Quotes of the Day
On a recent Wednesday night, Eleanor Phipp spent an hour watching commercial television. Nothing unusual about that — except that Phipp, 30, was in a dark room at a south London medical center, lying inside a loudly whirring Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) scanner that mapped her brain as video images flickered before her eyes. Brain scanners — which use radio waves and a powerful magnetic field to trace oxygenated blood to areas of neural activity — are mainly used to study or diagnose brain diseases. But Phipp's brain was being scrutinized for decidedly nonmedical reasons. Researchers were monitoring how it reacted to the TV pictures; specifically, the study was designed to determine whether viewers respond to ads differently at night than in the morning.
The study is being run by Neurosense, an Oxford-based consulting firm that's a leader in the fast-growing industry called neuromarketing. Neuromarketing uses the techniques and technologies of neuroscience — particularly FMRI scanners — to better understand how our brains react to advertising, brands and products, reactions that mostly occur subconsciously. This burgeoning ability to peer inside the black box of the brain to see how it processes images and messages and reaches decisions potentially gives marketeers a new tool that can be used to fine-tune ads and marketing campaigns, bolster or extend brands, or design better products. "It can give valuable information that's not particularly easy to access by other techniques," says Michael Brammer, Neurosense's chairman and co-founder. "It's no surprise that some of these bits of information are interesting commercially."
Indeed, companies as diverse as Unilever and DaimlerChrysler have used neuromarketing. Viacom Brand Solutions, the commercial arm of MTV Networks, for instance, late last year had Neurosense study how viewers digest programming and ads. It looked at nine regions of the brain that control such functions as attraction, long- and short-term memory and understanding. One counterintuitive result: commercials generated more activity in eight of those nine cortical regions than the programs did, indicating that ads do register with viewers. But programming dominated the ninth area, which controls absorption — indeed, viewers were so absorbed by the programs that the other areas were nearly dormant. More predictably, the study also found that ads work best when their content is in harmony with the programs they're interrupting. An ad for the alcopop WKD, for instance, registered more viewer interest than a Red Cross appeal when it appeared during a South Park clip.
Those kinds of results have Neurosense clients coming back for more. And new neuromarketing consultants are also cropping up across Europe — like Neuroconsult, which hung out its shingle in Vienna earlier this year and is run by Peter Walla, a neurobiologist who teaches at three schools, including Vienna University. German researcher Peter Kenning says when he did a Google Internet search on the term neuromarketing five years ago, he turned up a couple of hits; today, a similar search yields more than 200,000. FMRI technology emerged only around 15 years ago. Efforts to combine it with marketing began in the late 1990s; indeed, Neurosense was launched in 1997. The appellation neuromarketing popped up several years later, possibly coined by Ale Smidts, a marketing professor at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. It's essentially a subgenre of another emerging discipline, neuroeconomics. "Neuromarketing is seen as more negative," Smidts says, because of marketing's sometimes unsavory connotations.
The field got a high-profile, scholarly boost two years ago when a study by Baylor College of Medicine in Houston — which was published in the academic journal Neuron — used FMRI technology to determine that cola drinkers subconsciously have warmer feelings for the Coca-Cola brand, and that gives Coke an edge over Pepsi, even though Pepsi performs as well as Coke in blind taste tests. Brain scanning is the field's dominant technology, but other technologies and techniques are used as well, often in conjunction with FMRIs. Magnetoencephalography (MEG), a technology that can read electrical signals pulsating from brain cells, is popular because it detects how quickly the brain reacts to stimulations. But unlike FMRI scans, it can't identify which parts of the brain are reacting. And that's important, because researchers say it's the interplay between the deeper, older brain where our emotions reside and the more logical neocortex that informs our decision making. And because the dance between the old and new brain areas occurs below our level of consciousness, it's information that focus groups or polls can never reveal.
Are there limits to neuromarketing's reach? FMRI studies are expensive. Brammer says a medium-sized study could cost between $94,000 and $188,000. Less-expensive options can also answer some marketing questions, however. For Unilever, Vienna's Walla recently used a startle-reflex method that measures muscle control of eye blinks to determine that eating ice cream makes people happier than eating yogurt or chocolate. Another drawback of scanners: lying in one is hardly a natural environment to watch TV or spot brands. But anticipated smaller versions that let subjects sit up under contraptions that resemble salon hair dryers should increase the comfort factor.
Marketers' use of neuroscience technologies has alarmed some consumer groups, mainly in the U.S., who fear it could lead to the discovery of an inner "buy button," which when pressed will turn us into robotic shoppers. Gary Ruskin, executive director of Commercial Alert, an advertising watchdog group, says if neuromarketing boosts advertising's effectiveness, even marginally, that's potentially dangerous. "We already have an epidemic of marketing-related diseases," ranging from obesity to type-2 diabetes to pathological gambling. And an even more intrusive technology may be looming. Cambridge University computer scientist Peter Robinson led a team, which included colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that has developed software that enables computers to "read minds." A video camera focuses on 24 different facial features from which the software can often decipher people's mental states, including comprehension, boredom and excitement. Robinson says the technology could be used to find the right moment to sell someone a product online.
Walla rejects the idea of a buy button as "science fiction," and most researchers say the technology only allows them to observe how brains work, not control them. Adds Brammer: "I have got a lot of respect for the power of the human spirit to resist being manipulated." Also, Smidts maintains, "A lot of advertising doesn't work. It's hard to persuade and influence people."
There's no shortage of academic debate over the merging of neuroscience and marketing. The journal Nature Neuroscience, under the headline brain scam?, has editorialized that too many practitioners' claims remain unpublished in peer-reviewed journals. But the dearth of published results is largely the result of businesses wanting to keep their findings secret. Brammer admits that the data deficit leads to "some scientists interpreting what we're doing skeptically."
Can the marketplace be as effective an arbiter of quality scholarship as refereed journals? Perhaps. Deliver too many bad findings based on sloppy science and you won't remain in business for long. Since Neurosense's revenues are up threefold in the last year, you don't need a brain scanner to see that it and its legitimate competitors will likely be attracting business for some time to come.
- THOMAS K. GROSE
- The secret to a successful advertising campaign could be all in your head