Companies like PepsiCo, Google, and Disney are betting the answer is yes.
Recently, while trying to decide what style of potato chip bag to bring to market, executives at PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay division commissioned a study that sounds more like science fiction than reality. By doing deep research on the structure on the brain and how the physical apparatus of the brain is affected by advertising stimuli, researchers were able to determine that shiny bags triggered activity in the anterior cingulate cortex – the region of the brain associated with guilt – while beige matte bags did not. This insight encouraged the company to choose the less guilt-inducing option.
Studies like this make up the vanguard of the burgeoning field of neuromarketing. First coined as a term in 2002, it’s only in recent years that this bastard love child of traditional neuroscience and marketing has really begun to gain traction.
Using technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), steady state topography (SST), facial coding and biometrics, practitioners of neuromarketing attempt to directly observe how the brain responds to marketing-oriented stimuli and thereby gain insights into their effectiveness.
While still a new field, large companies like Google, Disney, Microsoft and Chevron have already begun to dip their toes in the neuromarketing waters. And research vendors have responded, recently announcing the availability of portable EEG devices that can wirelessly transmit brain scans to iPads, as well as “full-brain home panels” for original research studies.
Of course, the new discipline is not without controversy. Some scientists doubt the rigor of the methodologies, while other experts have voiced ethical qualms, charging that these techniques cross the line into outright manipulation. What seems likely is that this area will continue to grow in the coming years and that forward-thinking planners and strategists will need to expand beyond their traditional strengths in marketing and psychology to begin to understand the physical workings of the brain as well.
From my own perspective, as both a strategist and admirer of the physical sciences, I’m excited to see our domain widen to incorporate brain research. And while most experiments in neuromarketing so far have been in traditional advertising (perhaps due to the expensive nature of the research), there’s no reason why the same principles couldn’t be applied to digital marketing initiatives as well. Perhaps adding a bit of neuroscience into our usual suite of metrics (click-throughs, time on site, etc.) would help us better understand how and why users are engaging (or not) with the digital experiences we create.
Has anyone out there heard of any examples of neuroscience being applied explicitly to digital marketing? Do you think that these types of studies can lead to real insight, or is the science still too immature? And finally, does neuroscience feel any more manipulative than any of the other research techniques marketers use to better understand consumers? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
David Leibowitz is a Director, Strategy at Organic
Comments
Connections
The Shiny/Matte example seems like the exact same conclusion would come from focus groups or controlled experiments. Neat stuff though!
Nicely written. I am happy to talk more about neuroscience and digital marketing. For starters please look at this extensive study we did with Thinkbox in the UK last year.
http://www.neuro-insight.com/neuro-insight/htdocs/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Thinkbox%20Marketing%20Week%20July15.pdf
Pranav
I haven’t seen it used for digital marketing yet. I believe know the company you are speaking of that did that study it is based here in Dallas. My buddy works there and they have done numerous studies for Frito Lay, Dr. Pepper, etc…. – but more so when introducing a new product or brand awareness studies. Very interesting stuff and I am excited to see it transpire.
I wonder how broad these studies were, and where the shiny/matte example came from. I think that maybe, you might find that different regions would produce different results for that test. I would assume most ideas for the human mind are not as simple as primal instincts. And even for those, you would probably reach dissimilarities based on location and societal influence.
The amazing thing about the human mind is its ability to learn and to adapt. No machine can predict that. Just because an activity in the brain is being triggered doesn’t mean that the mind is perceiving it in a way which we assume.
From the Wikipedia page you will find that the region: appears to play a role in a wide variety of autonomic functions, such as regulating blood pressure and heart rate, as well as rational cognitive functions, such as reward anticipation, decision-making, empathy[1] and emotion.[2][3]… The ACC seems to be especially involved when effort is needed to carry out a task such as in early learning and problem-solving.[6]
I would hardly say that guilt is the single factor here in what was happening to participants as they viewed the images. You will also find on the link that guilt was just her assumption of the regional response generality , and not necessarily a result of the images. “And research Ms. Nykoliation read linked the anterior cingulate cortex, which processes decision-making and was larger in women, to feelings of guilt. (Experts differ on how directly functions or feelings are associated with various parts of the brain.)”
They may feel more guilt, but that doesn’t mean that the shiny bags were making them feel guilty. It also depends on what bags they were showing them and if they had an idea of what company the bags represented in relation to their image. The women may have already had a negative response to the Frito Lays classic bag design because they “know” chips are unhealthy for them as a snack, but the new unfamiliar one wouldn’t illicit the same response.