Inside the mind of Neuromarketing

With an official birth date of 1884, marketing, when compared to the age-old marketplace, is, relatively speaking, still just a twinkle in the eye of consumerism. Despite this, the discipline is continually evolving as agencies and brands strive to keep one step ahead of their competitors.  Recent times have seen a shift away from the more traditional routes in favour of revolutionary new practices, such as digital and experiential marketing.  So what’s the next big thing?  The latest buzzword within the industry is ‘Neuromarketing’, but is this something marketers will embrace or fiercely resist?

So here’s the science: Neuromarketing studies consumers response to marketing stimuli using technology, more specifically functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI), to measure changes in activity in different parts of the brain to in turn learn why consumers make the decisions they do.  The basic argument behind it is that the part of our brain that drives all our buying decisions is not the part that is responsible for our conscious thoughts and logic, but our subconscious.

A classic example of this is the infamous ‘Pepsi Challenge’.  Back in the 80s, when Pepsi held blind taste tests between themselves and Coca Cola, they were left baffled as to why the majority of those tested said they preferred the taste of Pepsi, yet Coca Cola was still dominating the cola market.  The conclusion drawn was that people were not buying Coca Cola for its taste, but for the nostalgia and warm, fuzzy feeling the thought of a Coca Cola creates for them. The name and heritage of the brand was overriding the quality of the product.

In Britain, the number of smokers has continued to increase despite the ban on advertising and the introduction of health warnings on cigarette packs.  Branding guru and champion of Neuromarking, Martin Lindstrom, believes he knows the answer to this counterintuitive conundrum.  When Lindstrom showed test subjects pictures of cigarettes the area in their brains that deals with addiction became active.  Then, when he showed them anti-smoking messages the same response was provoked.  Lindstrom’s results show that our subconscious just cuts straight to the craving and he concludes “Most anti-smoking messages are no better than adverts for cigarettes.”

So far the jury is out as to the value that should be placed on Neuromarketing.  Lindstrom estimates a quarter of UK advertiser’s annual spend on research  (around £250 million) will be dedicated to it.  Others feel that delving into the minds of consumers, to better understand what makes them tick, is too unethical to fully take off.  But in a world of disturbing modern trends, where human embryo cloning and choosing the sex of your child are now realities, who can be sure?

I believe those with an insight into the marketing industry definitely become extra savvy to any ‘smoke and mirrors’ campaign, but if the feelings of nostalgia and comfort a brand can create for you are more important than superior taste who’s to argue this trade off is a bad thing?  When I look over old wardrobe disasters or decide it’s time to remove a CD from my music collection, it’s nice to think that these purchases weren’t necessarily made with a clear and rational mind.

• View all articles
• Next article
• Previous article