More on Neuroscience and Marketing

SLiK812 writes "The NYTimes is running a story about how marketing companies are using neuroscience to determine how to reach a consumer's buy button more efficiently. A quote from the article, 'At issue is whether marketers can exploit advances in brain science to make more effective commercials. Is there a "buy button" in the brain? Some corporations have teamed up with neuroscientists to find out. Recent experiments in so-called neuromarketing have explored reactions to movie trailers, choices about automobiles, the appeal of a pretty face and gut reactions to political campaign advertising, as well as the power of brand loyalty.' Some groups have branded this as Orwellian. I pretty sure I saw the child of this tactic in Futurama somewhere." There's a related story in the The Independent. We've had previous stories on using MRI scans to market products.

Great! more ads

[stanmann (602645)]

Now along with Radio guy(who advertises serious stuff) Radio Female( who pushes the sensitivity button) TV baby( who pushes the happy button) we have research into the buy button that allegedly will induce me to buy something before I even see it, sort of like the LotR Trilogy box platinum extended boxed set with gondor I ordered today.

futurama

[dark_requiem (806308)]

Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st 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 bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

Much better Futurama

[Jerf (17166)]

Sorry, but this one is much more on topic. (Think about how one would create such a ball if you don't quite get why.)

Fry: I just saw something incredibly cool. A big floating ball that lit up with every colour of the rainbow, plus some new ones that were so beautiful I fell to my knees and cried.

Amy: Was it out in front of Discount Shoe Outlet?

Fry: Yeah.

Amy: They have a college kid wear that to attract customers.

Fry: Well I don't care if it was some dork in a costume. For one brief moment I felt the heartbeat of creation. And it was one with my own.

Amy: Big deal.

Bender: We all feel like that all the time. You don't hear us gassin' on about it.

3ACV15, "I Dated A Robot" [geocities.com]

Orwellian?

[Bingo Foo (179380)]

Folks, it's not Orwellian unless it is backed by a totalitarian state. Most of your fears would be better directed at a Huxleyan future.

Re:Orwellian?

[dark_requiem (806308)]

It could still be considered Orwellian. Don't discount our dear old friends the Thought Police. The Orwellian fear is that this could be exploited to monitor people for deviant thoughts and preferences. The Huxleyan (never heard that term before, but I like it. Don't mind if I steal it) fear is the more obvious one that people's preferences can be dictated to them via advances in neurophysiology.

Soon, the GREAT CLEANSING will occur!

[by Anonymous Coward]

"Imagine a stealthy hand reaching into your pocket. For the rest of eternity."

Huxleyan!

[plover (150551)]

I'm glad you're an Alpha, and can think of these smart things.

I'm a beta, so I'm happy leaving these smart thoughts to you.

Re:Huxleyan!

[Hentai (165906)]

That's deltas, vagina-boy. Betas are clerical.

Re:Orwellian?

[jafac (1449)]

True.

The political landscape of the US was changed forever when Nixon's election commitee began using modern marketing techniques to sell their candidate like a packaged product.

This science has been elevated to an artform by the likes of Karl Rove, who has become quite adept at figuring out how to push some people's "VOTE" button. And worse still, he's figured out how to get people so disgusted and turned off, that they abstain from voting altogether, leading to the abysimal voter turnouts of the last several elections.

Re:Orwellian?

[Dr Caleb (121505)]

would be better directed at a Huxleyan future.

Huxley? Why would I want a future based on the Cosby Show?

Re:Orwellian?

[Jtheletter (686279)]

Folks, it's not Orwellian unless it is backed by a totalitarian state. Most of your fears would be better directed at a Huxleyan future.

Heh, most of your readers would be better directed at a dictionary. ;)

Incidentally, for those like myself who haven't heard of this term, here you go.
Don't say I never gave ya nothing.

(excerpted from here [polemics.us]) "What [Thomas] Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility"

Re:Orwellian?

[boa13 (548222)]

How true! I saw Brazil recently. I was amazed at the number of similarities with our present situation, a bureaucracy officially fighting "terrorists" but never really achieving it, closely controlling the citizens, and mostly caring about its own business and not giving sh1t about others. Clearly the work of a great and accurate visionnary.

Consumers against terrorism! -- That is the text of a sign carried by a protester in the movie, some gullible guy believing what TV shows him, so close to our reality!

Re:Orwellian?

[senatorpjt (709879)]

A friend of mine once said about this - "Orwell was a bitter man, but he never thought we'd actually BUY the fucking telescreens"

More than a buy-button

[fembots (753724)]

I don't think a brain analysis is an effective way to determine consumer behaviour.

Our behaviour is most likely shaped by the environment and condition we're experiencing.

Truth to be told, any sports car will trigger my buy-button, but can I afford to buy it?

Re:More than a buy-button

[wattersa (629338)]

Truth to be told, any sports car will trigger my buy-button, but can I afford to buy it?

"Thanks to our low introductory APR, you can!"

"Thought you couldn't own a Benz? Think again!"

"Let BMW Certified Preowned vehicles find you the car of your dreams...at a practical price!"

This is a science-- note that in the radio ads they never tell you what the APR is unless it's "zero percent" or close to it. They make you want the item with positive images and thoughts and they defer the "bad news" as long as possible until the very end of the transaction, after you've decided you want the item so even if you know you probably can't afford it, someone will "work with you" (with you, not on you, lol) to establish a sense of rapport that will make you think you're getting a good deal. Even if you back out, there's some hapless sucker who won't. Despite decades of study and improved learning techniques, human nature hasn't changed all that much.

Re:More than a buy-button

[gcaseye6677 (694805)]

Maybe my own consumer behavior is not normal, but the more I see something aggressively marketed, the more I am convinced I don't need it. If the item provided great value and was a good deal, people would be lining up to buy it on their own and advertising wouldn't really be necessary. Relentless advertising and sales efforts are only needed to override peoples' logical thought processes to get them to make an impulsive buy decision before they can come to their senses and talk themselves out of it.

Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons'

[grunt107 (739510)]

To make guys buy: Gorgeous women implying the purchase of a product makes said guy more attractive.

To make women buy: "Sale"

Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons'

[gcaseye6677 (694805)]

It's funny how many people, men and women, will buy anything that is perceived to be a bargain, even if it is no bargain at all. That is why items that are stacked in a pyramid at the end of an aisle with a big price sign on them will sell better, even if there has been no reduction in price. Not too long ago I was buying contact lens saline and I noticed the bottles were available in a twin pack. Then I noticed individual bottles, which were priced at less than half of the twin pack price. Had I not looked, I would have thought the twin pack was a better deal and ended up paying a full dollar more. I'm sure people fall for this all the time, especially those who cannot do math in their heads.

Re:Neuroscience to determine buying 'buttons'

[Thangodin (177516)]

Like the answer isn't already obvious: fear.

Playing on fear hits on the second level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, safety. This has to be satisfied before love, self-esteem, or self-actualization. Targetting this hits us at the mammalian level, even below the monkey. Only raw physical drives come before this. This is why SUV's are selling so well. Car buyers have been convinced that SUV's are safer. In fact, they're not--their center of gravity is too high for their wheel base, and their size and weight

Anything but THAT!

[Scrameustache (459504)]

Targetting this hits us at the mammalian level, even below the monkey.

No! Don't hit me below the monkey!

Marketing strategies

[AdvancedLoser (778225)]

I hope this research will do away with the plethora of commercials aimed at the idiots among us who will buy anything based on what they are told about the product.

interesting, but doesn't seem groundbreaking...

[discontinuity (792010)]

It seems that in many cases these studies are confirming long-held beliefs rather than breaking new ground. E.g.,:

The study showed that some people did not choose a drink based on taste alone, Dr. Montague said. They chose a drink plus what it conjured up to their medial prefrontal cortex, namely the strong brand identity of Coca-Cola, he said.

I was pretty confident in that conclusion without the fMRI.

Re:interesting, but doesn't seem groundbreaking...

[payndz (589033)]

They chose a drink plus what it conjured up to their medial prefrontal cortex, namely the strong brand identity of Coca-Cola, he said.

Heh.

I used to drink Coke, until I thought, 'Hang on, what's this doing to my teeth?'

So I switched to Diet Coke. Until I thought, 'Hang on, if I want to drink a fizzy brown liquid that tastes like battery acid, I can buy own-brand cola from the supermarket for a quarter of the price.'

So I switched to that. Until I thought, 'Hang on! Why am I drinking stuff that tastes like battery acid at all?'

Wow, was the cola industry pissed!

(I also stopped eating at fast food joints about six months ago. Man, if another billion or so people do the same, those evil megacorps are *really* in trouble, huh?)

Next step

[neves (324086)]

Create a pill to make you buy more. Or even better: something to spray inside shopping centers.

Re:Next step

[misleb (129952)]

Unmotivated? Materialistic consumerism got you down? Try Paxil today!

Disclamer: May cause abdominal discomfort, decreased sexual functioning. May steal your girlfriend and key your car. Paxil is not right for everyone. Ask your dealer^H^H^H^H^Hdoctor if Paxil is right for you.

Bah. It's an old idea, and it's pretty much...

[Sein (803257)]

True.

For a given value of true.

"People buy from emotion and justify with logic" has been around since the turn of the last century among a certain segment of the marketing people.

The new bit I suppose is to try to pinpoint the triggers more exactly, to reduce those unpleasant random variables like human free will and choice and stuff. It's so much easier if "They" can just model you on a mainframe, debit your account, and ship you whatever it is you're supposed to buy from them next, I suppose. Not that this is what they think they're aiming for, but I doubt the net effect will be any different.

This kind of thing...

[marktaw.com (816752)]

This kind of thing has been around for a long time. The basis is a Behaviorist view of the world that says that given a certain stimulus, most of us (enough of us) will respond in a certain way. Marketing from that viewpoint becomes about pushing the right buttons, and finding better and better ways of pushing those buttons.

Your opinion on how good or evil this kind of thing is may come from how much you agree with that viewpoint. Can marketers refine their science to such a point where you have almost no choice but to buy what they tell you?

Depending on which side of the coin you fall on, this is all either smoke & mirrors, or cutting-edge research that will eventually rule the world.

Not Gonna Happen

[Pugio (816116)]

Even if this is possible, and doable in the near future, there will definitely be laws put out to regulate this sort of thing. The same thing is true for those subliminal advertising gimmicks where they pop up a picture of something for a split second and let your subconscious register it. There are laws governing that and there will be laws governing this too.

That being said: You are getting sleeeeeepppy. Loooook at the preeety ligghts on my siiiitteeee. You waaaannntt to buyyyy myyy wireless frooog.Yo

Re:Not Gonna Happen

[Tackhead (54550)]

> Even if this is possible, and doable in the near future, there will definitely be laws put out to regulate this sort of thing. The same thing is true for those subliminal advertising gimmicks where they pop up a picture of something for a split second and let your subconscious register it. There are laws governing that and there will be laws governing this too.
>
> That being said: You are getting sleeeeeepppy. Loooook at the preeety ligghts on my siiiitteeee. You waaaannntt to buyyyy myyy wirel

Here's a workaround

[darth_MALL (657218)]

Memorize THIS. [buynothingday.co.uk] Think of nothing else! WOOOEEEEEEOOOOOOOO.

Let's not overreact...

[katsiris (779774)]

This is hardly a new thing. Marketing firms have been using psychology as a tool for developing more effective ads since the stone age. Neuroscience is just an extension of what they know about what people respond to, I don't think it's any reason to be concerned.

In the end, you either have control over your urges, wants, and needs, or you don't. You either are in control of yourself or you're not. If you're not, then you've probably accrued all sorts of gadgets, toys, and things you don't really need. And doubtless you have/had sex with anyone that got you remotely excited. Actually, that doesn't sound so bad...

Really, though, we are either in control of our faculties or we are not. If we're not, then we're just animals with no will. If we are, then this is no more concerning then someone plucking your heart strings to sell insurance. I highly doubt there is some subversive way they can force us to buy against our will using some sort of deep-seated neurological button. A shopping spree isn't exactly a survival mechanism.

on the plus side...

[wattersa (629338)]

One aspect of marketing/advertising/design is ergonomics and human factors [wikipedia.org], which helps advertisers structure their materials in the most logical fashion for the way people process information. Just look at any cover of Cosmopolitan [cosmopolitan.com] and you'll see the end result of years of studies of the scanning people do when they see a document. Important elements seem to jump out at you without you even realizing it, and if you have time you can read the smaller text under each element to find out more. Cosmo, ironically, probably has one of the best-designed magazine covers. Color, layout, subject matter ("SEX" or related words are the lead/top priority item on every cover) and other design elements are used to great effect. The end result is that you look at the magazine, your eye traverses multiple times across the impossibly beautiful woman whose style (if you're a woman) you want to emulate and you then want to buy it, or you don't want to buy it because you don't really read Cosmo. This is why they sell them in checkout lines-- they're an impulse item for non-subscribers. Same thing with Maxim, Playboy, and other glossy magazines.

Compare a well-designed magazine cover like Cosmo with an ugly or poorly designed cover like TV Guide or Hot Rod magazine and you'll see who has the best understanding of human factors. Cosmo is pleasant to look at, "Guns" magazine really isn't, even if you are an enthusiast.

I for one welcome our new human factor-embracing overlords-- as long as they don't beam ads into my head.

Are commercials effective?

[k98sven (324383)]

Really, before trying to make their commercials more effective, perhaps they should find out if their commercials are effective.

I'm not saying marketing doesn't work.. Obviously people need to know about you and your product if you're going to sell anything.

But, from what I understand.. there's a lot of theories at the bottom of today's marketing that don't make sense to me.

For instance, marketing generally tries to target young people. Not because they are consumers, but on the theory that consumption patterns like brand loyalty are set at a young age, and kept through life.

Now.. how can they possibly know that? If they're studying middle-aged people now, then they're learning that the advertising of the 70's was effective. Then. And quite a lot has changed in both advertising and how people relate to it since then.

So really.. it seems to me to be a good question whether neuroscience will help much, because the critical attitude of science seems to go straight out the window once something becomes a 'marketing theory'.

How do we filter out ads

[alaivfc (823276)]

It surprises me that, what I would consider to be a more pertinent study, has not been done: how do people filter out advertisements? Everyone is focused on what sticks; however, it may be equally as valuable, if not more so, to determine what does not stick - what we don't even notice. Perhaps this has to do with the get quick attitude of our society. Finding what sticks goes towards the goal of making another "1984" commercial that catches everyone's imagination. However, finding what does not stick allows you to build a much more lasting brand. To do this kind of brand building you don't need to make an immediate impression, you just need to slowly infiltrate people's conciousness. I wonder why large corporations and these researchers don't look at this more often

science lends itself to marketing mind-control

[museumpeace (735109)]

that was the title for the story I submitted to /.
call me a grouser but check out some of the other links too http://science.slashdot.org/~museumpeace/journal/

Enough is enough

[by Anonymous Coward]

The more those bastards try to make me want to buy stuff, the less stuff I want to buy. When I do buy, I buy the stuff that doesn't flood my life with annoying ads.

this has been going on for some time

[ashot (599110)]

I am taking a graduate class in cognitive science and half of the students are business or marketing majors. One of our guest lecturers, who studies child development also teaches a class in the business school.

If these companies

[Timesprout (579035)]

Put a metric shitload of money in my bank account they would find my buy button pretty quickly.

Not more advertising, LESS advertising

[Lispy (136512)]

I wonder if I am the only one who feels he has been watching less ads in the last few years than ever before in my life. I now own a HD-based videorecorder that allows me to skip ads. What's more I feel my TV-consumption is at an alltime low due to crappy programming and the PC as a competitor. Although I find myself in need of a Robo-Cola from time to time. ;-)

Online I use Firefox with Adblock so I hardly read any ads on the web, ever.
I switched to Linux three years ago and my daily dose of desktop advertising (ICQ, Splashscreens, branded bootscreens) went down to zero.

While I am on the outside (beware) I am mostly reading books or listening to commercial-break-free MP3 music (during subway rides or on the bus) and when I am out at night I try to avoid "the hip joint (TM)" where all those guerilla-marketing groups show up. I prefer small, subculture clubs with decent pricing and good music (including hot AND smart girls).

So, I guess I am much less under the commercial thumb then I was back in 1995...

Fishing lures are not designed to catch fish.

[karlandtanya (601084)]

They're designed to catch fishermen.

Of course, you see right through this. You're far too intelligent to be fooled by these techniques. But, if you choose to, you can use them to manipulate your own mind. And, your customers, of course, will be completely taken in! Our new high-tech mental marketing tools have shiny new MRI technology. Not at all the same as that other new agey junk--nosiree! To sell your product, you MUST buy ours!

Wanna buy a lure? [nlpinfo.com]

Wanna laugh at the fishermen? [skepdic.com]

so sorry

[pair-a-noyd (594371)]

They will not reach my "buy button"
I despise commercials. They are nothing less than constant brainwashing. The more they hammer me with BS commercials, the more I am turned off to that product. Most commercials are so offensive and annoying that I only have to see it ONCE to be forever turned off to the product.

I know what I need. I go to the store and buy only the things I MUST have. I do not buy extra things, I don't "browse" or "shop", I buy.

I can't hit the SHUT UP button on the remote fast enough when a commercial comes on.

I wish the U$$A had commercial free TV like the UK does, or at least did have at one time.
I would pay for commercial free TV.

-
http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/health/docs/tv&healt h.html [csun.edu]

Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000
Number of TV commercials seen by the average person by age 65: 2 million
Percentage of survey participants (1993) who said that TV commercials
aimed at children make them too materialistic: 92
Rank of food products/fast-food restaurants among TV advertisements to kids: 1
Total spending by 100 leading TV advertisers in 1993: $15 billion

Alcohol

[Fantastic Lad (198284)]

Your reaction is similar to my own.

But I also recognize that I am still a victim of marketing manipulation.

Much of my behavior is the direct result of marketing.

Such as preferring women with shaved legs. This is an almost universal trait in men and it drives women to buy razors, --and a thousand other beauty products, for that matter. --Which in turn makes having self-esteem a conditional thing which can only be satisfied by the purchasing of certain products. They advertise anti-depressants like Proz

Make advertising non-deductable

[Animats (122034)]

Advertising should not be deductable as a business expense. It should come directly out of the bottom line. That would reduce ad clutter.

Re:Sex Sells

[ZackSchil (560462)]

She endorsed Pepsi, not Coke. And apparently it worked, because I remember that. Unfortunately for them, I don't really like either cola so their mindfuck was just a waste.

Re:Subliminal messaging?

[Da Fokka (94074)]

That's an urban legend. See Snopes [snopes.com].

Quote:
You see, Vicary lied about the results of his experiment. When he was challenged to repeat the test by the president of the Psychological Corporation, Dr. Henry Link, Vicary's duplication of his original experiment produced no significant increase in popcorn or Coca-Cola sales. Eventually Vicary confessed that he had falsified the data from his first experiments, and some critics have since expressed doubts that he actually conducted his infamous Ft. Lee experiment at all.

Re:Subliminal messaging?

[Carnildo (712617)]

Recent experiments have shown that subliminal messaging works, but the effect wears off after a second or so.

One experiment consisted of a subject sitting in front of a computer screen. The screen would blink briefly (about 1/100 of a second) and then show a list of words. The subject would then pick a word randomly. It turns out that if one of the words was displayed during the blink, the subject would almost always pick that one, but if no word was shown, if a word not in the list was shown, or if the delay between the blink and the list showing up is more than a second, word selection is random.

Re:Subliminal messaging?

[dark_requiem (806308)]

Lois: What pointless commercials. They certainly don't make me want a Mintos! Brian: Totally ineffective! Peter: Must... Kill... Lincoln...

Re:Party Identification?

[drlake (733308)]

Nice to see that some of the mods don't bother reading the linked ads in the original message before downrating posts. My post was A) not off-topic and B) not trolling. Apparently irony is lost at times around here, but I'm not surprised.

To elaborate, there is nothing all that surprising about this for those of us who study politics, since modern politics is really about brand-marketing. Candidates are packaged and presented in ways designed to appeal to us on a gut level rather than with regard to their a

Re:So What?

[dark_requiem (806308)]

You're right, people do have to be induced to this kind of behavior. Now if I wanted to do that, how would I go about it? I would start by transforming money into a non-objective substance I could create at whim. I would then spend 80 years convincing people that my arbitrary creation of fiat currency was the only thing stabilizing their economy. I'd further start shouting about waging a "war on poverty", and once I had convinced people they had a "duty" to help those "less fortunate" (i.e., less succes

Re:My "buy" button is simple...

[misleb (129952)]

Criteria 1 is more complicated than you make it sound. Marketing isn't just about catering to people's personal interests, it is about creating them. I think you would be surprised how many of what you call personal interestes are actually created by marketing starting at a very young age. Can you really know what interests are your own original desires and which have been implanted there by years of exposure to marketing?

Also, what if there are 5 brands that all match your criteria?

-matthew