Cheaper, faster, better!
Who doesn’t love the combination of these three words? Advertising is certainly no exception. An emerging trend amongst advertisers is the use of neuromarketing, which applies brain scans traditionally used in psychology/psychiatry to measure human response to promo messages. The method is cheaper, faster, and more reliable than conventional ways to gaining consumer insight. The result? More effective and targeted marketing.
As we all know, focus groups and other field testing methods can be pricey, time-consuming and often inconclusive. By using state-of-the-art technology like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), neuromarketers can actually see which areas of the brain ‘light up’ when test subjects are exposed to certain stimuli (sights, sounds, smells, etc). In short, this technique is helping advertisers figure out how consumers respond to everything, from perfumes to movie trailers to ads inserted in video games. And it has huge implications for content and placement of media.
Some say neuromarketing is “Orwellian” and pries too much into consumer minds; I think its pretty damn cool. Let’s face it, advertising is all about getting inside the heads of consumers: what they’re thinking, feeling, desiring. Neuromarketing is simply another advancement in the use of smart technology to further a cause. Technology + Advertising + Psychology. I love it.
P.S.–If you want to know more about neuromarketing, read “This is your brain on advertising.”
I agree that this is interesting, but it still leaves out what I believe to be a key element of any communication - context. The testing environment can attempt to re-create the real world, but the truth is that people don’t consume messages discretely. I’m not merely talking about the “clutter.” I’m talking about specific instances vs cumulative experiences. Think of testing a new comedy to see if people will find it funny. There is certainly a difference between a person watching it alone and watching it in a crowded theater. But what about the other elements that contribute to a person’s evaluation/experience of a film? Arguably the experience begins the first time a person hears/sees/reads something about the film. Where it ends cannot be foreseen. When they buy a ticket? What they say about the film to their friends after seeing it? When they buy the DVD? The point is that physiological response to specific stimuli only remains relevant for the moment that said response is observed. Communications have to exist beyond the moment of consumption. So should observation and evaluation. Just my thoughts…
have you ever been to the church of scientology? its a pretty rad place that has a lot of answers for all the question youve been looking to ask. all you have to do is pay some money to go watch a seminar, which entitles you to the opportunity to sit in on other seminars that are related to the problems/concerns/issues you are having with your life… all for just a nominal fee. after a few more seminars, youre ready to begin your audits, which is really one of the best ways to gain clarity into the things that are troubling your life and keeping you from reaching your full potential. if youre feeling reticent regarding the entire process, id invite you to try the patented stress test. youll be able to take one through any representative of the church of scientology. the test involves the uses of the proprietary ‘e-meter’, which is able to indicate the points of stress that may be causing internal conflict. its a great tool for anyone who is interested in learning more about the church, or for anyone who is feeling troubled overall.
in summation, the e-meter is kind of like fMRI. great post, vicky!
Hey Vicky (and Andrew).
I read this post (and andrew’s comment) some while ago and it got me thinking about about focus groups and context.
I find this fMRI thingie really interesting btw, since it provides actual measurable quantitative data instead of the rough qualitative data from ‘old school focus groups’.
I agree with Andrew on the context part and think that this context has a negative effect on focus groups. My idea on solving this…? Social networks. I think they can play a major role here. Mainly for the reason that I believe that in order to get an honest opinion/answer/result or whatever you want out of your focus group (btw I think that word is very in need of renewal) a company should never go to a client but let the client/consumer/person come to them. Don’t force an answer out of them through a time&space bound focus group but encourage a free discussion. When such a free discussion can take place in a social network (please think more than facebook/myspace etc.) the factor context can be toned down to a minimum.
Anyway, jus’mythoughts (check article focus groups & context on zee blog)
Cheerio