Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.



No description

Rebecca Chavez

on 28 April 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Neuromarketing

What is neuromarketing?
Neuromarketing is the combination of
. It's about getting to the subconscious
mind of a consumer, so marketers can enhance their
ways of advertising.
How is neuromarketing done?
The top scientific approaches: EEG (electroencephalography), advanced polygraph, eye-tracking, voice-layering, and the fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging).
The history of neuromarketing
The term "neuromarketing" came around 2002.

It is based off of the system 1/system 2 decision making model.

The first scholarly piece published was the "Coke Vs. Pepsi Study" done by
Baylor College of Medicine
in 2004.
The pros and cons of neuromarketing
Digging deeper
What they learned from neuromarketing.
Neuromarketing & Ethics

What is marketing and neuroscience?
EEG Equipment
fMRI Machine
It collects electrical activity (brainwaves) on the scalp by the synapses the brain is firing.
It does not have a good spatial resolution.
It cannot pin point specific areas of electrical activity.
The EEG is cheaper to use than the fMRI.
It gives real time results.
It collects data by measuring the blood flow in the brain with radio waves.
It is very expensive to use.
It has 2-3 second delay when recording the data.
It has 10 times better spatial resolution than the EEG.
It can retrieve data from the deeper parts of the brain.
It eliminates the fundamental problems in traditional focus groups .
Although it is based in a field of science, it is based from neuroscience.
Neuromarketing is a very expensive approach.
It gives marketers a deeper insight into a consumer's unconscious thoughts.
It is conducted in an artificial environment.
It holds the power to increase marketing-related diseases.
It has the potential to create more appealing advertisements, horrifying movies, and alluring packaging.
Rebecca Hong

Annotated Bibliography

Morin, Christophe. “Neuromarketing: The New of Consumer Behavior.” Society Mar. 2011: 131.
Mas Ultra-School Edition. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

Marketing is constantly on the lookout to find methods to attract customers, and as technology is getting more advanced, there might be a strategy that out rules all other methods of marketing. Neuromarketing is a growing field that intelligently combines marketing and neuroscience; it studies the affects of different advertistments/movie trailers/packaging/etc. It’s about incorporating science with consumer behavior; it’s about studying the relations of the brain and psychological functions. It is most commonly done by using what’s called a fMRI machine.

A research was done using the fMRI in 2004, at Baylor College of Medicine. The researchers studied what would happen to the neuron activity, when the subjects drank Pepsi and Coca Cola. Although it showed the different parts the brain would light up, the collected data failed to understand how our brain reacts to different brands. Our frontal lobe is responsible for thinking and planning. Whenever the people knew they were drinking Coca Cola, they would prefer that drink over Pepsi and their frontal lobe would light up. But when they were unaware what brand they were drinking, they would prefer Pepsi over Coke. Now instead of their frontal lobe lighting up, an older structure in the limbic system would light up. The part of the brain that light up is for our emotional and instinctual behavior. This study bought understanding to the researchers that it holds a certain degree of power. It questioned whether it was an ethical practice or not by many researchers.

Neuromarketing does have potential power, because countless advertisement campaigns failed to understand consumer’s behavior towards them. For the longest time, market researchers have been dependent to the answers of consumers. They heavily relied on the focus groups’ conscious responses, assuming that they are capable of describing their own way of thinking. In fact, the responses they receive from a group of people may be greatly flawed. They could’ve had their own hidden agenda, in a hurry to finish, and even distort their emotions. The great thing about neuromarketing is that it does provide understanding to which advertistments messages succeed or do not succeed. This is done by looking at the subconscious level of the brain, instead of the latter. This field has grown tremendously over the past couple of years. There are more researchers who are more training in cognitive neuroscience, however, this technique has not fully saturated into the field of marketing. There are three well know methods of collecting date from the brain, nonetheless each methods has its set of pros and cons. The three methods are called: electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The EEG is one of the oldest innovations in the field of neurology, but it’s still able to collect some brain activity. Neurons are cells that make up the biological foundation of our brain, and we have billions of neurons and even more synaptic connections in our brains. When a person it presented with a stimulus, such as an advertisement, those neurons fire and electrical currents patterns occur. Those electrical currents with different patterns are called brainwaves and what the EEG does it collect those brainwaves. The good thing is the EEG can collect up to 10,000 data per second. The bad thing it’s actually terrible at locating where those stimulations came from. For marketing purposes, an electrode helmet is placed onto a person’s head, so it cannot pick up any electrical signals coming from the lower part of the brain. Although it doesn’t cost too much to use the EEG, it limits the understanding of the effects of certain ads. The MEG was popular around the 1960s for it was a step up from the EEG. The MEG is used to measure and create images of the magnetic field in our brains. Its improvement qualities include better accuracy of the brain measurements and better locater of where the brainwaves are coming from. But like the EEG the MEG is limited with its ability to pick up signals in the deeper parts of the brain. The use of the MEG is very costly, but it’s been able to pick up verbal working memory and even specific events. While the MEG is not an ideal machine to use to measure the emotional and higher cognitive functions in the brain, it is a greater compared to the EEG. Unlike the past two techniques, the fMRI measures the blood flow in the brain by using an MRI scanner. Neurons need energy to be able to fire; they metabolize the energy collected from the transportation of blood. The fMRI is 10 times better at spatial resolution, but they are in the slow side in temporal resolution. However, they are wonderful at locating where the neuronal activity is taking place, even in the deeper parts of the brain. Although the fMRI is expensive, it is more available for use compared to the MEG. The fMRI’s ability to image deep brain structures is the reason why researchers preferred this method over the rest. Neuromarketing is a growing field, and researchers are excited to see the possible outcomes from it. It will provide better strategies to markets and allow targeting their advertistments in ways our conscious brain doesn’t comprehend.

Kluger, Jeffrey.” Now Hear This.” Time 175.8 (2010): 43. MAS Ultra-School Edition. Web. 9
Feb. 2014.

Klunger starts off the essay noting some things we do, believing we are clever at avoiding ads. We past ads in magazines, we don’t let TV ads phases us, and we turn off the radio when ads come on. He writes that we are actually telling ourselves nonsensical things. Klunger bluntly states that advertising works and it’s even doing well in times of recession. Madison Avenue is a 34 billion dollar business year round, if that doesn’t tell you anything I don’t know what will. Advertising is about to get a whole lot more advanced.

Martin Lindstorm, an author of Buyology, is also a neuromarketing researcher. Lindstorm states that trying to ignore advertising is going to get a whole lot harder in the near future. Neuromarketing involves the use of machines and it’s hooked up to a person to collect date on brain activity and markers of emotion. According to his studies, consumers only engage in one of the 5 senses, sight. Nonetheless, hearing can be just has strong. Advertisements in the past have used fancy sound effects with the bells and a catchy phrase, but studies indicate that people are able to take in everyday sounds. Everyday sounds such as: a baby’s adorable giggle, a steak sizzling, and even the fizzes from carbonated sodas. Our body is somehow attracted to these noises. Lindstorm wanted to figure out which sound that people are unable to resist, turns out it’s a baby’s laugh. This is because that sound has a positive emotion attached to it, like happiness. Everyday sounds integrating into advertisements have a greater impact, because they provoke an emotion. The have a meaning to a sound and when ads utilize this tactic, they can make more effective ads. Companies have already taken advantage of this method. A store in Japan plays sounds of kids playing around in the sportswear section, sounds of soda fizz in the drinks area, and a baby giggling in the baby area. Lindstorm’s studies shows that certain sounds can have the inverse effects: the old Microsoft start-up sound and Nokia’s ringtone. Around 42% of people in England began to detest that sound, because it was correlated with negative emotions. It was probably due to their phones going off in quiet public areas, disrupting the people around them.
The marketers just need to utilize the results from his study, and use sounds correlated with positive emotions. His study also revealed that it’s more effective to place quieter sounds, rather then loud ones.

Crain, Rance. "Neuromarketing Threat Seems Quaint In Today's Ad Landscape." Advertising
Age 84.26 (2013): 22. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.

Crain introduced “Ethic Mark” in the beginning of the article; he talks about an award competition they are holding. The competition wants entries that show advertistments that they are creating an earth where it’s slowly destroying the planet. He states several companies have been involved in this competition: Nike, Liberty Mutual, and TOMS shoes. He provides some information regarding the competition as well. Crain explains his point isn’t to inform about this competition (which he did), but to adequately inform his audience about a new marketing technique.

Neuromarketing is a marketing technique to understand the influence of advertistments from the subconscious level. Crain points back to “Ethic Mark” by stating that one of their rules for entries is not to submit any “subliminal messages, brain science, MRIs or endocrinology as tools to manipulate consumers for marketing purposes” (Crain line 10). All of the criteria that were described basically sums up the main goal of neuromarketing. Vance Packard wrote a book called, “Hidden persuaders” and ever since then, people were on the look out not to create such subliminal messages just to get people to buy their products. However, subliminal messages were never an issue to marketers. Simply because they weren’t able to make advertistments with subliminal messages that they were positive it would reach out to others in a way they wanted. Crain thinks that maybe “Ethic Mark” would appeal to more people if it allowed such techniques to be submitted, the very same techniques the government uses. Our conscious brain seems to be more useful to advertisers than our subconscious ones.

Ron Nahser, the CEO of an ad agency, was the one who called attention of the company “Ethic Mark” to Crain. Nahser has a PhD in philosophy and he teachers the values that should be in businesses, ethical standards in businesses, and the purpose of them. Crain ran a story whether Nahser himself holds their values in their agency, a question that many people ask Nahser himself. Due to this, Nahser wanted to conduct a study to really evaluate whether they do. Three years later, their agency ran a story about a recent incident. Their agency hired a homeless guy who sold newspapers. The company got so interested in the homeless man’s problems that they donated money to the newspaper company he worked for. Nahser confirmed that they do hold their values. Nahser also is a part of the World Business Academy organization (which is a sponsor of “Ethic Mark”, along with many other companies). The World Business Academy also puts out a video that is against neuromarketing, they call it “Spell casters.” This video places a bright light of the manipulations many companies and political candidates are using neuromarketing to change the way they want people to view their political beliefs, the products they need, and even who they vote for. The video explains that because of neuromarketing such companies and political candidates and how they access people’s subconscious ways of thinking and reacting to certain stimuli. They refer to the book “1984” and state how neuromarketing is quite an “Orwellian” thing to do. One of the most important aspects of “Ethic Mark” is also to get a petition going around businesses, asking them to not use neuromarketing in their advertistments and campaigns. This petition is officially getting ready to hand over to Congress, and to investigate the techniques used in political campaigns.

Kotler, Steven. "Horror Show." Popular Science 276.6 (2010): 64. MAS Ultra - School Edition.
Web. 24 Feb. 2014.

Kotler is part of a neuromarketing research to see how his subconscious part of the brain will react to some horror scenes. He was put into a tube with small screen inside the top of the tube, with a scary movie playing. To be exact he was inside a fMRI, a machine that records brain activity; it’s usually used for medical purposes. The machine was borrowed by a neuromarketing firm in San Diego called “MindSign.” They helped Hollywood produce better trailers for movies for a reaction they wanted to get out of moviegoers. Neuromarketing is certainly a controversial field, for some studies show how effective it can be and some studies disprove them. But MindSign believes that neuromarketing is wonderful when it comes to making great movie trailers, especially horror movies. Each frame in a movie trailer is about 1 to 2 seconds long, which aligns with how fast the fMRI can measure the brain activity. Martin Lindstorm, the author of the book called “Buyology”, stated by looking at the amygdala, which is responsible for the emotion fear, and Broadman’s area 10, which involves recalling memory and executive functions, movie producers can make subconsciously appealing trailers.

Peter Katz, a film producer, was watching a 60 minutes episode on neuromarketing. During that time he became interested in using that technique for his new horror movie, Pop Skull. He contacted Hubbard after reading something about MindSign online. They believe the use of the fMRI machine is perfect for horror movies, because they can just see if the amygdale is going to light up. When it does light up they can extrapolate that a particular scene is freighting. During their research they found out that a hand slowly creeping on the wall is scarier then someone popping out of the bush. After his interesting study, he told about it to the producers of the movie Quarantine. They were so intrigued that they wanted to test it for themselves on a scene from, The Poughkeepsie Tapes. They used neuromarketing to re-edit some of their less scary scenes from the movie.

The revenue for movies is at its lowest, but MindSign might be able to change that. The neuroimaging proves that it’s able to work. There was a study done to a group of people to ask whether they liked this new TV show idea, they all hated it. But according to the images from fMRI, the researchers deduced that most of the viewers would like it. Turns out, they all loved it. There was a particular scene from the “The Poughkeepsie Tapes” Kotler had to watch, a scene he thought was very frightening. The brain light up everywhere, but there was a big drop in activity during the scene. In those couple of seconds the color of the movie changes to a gritty green color, the producers explained it was suppose to create a more eerie vibe. However, the color change did the exact opposite. These little pointers in their research helped the producers edit there movie to be more creepy. The use of neuromarketing could be like the next 3-D for films.

Macklem, Katherine. "It's Mind Over Money." Maclean's 118.21 (2005): 66. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 3 Mar. 2014.

Macklem begins the article by creating a scenario of a typical train ride home. We don’t really pay attention to the fabric of our clothing or the scene outside, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t aware of them. We just don’t think about such things. There’s this new controversial innovation arising called neuromarketing. It looks into the way our brain responds to different types of advertisements and brands by using a fMRI machine. This could be the powerful missing piece that could solve the puzzle to get consumers to buy almost anything. Karl Moore, a business professor at McGill University, believes that the Big Brother posters from 1984 were one of the earliest neuromarketing examples to get emotional responses out of people. He says all that neuromarketing researchers are trying to do is understand people’s emotional stimuli to create better ads.

Neuromarketing was grabbing marketers’ attention after a study was done with Coke and Pepsi at Baylor. The study was published in “Neuron” in 2004. The participants’ reward part of the brain lit up when they were drinking the sodas. When the participants were informed what they were consuming a different part of their brain lit up. This exemplified that brands really do matter to consumers. Gemma Calvert, founder and director of Neurosense Ltd, experimented what the brain focuses on when the mind is busy. While the participants were inside the fMRI, they were shown hundreds of different images in a slideshow. Next, some of the images shown were in a new slideshow. The subjects had to point out which of the images they already seen in the first slide. Most of the participants explained how they don’t really remember much of the previous images, but the results proved they knew more then they thought. This experiment brought light to the fact that our brains pick up information even if the person itself isn’t aware of it. Calvert also performed another experiment that involved scent and color. Participants smelt strawberries and their brain activity started to light up and when they were shown the color of strawberries, their brain lit up even more. The exact inverse happened when they were shown the color blue. When they removed the smell from the colors, their brain activity significantly dropped. This study would be particularly helpful to the food industry.

Neuromarketing is just starting out so there aren’t any visible potential threats; however, it’s scary to imagine what could happen. It could be the next 1984, by posing various advertisements to get consumers to purchase products that could harm out health. The executive of Commercial Alerts explains the dangers it could bring up if political campaigns used this marketing method. Neuromarketing can provide a more stable understanding in how to make proper ads and to stimulate the right parts of our brains.

Lawton, GrahamWilson, Clare. "Mind-Reading Marketers." New Scientist 207.2772 (2010):
02. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

Lawton starts off stating that whoever bought this magazine was probably a manipulated. This particular cover was created by a new emerging marketing strategy called neuromarketing. Neuromarketing introduces marketing and neuroscience to dig deep down into a consumer’s brain to see what they really want. This whole concept might be questioned by many people, however, once the excitement is shared by the public, and then it will be a part of modern marketing world. So the creators of the New Scientist organized an event in London to make this week’s cover. This event was possible, thanks to “NeuroFocus,” a neuromarketing company based in Berkeley, California. They led some readers of the magazine inside a dark room, to be attached to an EEG machine, in which then they were shown a multiple of potential magazine covers. Traditionally, marketers discover consumers want, by asking questions and a focus group to report how they response. Though these tactics seem ideal, but they all share one flaw, they rely by a set of answers. Thom Noble, a director of “NeuroFocus”, shares “What people say and what they think is not always the same.” People may have a desire to say what other are willing to hear, and answer by what is fitting to their own character. Gregory Berns, a neuroeconomist, states that majority of our thinking is done at the subconscious level, and that makes it more difficult to give an explanation for our choices. He says that’s the reason why sometimes we don’t have the reason behind our choices. Noble shares, that there is a large quantity amount of hope in extracting hidden information from peoples’ brains. Mirja Hubert, a consumer researcher, says that even our rational decisions involve emotions to a degree. Emotions trigger the whole ideology of brand loyalty; past research demonstrates that there is a long-term bond built into it. They are strengthened by positive emotions from the brand’s advertistments, which is why they can be so obstinate with other brands. It’s also been found in neuroeconomics that food, sex, and addictive drugs trigger higher amounts of brain activity.

Normally neuromarketers tend to opt for the fMRI machine, which is notably good at locating particular regions of the brain. Nevertheless, the fMRI machine is very expensive to use and a slight milliliter movement of one’s head in a 20 minute period could create errors in the result. Another problem with the fMRI machine is that the information lags about five seconds, and that creates problems for advertisements where each second is crucial. For these reason, “Neurofocus” chose to go with the EEG machine, which happens to be easier to use. Although the EEG machine cannot specify locations in the brain, it does answer three questions in a marketers mind. Those questions are: “Did you pay attention? Did it elicit emotions? Was it memorable?” People that support neuromarketing believes that the EEG will help marketers get more direct answers, rather then relying on emotion triggered responses from their consumers. Neuromarketing is slowly become a solid market-strategy tool for movie trailers, adverts, packaging, toy designs, and soon political candidates. Though this seems all Orwellian, Michael Smith reassured that there is no “buy button” in our brains; marketers just want a better understanding on what consumers want. For the New Scientist’s own experiment, they had the readers wired onto electrodes on their brains. “NeuroFocus” observed the subjects memory and emotional reaction to see which cover produced the highest amounts of activity. Then, “NeuroFocus” did a “deep response testing”, which is an EEG signal which the brain activity increased about 300 milliseconds after the subjects view something new and valuable to them. Then the held a “secret sauce analysis” which is just them looking at all they data received.

"HIDDEN PERSUASION OR JUNK SCIENCE? (Cover Story)." Advertising Age 78.36 (2007): 1. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 26 Mar. 2014

A.K. Pradeep went to Madrid with a suitcase filled with EEG equipment, in other words an electroencephalography; it’s responsible for measuring brainwaves. A problematic flaw in research is that researchers rely on what consumers say, and they lie. They lie about which advertisement they prefer and which one was more emotionally inducing. Pradeep and his colleagues have a remedy and it’s called neuromarketing. He has been practicing neuromarketing, by carrying his portable equipment around to various places; in fact, he founded “NeuroFocus” in 2005. While he does have some critics for he only has a degree in electrical engineering, he says that he has neuroscientists within company. He says his business has been growing rapidly: London, Spain, Asia, and Latin America. Despite it’s recognition in many countries, some neuroscientist raise eyebrows with this marketing strategy. Brain Knutson, a professor of neuroscience and psychology at Standard, believes that the science part of neuromarketing will help marketers predict what the people want. Joshua Freedman, chief scientist from FKF, says that the EEG is a terrible way to conduct research, and that the fMRI is more promising. The fMRI collects data by measuring the flow of oxygen in the brain, indicating brain activity in those areas. Mr. Freedom knows that people lie and the reason is being they don’t want to be vulnerable. Paul J. Zak, director of neuroeconomics and professor of economics, says that he doesn’t know why marketers are willing to pay money to conduct this research, because the data is not in peer-reviewed journals. He also states how it is a major setback that the consumers are not in their natural environment. Joe Reiman, CEO of “BrightHouse”, is skeptical of the potential that neuromarketing possesses. He believes they hold promises they can’t really promise, and that the science isn’t really there. 50 years ago, Vance Packard wrote a book called Hidden persuaders and it unlocked the realm of being able to understand what the consumers are thinking about. Even though it comes off from an Orwellian point of view, one would ask what Packard would think of with the involvement of neuroscience in marketing, if it wasn’t for his death. The writer of this article believes that combining neuroscience into the marketing world is a huge mistake, especially when you are only studying the brain. It’s important to see how the brain would behave in outside circumstances, with the influences of culture. People react differently when they are surrounded by culture.

Singer, Emily. "They Know What You Want." New Scientist 183.2458 (2004): 36. MAS Ultra –
School Edition. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

Emily Singer asks, “Will neuromarketers be able to manipulate consumers into buying a product?” Scientist and advertising agencies have been introduced to a new method called neuromarketing. They believe this machine will help resolve their weakness in asking consumers questions in focus groups. Although there aren’t many peer-reviewed journals about the studies done with this new method, advertising executives continue to spend money for this new technique. The main goal of neuromarketing is to find ways to dig under the consumers’ head to figure out what their hidden desires may be. Researchers want a better understanding of it, so they can somehow make more sales. While it seems to relate to the Orwellian society, some critics believe that neuromarketing isn’t here to stay. They believe marketers are trashing their money for something that has no solid data published. The popularity of neuromarketing began to emerge with the Pepsi and Coke study, done by Baylor College of Medicine. It was conducted with an fMRI machine; they had their subjects drink Pepsi and Coke without knowing it. When they did, the subjects preferred Pepsi over Coke. The researchers found out that the ventral putamen within the striatum lit up, and that particular region is associated with reward. When the subjects knew which brand they were drinking, they preferred Coke over Pepsi. The researchers found the prefrontal cortex region lit up, which is responsible for higher levels of thinking. The researchers have yet to publish their data, but have concluded from the study that people make decisions based on impressions or memories based on a product. While the field of neuromarketing has yet to receive for insightful data, they still want to understand what the whole “bran recognition” deal is about. A neuroscientist from Emory University said it’s because the consumer has made an identity with a product/brand. The same way a consumer looks at things they love, they call this self referential thinking. Steven Quatz, a neuroscientist, believes that neuromarketing has the potential to understand what why people have a favor for some products, and it may be because we are unaware of it ourselves. He states that neuromarketing might actually being able to reach the unconscious parts of the brain. He is even making a program to help movie trailers make it more appealing to moviegoers. A survey shows that women usually see “The Rock” as unattractive, but their brain activity showed otherwise. The region associated with finding facial features attractive lit up whilst looking at “The Rock.” This information would’ve been something surveys would’ve missed. Quartz is optimistic about practicing his technique; he still had to prove that it actually works.

Douglas Rushoff, a New York based author, wrote how neuromarketing may just be elaborate way to earn money from marketers. Some people, found neuromarketing to actually been frightening. They believe that they will uncover a “buy button” in our brains and increase the advertising related diseases. The CEO of BrightHouse, a neuromarketing company, stated that their goal is merely to improve their company, not to manipulate the consumer’s mind. He said that the moral and ethical matters more then getting a product just right. However, Singer thinks that talk may be to perceive a more positive light towards neuromarketing.

BARKIN, ERIC. "The Prospects And Limitations Of Neuromarketing." CRM Magazine 17.7
(2013): 46-50. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

Decisions aren’t usually made with reasoning behind it, which is the single biggest flaw in the traditional focus group. People don’t generally know what they want, and many times when people are drawn to products they can’t exactly pinpoint why they are. The brain has a very intricate design, and it’s not made simply constructed. It’s so chaotic and complex, that businesses can’t use it to extrapolate it for transactions. Neuromarketing is all about explaining the unexplainable, from a subconscious level. It’s been shaped by idea created by Daniel Kahneman that there are two cognitive systems: system one and system two. System one is emotional based decisions, while system two is the more rational and carefully planned decisions. Kahneman is a psychologist who works in the behavioral economics, and he believes that system one plays a bigger role when it comes to buying products. There was a study done with Neurospire, a neuromarketing film, and a “high-power muscle car brand.” The produced an ad highlighting its fuel efficient and low emissions, and they had two subjects, ones that owned that car brand and the ones that didn’t. Surprisingly, the ad had an opposite effect to the subjects who own or previously own that car brand. It’s possible because the advertisement doesn’t seem to portray a full of masculine, tough type of car, but it’s unlikely the participants would’ve stated that they don’t want a fuel efficient car. Considering the cognitive systems of decision making, we don’t always make decisions because of how logically we claim to be.

There was a study done in Baylor University with Pepsi and Coke, which was titled “Neutral Correlates of Behavioral Preference for Culturally Familiar Drinks.” They had two groups, a group that would know what they were drinking, and a group that would not. Half of the uninformed group said they preferred Pepsi over Coke, but whichever one they stated, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex started to light up. That region of the brain is associated with positive judgments. However over half of the informed group stated they preferred Coke over Pepsi. When they stated their preference, the lateral prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus started to light up. The lateral prefrontal cortex has to do with higher levels of thinking, while the hippocampus has to do with memory. The concluded that the people who preferred Coke over Pepsi were making decisions based on their opinions of the brand and the memories associated with that particular drink. It’s because Coke and Pepsi are nearly identical in taste and in composition. The sales of Coke has even been higher then the sales in Pepsi. This conclusion leads to an important suggestion for the Pepsi Company, that it is not the formula they have to fix but their brand image.

Neuromarketing can be conducted with many approaches: EEG, Advanced polygraph, eye-tracking, voice-layering, and the fMRI. The fMRI machine is probably the most controversial technique of the others listed. The fMRI machine cost around 1 millions dollars or thousands of dollars per hour if one was to borrow it. While it more spatial specific compared to the EEG, it does hold many limitations that one would want to consider before buying/renting it. Whilst it can record insightful data, the records cannot be collected each moment. This can be a problem for advertistments, which each second is crucial. The fMRI collects data by looking at the responses of oxygen flow in the brain, but it is important to realize that a specific region of the brain does not mean specific answers. The amygdala, for example, is most commonly associated with fear, but it is not only limited to only one emotion. While the fMRI can specify what parts of the brain has the most activity, it can have a broad range of reasons why that is. It’s important not to isolate one region of the brain to make a conclusion out of it. Another flaw about neuromarketing is that it is conducted in an unnatural environment, with the exclusions of the real world. Neuromarketing is still a far from being developed, although it has a science base to it, it’s still only 10 years old. There is a lot to discover about it, but it’s also important to know that there is a lot to uncover in neuroscience alone. Although neuromarketing has an unsure quality to it, it’s still worth considering if a company is going to make a costly turn. It’ll help companies gain a better perception of any expensive changes they were considering in their brand. Neuromarketing is more widely practiced then ever before, but marketers should be warned about the limitations it holds.

Valentine, Matthew. "It's All In The Mind." Marketing Week (01419285) 32.14 (2009):
30. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 4 Apr. 2014.

Marketers have always dream of getting inside a consumer’s mind, and with neuromarketing emerging to the field of marketing, it may be possible. Marketers want a good explanation from their subjects in a focus group, but the subjects may not be able to pinpoint their decisions. In fact, sometimes subjects give out answers they think the researchers want to hear, or to come off as an intelligent person. Neuromarketing allows researcher to escape that problem and approach it from a new angle. Siemon Scamell-Katz, CEO of TNS magasin, expresses his belief in the potential neuromarketing holds. He also warns that the research is conducted in an artificial light, and it excludes the daily life we actual experience. He has been working on a project for a global brand, using the EEG tools and an eye-tracking device. Then afterwards he interviews the participants on their opinions of a product and the reasons why they preferred one product over another. The research has proved quote a few theories, at the same time, disproving others. John Bunyard, who integrates scientific methods and marketing, believes that neuromarketing isn’t an overstatement. He believes when neuromarketing is conducted, researchers go into looking for certain data and aren’t being open minded about the outcomes. Marketers are hesitant to try out neuromarketing, because it seems to go against their ethical guidelines, but neuromarketing isn’t about reading a consumer’s mind. You can’t read a consumer’s mind, but only see the region of their brain light up.

Martin Lindstorm, author of Buy-ology, said that in the past, companies didn’t want to try it out at all, but things have changed for sure. He said that there is no reason to fear about this new method, neuromarketers can’t place a “buy button” in a consumer’s mind. He thinks that the marketing needs to develop an ethical code for neuromarketing to be more widely accepted. He believes that this new technique will help marketers feel more positive about the decisions they are carrying out. Though it is still a vague field, it definitely grew into something advertising agencies didn’t have in the past. There was a Pepsi challenge done where participants drank Coke or Pepsi blindfolded, most of them preferred Pepsi. When the participants knew what they were drinking, they preferred Coke. When they knew what they were consuming, the brain had activity in the region associated with higher levels of thinking. Lindstorm stated how we more inclined to brands that are emotionally link to us.

It measures emotion, attention, and memory.
The ways we make decisions:
Emotional vs. Rational

Consumers build long term bonds with brands.

The brain is responsible for all consumer behavior.
A neuromarketing advertisement
Understanding neuromarketing
Building ethical standards
- Deplorably, both the marketing and the advertising industries have a poor reputation when it comes to applying ethical standards

-NMSBA Code of Ethics (Neuromarketing science and business association)

-Neuromarketers should make it absolutely mandatory for all employees to understand the guidelines of their practice.
The End
Full transcript