Answer
Apr 27, 2019 - 07:43 AM
Image credit: cmo.com
Neuromarketing actually isn’t as new as it sounds: it’s been around since the ‘90s, at least. With a few decades of research behind it, why aren’t more businesses using neuromarketing?
This field actually comes from neuropsychology, which is the attempt to understand human behavior by understanding the brain itself. (Some say neuromarketing sprang up from the neuroeconomics field, but it’s more closely tied to neuropsychology today.)
Neuropsychology itself is only a few decades old, but it makes sense that almost as soon as researchers started studying the brain, they started looking at ways to apply their findings to marketing.
Of course, researchers have been considering how the brain works for far longer than just the past few decades. But it was only with the advent of modern brain imaging techniques that they were able to truly see their theories in action.
Neuropsychology is no more pseudoscience than regular psychology is. Some hope that neuroscience will someday unify the many theories of psychology by offering concrete answers to the questions psychology seeks to answer. But the research hasn’t reached that point yet. And it’s not clear whether brain imaging will ever become advanced enough to give us those concrete answers at all.
That’s the primary problem with neuromarketing: there are no hard answers. While brain imaging can show a correlation between a mental state and brain activity, it can’t prove causation. It’s impossible to measure which responses are a direct result of marketing or brand images, and which aren’t. Because of this limitation, neuromarketing can’t provide the solid answers about consumer behavior that companies hope to get.
Also, the field runs into a marketing problem of its own: some companies claim to use neuromarketing, without actually implementing techniques based in real neuroscience. Neuromarketing isn’t pseudoscience by definition, but certainly some what’s labeled “neuromarketing” is just pseudoscience with a buzzword attached.
If you define “success” as “learning more about how consumers respond to a product,” then yes, there have been neuromarketing successes. But if you define it as “finding out precisely how a product affects consumers’ brains,” then the answer is no. If you define it as “finding out how to trigger a ‘buy button’ in the brain that will guarantee a purchase,” the answer is also no.
There have been a number of case studies and other papers on the subject - let’s take a look at a few.
This 2007 review looked at how neuromarketing got started, and reviewed some of its findings so far. The author found that neuromarketing used alongside traditional practices could point companies toward better marketing practices. However, they also noted that “Because this is an emerging field and still controversial, some of the key information is proprietary and/or fairly presumptive at this time.”
A 2008 paper by the same author noted the “direct correlational associations” that neuromarketing could provide, but again mentioned that neuromarketing was a new field with limited research so far. And, of course, those correlational associations are inherently limited by the lack of information about causation.
This paper nicely outlines some key points about neuromarketing’s history, and also takes a closer look at specific case studies to see how the concept gets applied in practice.
The author mentions one study that found that simply viewing a sports car activates the brain’s “reward” center (which also responds to stimuli like sex and alcohol). This appears to have obvious value for marketers.
Another study used brain scans to see which emotions subjects displayed in response to images of drinking. Jack Daniels used the findings to design some of its ad campaigns.
After reviewing several studies, though, the author notes an important limitation: “[...]studies have been focused thus far, on the so-called ‘known centers’ such as: the rewards center, self-referencing center; and face recognition center. This has resulted in numerous neuromarketing studies, which increasingly focus on the various ‘known centers’ in the brain, however the actual scientific data about these ‘known centres’ is very limited.”
So, even though a study might find that a certain image activates a known part of the brain like the “rewards center,” we don’t yet know enough about the brain to apply that finding in definite, useful ways.
The author also concludes that while neuromarketing may have some practical use, there are a lot of “pseudo experts” in the field who make claims that aren’t backed up by science. This takes away from the value of the actual scientific research in the field.
The classic Campbell's soup can design. A nueromarketing study recommended changing it, with disastrous results (Image credit: DenverPost.com)
This paper reflects on the time Campbell attempted to use neuromarketing to boost its falling soup sales in 2008. The brand worked with several neuromarketing service providers, and “recorded and assessed the biometric details of over 1500 individuals.” The conclusion of the studies? Campbell decided it needed to redesign its soup labels.
However, brands that switch up labels with decades of recognition behind them rarely fare well, and Campbell was no exception. Even though the decision was based in neuromarketing, it was a striking flop.
Campbell’s design had been a staple in American art and culture for over a century. In retrospect, it’s easy to see why redesigning was foolish. However, the idea seemed good at the time because it was backed by “neuromarketing.”
This is a valuable warning that neuromarketing can lead companies astray as easily as it can lead them to success. Measuring consumer brain behavior is one thing, but knowing how to apply the findings well is another.
It’s not a coincidence that many neuromarketing case studies date from 10 years ago or more. The field was well-hyped in the early 2000s, but the flame brands held for neuromarketing has died out considerably since then.
That’s not because it’s all pseudoscience: neuromarketing has the potential to give marketers valuable insights into consumer behavior. However, it’s not a holy grail of marketing that holds the key to getting people to purchase. It’s just another way to gather information.
That information also needs to be applied wisely, otherwise, brands will face public failures like Campbell’s. But because neuromarketing involves expensive research methods that don’t give concrete answers about consumer habits, many brands today may avoid investing in it at all, sticking to more traditional research methods instead.
Add New Comment