Are You Smarter Than a Neuromarketer

Are You Smarter Than a Neuromarketer

Companieshavealwaysaimedforthecustomer'sheart, but theheadmaymake a bettertarget.

ByJessicaTsai

Neuromarketing is reachingconsumerswheretheaction is: thebrain.

What do consumerswant?ThatquestioncontinuestofuelAmericancapitalistsociety—andmaynever be fullyanswered—but onerelativelynewgroup is boldlypromising an innovationthatwillcomeveryclose. Call themneuromarketers—peopleattemptingtomergethestudy of neurosciencewiththe art of marketingtounderstanddesire on a level far beyondwhatconsumersareabletoarticulate. Thisinsight, theyhope, willenablemarketingtodeterminethetruth—orsomethingclose—aboutwhatconsumersreallywant.

“Eighty-fivepercent of decisions…aremade in thenonconsciouspart of yourbrain,” says Martin Lindstrom, author ofBuyology: TruthandLiesAboutWhyWeBuyandfounder of a firmspecializing in marketing neuroscience. “Thereality is there’snowaywe’llfindout [what’sgoing on] usingconventionalresearch,” he says. “We’llscanyourbraininstead.”

Neuroscienceandmarketing, however, havemade a quarrelsomecouple. “Thetwocampsdon’tspeakthesamelanguage. Theydon’tunderstandeachother. Most of themhateeachother,” Lindstromsays. “Therearetwodifferentworldsthatneedtocometogetherandholdhands in orderto [achieve] anythingproductive.” That’swhy, at press time, he was in Tokyo at Hakuhodo, thesecond-largestadvertisingfirm in Japan, workingwithnearlytwodozenspecialistsdevelopingneuro-drivenconceptsforfutureproducts.

“Consumerswillnever, ever tellthetruth,” Lindstromsays. “It’s not becausethey’relying—becausethey’re not—they’rejustunaware.” Neuromarketing, he argues, is morereliablethanmost of theindustry’scurrentconcepts, which he saysarevulnerabletoexternalfactorssuch as culturalandsocietalnorms. “We can learn how toreactandexpressourselvesdifferently…butwhen it comestothebrain, youreallycan’tlie.”

Mostregions of thebrainareassociatedwithsome form of response. Lindstromsays a regionknown as BrodmannArea 10, forexample, is activewhenwethinksomething is coolorhip; therightmesialprefrontalcortex is tiedtothetendencytocollectthings; thenucleusaccumbens,known as “thecraving spot,” plays a role in addictionandreward; andtheamygdalehandlesresponsestofear. Nothing, however, pointsto an absolutetruth.

Evenifeverythingrequiresinterpretation, knowingwhatpartsareactivatedhelpsfocusthehunt, a challengeLindstromcomparestothe Gold Rush of the 1800s. “Ifyouknowwhichareayouhavetodig,” he says, “thenyou’remuchmorelikelytofindwhatyou’relookingfor.”

Thecurrenttechniquesfortrackingneuralactivityfallintothreebuckets: scansviafunctionalmagneticresonanceimaging (fMRI), measuringbloodflow (i.e.,activity) toparts of thebrain; electroencephalography (EEG), utilizingelectrodes on thescalptomeasurethebrain’selectricalactivity; andnoninvasiveappliedneuroscience, whichteachessalesand marketing teamstheprinciples of designandmessageoptimization.

Nascencyallowsdebateover how neuroscienceappliestomarketing, andKellyHlavinka, a partner at loyalty-marketing firmColloquy, saysfactionsaren’thelpingmatters. “Theyalltakeshots at oneanother in terms of reliability.”

A Colloquyreporttitled “TheNeuromancers” references a famous 2003 studyconductedby Read Montague, a professor in theDepartment of Neuroscience at Houston’sBaylorCollege of Medicine: Participants in a blindtaste test between Coca-Cola andPepsi had theirbrainactivitymeasuredviafMRI. Activity in theventralstriatum (i.e.,thereward-stimuliprocessingcenter) indicatedaffinitywasevenlysplitbetweenthetwobrands.

However, whenthebrandswereknowntotherespondentsahead of time, 75 percentsaidtheypreferredCoke. What’smore, thereportdescribedthoserespondents’ fMRIsshowingthemedialprefrontalcortex—associatedwithmemoryandhigherthoughtprocesses—lituplike Times Square on New Year’s Eve, an indicationconsumersweresubconsciouslyinvokingpositiveassociationswiththeCokebrand.

A stereo-equipmentmanufacturerthatLindstromworkedwithaskedcustomersto rate thequality of a remotecontrol. Participantshated it, he recalls, but couldn’texplainwhy. Neuroscientificresearchidentifiedactivity in theregion of thebrainassociatedwithtouch. Theremotewastoolightweight—a traitindirectlyconveying a sense of poorquality. Aftertheremote’sweightwasincreased, customersranked it muchmorefavorably.

LiorArussy, president of customerexperienceconsultancyStrativityGroup, doesn’tseeneuromarketing as an advancement at all—in fact, justtheopposite. (SeeArussy’sCustomerCentricitycolumn, “NeuromarketingIsn't Marketing,” January 2009.) “As weseecocreation of productsandservicescomingintotheworld, neuromarketing is keeping us back,” he says. “Itdoesn’ttreatcustomers as partners, but as subjects. It’stheold-fashionedway of doingsomethingtocustomersbecause [wethink] theydon’tknowwhattheywantandweknowbetterthanthem.”

Lindstromsaysneuromarketing’sintent is not toforce an unwantedpurchase, but toidentifytherelevantdriversandappealtothoseareas. Arussy, however, is unmoved, andremainsstronglyaversetowhatColloquyrefersto as “neuromance.”

“Wouldyoudatesomeoneand say, ‘Scanmybrainsoyou can findtherightgiftfor me?’ It’stheequivalent!” Arussyscoffs. “You’re a humanbeing. Youdon’twantto be treatedlike a piece of meatwithwiring on yourbrainthattellsothers how totreatyou.”

True, thatmaykillthespontaneity, but consumersmight not mind—iftheygettheperfectgift as a result.