could imagine.
An MRI of the brain can give you a picutre of what cells are most active at any given point, so you can see relatively what brain centres dominate and try to make inferences from that as to what the person is thinking. Given that our knowledge of brain function is at a very primitive level, the most useful data you can get from this type of scan is "he likes it" or "he doesn't like it". It will not tell you what images, feelings, sounds, associations are passing through the subjects head at any point, only whether they are generally positive or not. Its really no different from putting a bunch of boxes on a chart and asking the person to rate from one to ten how well they like certain things - except you get that rating directly from the brain rather than from asking the person. So in theory this ranking is more "honest" and less clouded by other factors such as social obligations, etc. which might interfere with what a person would say when asked.
The idea that this technology can be used in some Orwellian fashion to understand that secretly you are afraid of rats, or are a pedophile or like the look of women eating juicy mangoes is not going to happen anytime soon. It is unlikely that that level of analysis is ever going to be possible. Ok, end of rant.
A better focus group? (Score:2, Interesting)
This got me thinking about the nature of the focus groups, don't the companies know the opinions they are getting what people say not necessarily what they do? I suspect that the scans will allow for more accurate polling. You could ask a group of women if they like a half naked ad, they may say "no" but their brains might tell a different story.
Dr. Seuss Foretold This (Score:2, Funny)
From Soupyet.com [soupyet.com]:
Green Eggs and Ham is not what your parents told you. It is not a story about trying something you think is gross and discovering that you might like it. It is a dark tale of the evil implications of the age of information in which we live.
Sam I am is the archetypical villian of modern society. He is the ever-present, ever-persistent marketing puppet of the information age. He peddles his wares incessantly via any and all means, until we give up in desperation and eat those disgusting green eggs and ham. Not only do we eat them, but the parable has us shouting for glee that we love the green eggs and ham that have been forced down our collective, societal throat.
Sam I am is, poet, priest, and politician. But he may also be: boss, parent, spouse, news anchor, movie star, CEO, etc.
Green eggs and ham are the collective physical, emotional, metaphysical and other wares being thrown at us faster and faster in this so-called information age.
you asked... (Score:2)
Personally, I don't like advertisements tapdancing on the chest of my own free will...What do you think?
If you are in total control of your, as you say, "free will", what do you care if someone attempts to appeal to your interests? Perhaps you are concerned that they are able to make some low-level appeal to your senses below what you can consciously understand but effective enough to influence your behavior? At that point, how would you even know it was happening?
If you don't make yourself available to be targeted by the "tapdancers", then perhaps you won't have to worry about whether or not you are consuming something because you want to or because someone made you think you want to.
Why does everyone bitch about advertising? You don't have to observe it if you don't want to.
Whose free will? (Score:4, Funny)
Your don't own your free will, you license it. And the subscription fee is due.
Anti-American? (Score:2)
It's not just Americans who haven't heard of CBC.
No one outside Canada cares about the call letters of your pissant stations.
Weak minded Dumb Bitch (Score:3, Interesting)
But she doesn't have a problem with neuromarketing -- or any other subconscious probing.
"I think if they can find a way to help us find a way into that magic little feeling that shopping can give you -- if you do it right and you get the right thing and you don't spend too much money, hats off to them. Thank you. I think it's a service."
Since she doesn't have a problem with neuromarketing -- or any other subconscious probing, one could guess that she is quite an easy lay. Go for it /.ers! Most likely she'll overlook your pizza stained sweatpants, as long as you keep repeating, "Geek is Chic...Geek is Chic..."
It's sheepeople like these that are making world domination easy. Make sure you wear a condom when you handily take her womanhood.
Selecting for medical research subjects? (Score:2)
News flash: people who volunteer for medical research aren't always in much of a position to buy consumer products. Maybe the people who might actually buy your sports sedan will think about the car instead of the girl, you know?
It's amazing the things people will willingly do for a study like this. Advertizing psychology does stuff like put little cameras in your living room, to track your eye movement when you watch commercials. Who would volunteer for that to be in her home? Chee-sus! (And who are the people who start fooling around on camera? Supposedly happens, or according to a psych teacher I had anyway.)
Advertizers have no scruples, but are we this willing to participate in the process?
Advertisements dancing where? (Score:2, Insightful)
then it's not free will. how about that?
Nothing new...just worse (Score:4, Informative)
Go read a Sociology textbook. There are decades of tales about cult leaders, population control, con artists, etc. Tales about power over other people.
Now go read a Management or Marketing textbook...same thing, but different jargon.
Except now, their tatics will be even more potent, as they manipulate our core humanity against us. Don't be suprised when the hopeless flocks grow even greater than before.
What scares me isn't the commercial applications.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Other implications (Score:3, Interesting)
On second thought, it probably wouldn't take off. How would you market it?
silly waste of time... (Score:2)
want an example? SAAB minivan verses a GM minivan... they are BOTH identical.. I really dont give a rats ass about manufacturers claims and nobody really truely cares that SAAB is supposedly safer... yet GM minivans outsell SAAB minivans almost 5 to 1. Why?? because SAAB is horribly overpriced for what it is. People in general, when they dont have tons of money that they dont know what to do with care most about quality+price..
Three Words (Score:2)
I hate it when TV viewers explode in my living room.
This might be hard for some of you to believe... (Score:2)
it's not brainwashing.... (Score:3)
"The potential for good and the potential for ill are both huge here. I don't know what we will call brainwashing, but until we come up with a better term, I would suggest it's at least a kissing cousin."
"That's completely unfounded. It has nothing to do with controlling consumer thought...nothing to do with manipulating consumer thought. All we can do is observe and learn," Brighthouse's Koval says.
Yeah, observe and learn how to control their thoughts. Doesn't the potential for abuse outway the societal benefits here?
Re:whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you being intentionally funny? Why do you think that "Nikes are fast?" Was there a consumer study I missed? The only one I read said that Nikes were no better than other shoes. Did you do your own experiment to come to this conclusion? Which brand of sneaker did you use as your control.
Or do you think that "Nikes are fast" because that's just umm... common knowledge? And where did that come from?
Re:whatever (Score:2)
More Gatorade is consumed by people sitting on couches watching Gatorade ads than by hard-core street basketball players. The same goes for Nikes. You'd think people would want to buy sneakers which are comfortable for standing around and walking to lunch, but images of people running are far more compelling than images of people at desks.
I adore Nike ads. I think they're playful, fun, and often inspiring. They often concentrate on the ethic of sport: getting up early in the morning and doing it when you could be lying in bed. I don't wear their shoes, but I'd buy a videotape of their ads.
Re:whatever (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone can make a shoe because they're making a living wage, it takes real devotion to make shoes all day long for $1.80.
http://www.citinv.it/associazioni/CNMS/archivio
Re:whatever (Score:2)
Re:whatever (Score:2)
CBC is an institution (Score:2)
Re:er, um (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, as a Communication Strategist and Designer, (aka, layman's tongue Marketer) I have to say, "Yep, this'd be the next step."
What is sorely missing from most all of the comments thus far is the declaration of what marketing is.
Everything produced "nowadays" (as in for the past 30 years) considers marketing, everyone makes their "informed decisions" about products that, generally, were created to fulfill a market segment. *GASP* IMPOSSIBLE!?
Yes, utility has a lot to do with marketing, hence versions and price ranges and upgrades and add-ons.
Sure, the color of a plastic strip sewn into the side of a Nike shoe, the positioning of products on shelves (companies purchase shelf space and position, it's not just up to the major food chains to throw the product wherever they want), the graphic design is focus tested for years... and none of this considers the marketshare strategies (when to saturate, when to disappear, when to recampaign)... but this is just the skin of marketing.
What is at the heart of marketing? Basically: finding out what people want, and giving it to them. Do not confuse the more sensationalist tactics of marketing (superbowl commercials, sex, et al) with marketing itself... besides, if you claim you can ignore commercials well, fine, show me how you ignore forming an image of a pink elephant when I mention a pink elephant. That's now in there, at least for a little while, in that real estate known as your brain.
What would I have to do to get to to remember pink elephants for longer (don't answer that)?
This handy MRI would tell me what YOU want, essentially, without worrying about the noise.
Y'know, simplifying the signal chain as much as possible? I just finished reading about a campaign with a sporting good company that got the permission of a store to place cameras into the store to monitor how certain point of purchase displays were being used. Using this information, a new (and improved) point of purchase display was produced and sales of product X increase.
People in the store know they're being "watched" and enter an agreement to the surveillance by default inside the store.
I wonder if there's a petition I can join to battle surveillance cameras in commercial spaces! Basically: since when is telling me what you want such a bad thing? Especially since I'm asking you? Are you scared because I might tap in on the "purchase mindlessly instinct" and present a commercial not unlike the cat food commercials that were designed to get cats all in a tizzy? That I can fire a sort of Valis beam from the TV that 'forces' you into a neurological, and ultimately consumer, response?
I guess the fear is that this could lead into forcing people to do what they don't want, like making you smile when electrocuted. But as user testing stands right now, there's nothing inherently (or even remotely) evil about polling 50,000 people, getting the information, and producing a product that, for that segment, would appear to be successful.
And, uh, yeah, if I presented data to a client that stated "in 50,000 MRIs which told us that certain regions of the brain in these people exhibited pleasure" that's a hell of a lot more impressive and realistic than saying "I asked 50,000 people and they told me."
Bottomline: don't sign up for the MRI focus groups, that way the products won't necessarily be made for you and you can complain that things aren't the way you'd like them... that's fair. But this whole "marketing is automatically evil" spiel is ill-informed. I'm sure the Psychic Friends told you that, though.