Neuromarketing – aka ‘clutching at straws’

Excellent. Now I have some things to say to substantiate what I’ve been thinking for a while… “This seems completely bogus.”

Nice post, Brooke. I think until we see some peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate neuromarketing effectiveness, skepticism will abound. Perhaps the ARF neuromarketing study will help.

Roger

brilliant article

Gold.

Great post Brooke, it certainly lit-up my brain 🙂

I think it’s fair to say that neuroscience is at best micro-niche for most marketers, although there are a few high-profile fans e.g. Steve Weaver from Nine Network.

There was an interesting neuroscience research exercise done in the UK recently for New Scientist magazine, as linked here:

http://www.research-live.com/4003516.article

The conclusion? Publicity helps to generate magazine sales!

Deputy editor Graham Lawton was quoted as saying “I don’t see us doing any more neuromarketing studies”. How’s that for a Net Promoter Score?!

Perhaps the biggest limitation of Neuromarketing is the lack of data norms.

Adam, I think you need to be careful in that statement about publicity being the sole driver of New Scientist’s boost in sales, especially since the article mentions that such publicity can actually depress sales as well – potential readers feel they’ve already read the story.

Around neuromarketing, I agree that there is a lot of hype and unsubstantiated promises that could certainly come back and hurt the credibility of such techniques. However, it opens the door to new areas of investigation and I’ve seen it used to help confirm ideas around how people behave and also as a way of testing particular technical ad issues that might not be testable in other ways (e.g. where is the most effective place to display the brand in this TVC?).

Neuromarketing isn’t a panacea, but nor should it simply be considered “clutching at straws”. It is a new field where dramatic claims should be treated with a healthy scepticism (there is also a bit of a publication bias) but I don’t think it is something that can be completely discounted either.

Great article Brook and well written. Lifts the standard.

I have a Lovely jar of Snake oil your welcome to purchase. It can sure all modern ailments and deliver a highly targetted audience.

Nice article.

After reading Martin Lindstrom’s Buyology I felt a little sceptical to say the least. Nice to have a qualified psychologist confirm the skepticism.

Brooke, we’re all entitled to our opinions – but may I suggest taking a look at the facts before you make sweeping statements that are completely WRONG! I’m intrigued with the confidence you seem to have on the one hand & yet to be so completely ignorant about what you’re talking about.
Here’s a few facts…based on scientific evidence (not opinion) that you should be aware of:
• You say “it might not translate into action (& sales)”. We’ve had work accepted by critical peer-review. A process that has established the link between brain activity & consumer behaviour. This was published over two years ago in the International Journal of Advertising: Special Issue – Advertising and the Brain. I suggest you read it!
• The Journal of Advertising Research also published a peer-reviewed article (May 2001) which establishes the scientific link between memory encoding & recognition of TV commercials (1 week after exposure).
• Neuro Insights’ memory encoding predicts consumer behaviour!!!
• Finally, you DO know that as soon as you ask someone a question & they know what you’re asking about, that changes the response!
Brooke, before you go making a name for yourself, please just check the evidence & the facts…people actually respect that!

” Hi, what we’d like to do is test your new ad that you’ve paid stacks in production for……..with 20 people ”

” Um, ok, isn’t that a rather small number of people ? ”

” Well, we’re not just TESTING it, we’re neuromarketing testing it ”

” Oh, well that’s different I suppose, how much will that cost ? ”

” Only another couple of hundred thousand, but that includes researcher time equipment and facility hire etc etc…and of course the participants themselves ”

” Oh, what if it tests poorly ? ”

” Well, we’ll just make another ad ”

Really ?

CP, if spending a few hundred thousand (and if you know clients who have these kind of pre-testing budgets, could you please introduce me to them?) on testing an ad saves a client pouring $1m+ spend into an ad that has zero effect, then yes, really.

Complaints about sample sizes always exist (and have some justification in certain cases), regardless of methodology used. Often it depends on time and budget regarding how any kind of pre-testing is executed, if at all.

However, I’m sure various neuromarketing agencies would love to do the same kind of testing with 100, 200, 300+ people. Again though: time and budget.

Research in any form is an aid to judgement, not a substitute for it.
Neuromarketing techniques are no different. Even bright young things labelling themselves as ‘consumer psychologists’ should have learned enough to know all techniques have strenghts and weaknesses and are at different stages of their evolution. Some may think this girl is grandstanding and it certainly looks that way. Neuromarketing wasn’t just plucked out of the air by an amateur it is a well developed technique which is beyond the understanding of some less experienced researchers. That doesn’t make it valid to attack it, at least until you have done it the professional courtesy of checking it out
Ms Ward had she been born a few hundred years ago would probably have argued quite convincingly that the world was flat…………..perhaps it is.
The loser here is not the technique, it is naked’s credibility.

Hi Peta

There is also a journal article that shows a link between star signs and purchasing behaviour.

Of course there is a link between brain activity and purchase behaviour – a useful or understandable link – no.

Keep selling.

I’d love to hear from someone that’s been a participant/subject in such a test.

Groucho let me guess you are an older male, probably a little mysogonistic but would like to admit to it.

Your tone and comments are labelled with judgement and bitterness that it undermines what point you may have. On the point you’re trying to make – all I get is that you should not challenge new ideas. Is this correct?

Well, I do agree in that people are getting carried away with Neuromarketing. Let’s face it, trying to interpret how areas are stimulated in the brain upon specific experiences, only depicts where there is brain activity at that point in time, in the same way that anyone can press an accelerator in a car and anyone can get close and listen the revving engine or use infra red technology to visualize the different heat patterns that emerge… Is it a step in the right direction?? Absolutely, there is a new tool emerging, most other tools will still be required, though. It will be the combination of how one uses the given tools that will help the evolution of understanding how the brain really works – which is still one of life’s biggest mysteries… how do we memorize stuff? Why do we remember one thing and not the other, why don’t we use our whole potential?? etc… Neurological Scientists have a long way to go, and in the meantime, we can have some fun…

Thank you for participating in the conversation. However, judging by the dearth of robust scientific evidence in these responses, neuromarketing is in an even sadder state than I thought it was.

@Peter you cited an article, which I found and read. My favourite part was
“while our findings are consistent with the proposition that an advertisement can influence consumer brand preference only if the brand information is encoded in LTM, this does not mean that this is the only factor determining change to brand choice. Undoubtedly, other factors, such as sense of engagement and likeability, as well as the nature of the purchase, are all likely to play a role in influencing consumer brand preference. Thus we would suggest that LTM encoding of advertising brand information is a necessary but not sufficient condition to influence brand preference.”

Hmmm…. so your mates at Neuro Insight…. agree with me?

You’re right that they did find a link between memory and consumer brand choice in the lab, but this was a small one, and again reiterates my point that memory alone wasn’t sufficient to guarantee brand choice. As well, although activity was found in the long term memory encoding area, the researchers only measured brand choice 30 minutes after viewing the ad, so a lack of longitudinal evidence again precludes us from drawing any dramatic conclusions about effectiveness, especially since long term memory encoding doesn’t guarantee retention.

I’d also like to point out that in the scientific community, it’s frowned upon to use words like ‘proves’, and ‘establish conclusively‚’ it’s a bit white swan if you know what I mean (if you don’t know what I mean google ‘science’ and ‘white swan’).

I do agree with you that demand bias often occurs when participants are aware of what is being researched. Luckily, more sophisticated research methodologies are being developed to overcome these biases (not neuromarketing).

@Groucho‚ I like your first line and think you probably agree with me, but perhaps you are too busy ‘grandstanding’ for the neuromarketing community to realise. If neuromarketing is beyond anyone’s understanding, it appears to be yours, though blind faith seems to prevent that from worrying you. I find it pretty amusing that you call yourself some random anonymous name and have nothing intelligent to say, but then feebly attack the credibility of both myself and the company I work for, since you are not exactly credibility personified.
My issue with neuromarketing is not a lack of understanding, but rather some fundamental concerns with what it purports to do, and what it purports to replace. As someone with a background in both academic and commercial research, and a psychology license and title granted to me by the government, I feel it would be irresponsible not to create debate and challenge ideas around issues such as these.

Again, thanks for joining in the conversation.

Hey Brooke, glad you liked my first line. It was my opener each semester during 20 years of lecturing at Universites here, in Asia, and the US and in 30 years of dealing with clients in Market Research and Planning. I have the greatest admiration for people who acquire and use qualifications and research to advance whatever field they are in.
It is diminished though when I see it used merely to whack down anything new, or anything that can’t be easily explained. In my experience those with a positive approach have contributed most , and the naysayers the least.
You seem to state that Neuromarketing is conducted in the absence of any other technique or judgement – surely you don’t believe that?
By the way I don’t attack the credibility of he company you work for , I say it is diminished. The same lack of care in your reading is evident in your argument against Neuromarketing. Wisdom would suggest that is is another technique in an imperfect but useful array of techniques to aid judgement.

Good post.
Reminds me of the “How Brands Work” post, or the one by the guy at Millward Brown defending their methods.
All three get the debate going around important issues. So more guest posts like this.
My 2 cents: neuromarketing is as bogus as (almost) every other market research methodology out there, especially those that claim to be “science”. But that’s the soup in which we all swim.

poor groucho.

Anonymous at 11:10 pm it is exceedingly generous of you to share your sympathy
with poor groucho at 11:10 on a Saturday night.

Hopefully the irony will not be lost on either of you

Quote from Ms.Ward:

“As someone who has a background in academic and commercial research and a psychology license and a title granted to me by the government…”

Well, you are very important aren’t you?

And as someone who places so much importance on titles and academic and commercial research can I assume you won’t have any problems accepting the findings of the ARF study when they’re released?

I understand the reviews are being conducted by people with even more qualifications than yourself – if that’s possible..

The main problem I have with neuroscience is that OTHER PEOPLE are by far the most significant influence on human behaviour, rather than the kaleidoscopic activity in the mind of ONE individual. If this wasn’t the case, we’d have anarchy!

Uber-thinker Mark Earls sums up the situation very nicely in his blog “Herd” (as linked below). He writes: “Are Neuromarketers like Daleks – seeking some loophole in the space time continuum to survive and fight another day?”

I reckon this debate will fizzle out this week and then we’ll all forget about it for another year or two, until the Daleks have plotted their evil revenge.

http://herd.typepad.com/herd_t.....ce-an.html

Well said ‘spare me’

There are around 25000 registered psychologists in Australia so you can see why some try so hard to stand out

Brooke , you wrote ‘Luckily, more sophisticated research methodologies are being developed to overcome these biases (not Neuromarketing).’ – Can you elaborate on these exciting new techniques? Anything peer reviewed yet?

Brooke,
You say your main criticism of ‘neuromarketing, and neuropsychology, is that it doesn’t actually explain anything. When we see activity or unusual structure in the brain, our natural reaction is to attribute causality’.

I guess with that reasoning, you would also have a problem with that apple falling Newton’s head. Maybe Newton should have also considered that unknown and mysterious variable was the hand of God itself, throwing that apple down and not gravity!

Science aims to explain cause and effect, and without research, our understanding, be it in marketing, psychology, medicine, physics and so on will never move forward.

@Shaun – er, correct me if I’m wrong but gravity isn’t subject to cultural influence is it?! Newton could however have blamed invisible pixies for the effect instead …

LOL@ at an article written by an obvious competitor to ‘NeuroMarketing’ – a Consumer psychologist?!?..Please people, wake up to this kind of nonsense.

Do you all honestly believe this article was designed to ‘create debate and challenge ideas around issues’….This is weak effort to to harm competition, and peddle her own weak product….

While neuro is undoubtedly far from perfect, it is actually good at doing something that the author pre-supposes is damaging and that most other tests universally fail to achieve – get at the activity in the unconscious mind.

“neuromarketing the connection is even more tenuous, since participants aren’t actually aware of what their brains are telling us.” – this is actually the reason why neuro should be considered for certain types of research, when the influences aimed at by the advertising are likely to be difficult to articulate, subtle or emotional in nature.

Whether the respondent is able to articulate any of this is irrelevant. In fact, given that people almost always want to rationalise their responses to stimulus, bypassing this can be invaluable.

@Tom – I’d be interested to know what you find bogus about market research techniques.

@Brooke – like Carl F, I’d be interested in hearing what other techniques you see as overcoming respondent biases to get at unconscious drivers. The implicit association test comes to mind, but I’m interested to hear of any others.

Interesting article but I find it even more interesting from someone who calls themselves a consumer psychologist ?

As Huw pointed out and others in research, it is not the panacea and will not replace other methods of research – anyone who thinks so is vastly misinformed or overstating the results. As Luke pointed out the articulated response from consumers is great when is factual information such as trips to the city, where I shop, how often, what products I use, how much, etc etc – factual/semantic information – where neuromarketing is critical and will continue to be so is in the the non-factual realm or aesthetic judgement or moral judgement where people either cannot express their emotions or filter it to match their desirability in the front of others.

Cultural influences seem to be the biggest up roar to neuromarketing – neuromarketing research doesn’t measure culture directly however, indirectly it can particularly with occurrences such as humour – that is what one culture finds funny in an ad another may not – very relevant from a global campaign perspective – likewise the language one uses to articulate a positive emotion may have an entirely different meaning in another culture – thus again supporting the use of qual to understand the cultural facts/semantics.

And just because there is some report saying WOM resulted in sales, don’t believe everything you read and I’d like to see how they measure WOM anyways not sure too many marketing directors would say to their bosses that we are only spending money on WOM campaigns this time round particularly when the challenge in the current financial environment is transparency on marketing spend and object ROI measures.

As for the query on your specialisation I don’t recall the national psychology registration board having that recognition in their list of nominated credentials. Brooke I’d check the legalities of what you can and call yourself as a registered psychologist – then can the public really make a call about what it is you are saying

– and for the public – check the website (http://www.ahpra.gov.au/Regist.....oners.aspx) to see if someone is indeed a registered psychologist because if they are not they cannot legally call themselves a psychologist.

For the record, I am a psychologist too but under the registration guidelines and not wanting to become de-registered am nothing more. But also for the record, I do hold a Doctorate in clinical psychology (not listed on the register), a masters in sport psychology, BA in psychology and an MBA – not to mention having worked in clinical, forensic, and sport psychology areas for many years and in market research for almost the last 10yrs.

@Huw. My experience across 15 years in NPD and marketing has been that market research techniques are routinely crap at predicting future outcomes. That research fails to predict the future isn’t only a problem in marketing – it’s seemingly endemic across the social sciences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGxUvNty-dA

I’m exhausted by research firms claiming they can de-risk the future via their ‘science’… through experience I no longer have any faith (and faith is what is required given the lack of demonstrable results). And interestingly more and more senior clients have waning faith, too.

Use research for inspiration, exploration, spotting opportunities and making the work better (when possible). But outside of that, it’s mostly a colossal waste of time and money. Far cheaper to buy a new parrot.

@tom. Nice video on economic forecasting. Not sure if thats the same as predicting human behaviour and neuroeconomists and behavioural economics research on decision making in economic theory/forecasting would suggest a wealth of information doesn’t create clarity only a delusional state of assuredness. When a rumour or mis-attribution of a 0 can create a global panic in the market economies of the world – I don’ t hold much faith in forecasting either.

But when it comes to human behaviour – the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour and to change past behaviour to a new future behaviour it only has to be slightly more easy, hopeful or ‘pain’ reducing and people will adopt. although the price focussed retailers are ruining the hope of any real innovation or adoption to new products by consumers unless it really is outstanding and makes life easier, hopeful, or pain reducing. We are wired to take the easy road where ever possible…..

This thing we are using called the www was shelved on the first attempt to get it off the ground by Tim Berner-Lee; or the computers we use to access it was seen as a hoax – good thing Bill Gates and Steve Jobs thought otherwise.

Maybe its time for a holiday or a career change for a break.

Interesting article and debate but I fail to see how the opponents of ms.Ward add to the credibility of neuromarketing.

Would love to see some sound arguments here on the real value added by neuromarketing at its current stage (not based on its potential value 20 years from now).

It appears to me that the debate now is concerning the credentials of the author (as far as I know consumer psychologist is a recognized field in other countries) rather than neuromarketing and I find that debate rather boring compared to the real issue at hand.

Notice Brooke and her supporter anonymous have gone quiet.

Probably the best option considering………….

@Unconvinced Marketer. Join the neuromarketing group on linkedin to see what is going on in the field. Until companies are willing to release information on the research that is done for them, it is difficult to provide clear results. Neurofocus has been able to get this release from a couple (the scientific mag quoted here) and from a chip and salsa study. But like most commercial organisations, its considered competitive advantage and no one wants to publicize their knowledge. Doesn’t mean its not valid research methods or findings.

Often people are hesitant or defensive of what they don’t understand or comprehend that is a natural position, the brain takes in response to that uncomfortable emotion of fear – again doesn’t mean we should listen to that emotion rather than open up ones mind and have a look.

As for credentials of the author – that is quite critical to the opinions expressed. As for other countries – thats quite broad sweeping and the fact is we are talking about Australia where it is indeed not a field of recognised practice.

Doesn’t mean you can’t be a psychologist who works in consumer behaviour research, that is not the issue as I am one of those psychologists, the issue is the legalities of the profession and being part of that profession I am loathe to see it lose any more credibility than it takes on regular basis.

Two points.

1] The aim of the ARF study is to provide an independent peer group review of all the neuroscience marketing techniques and the claims being made by their proponents.

Hopefully, the published findings will satisfy even the Brooke Ward’s of this world.

2] Ms.Ward fails to understand what Shane Moon and others on this blog identify as a key benefit of neuroscience in marketing:

the capacity to measure the unarticulated response.

In fact, I would contend that THE ONLY legitimate response is an unsolicited response.

In other words, I’m not interested in what ‘you tell me’ I’m more interested in ‘how you feel’; and the ONLY legitimate way to measure that accurately is for the respondent NOT to know it’s being measured.

I’m not aware of any psychologist, let alone someone with ‘academic and commercial research experience and a psychology licence and a title granted by the government’ who’s ever been able to measure [not guess] an unsolicited, non-verbal response.

But then again, I wasn’t aware of Ms.Ward before either.

@spare me: Genuinely interested. Not taking shots.
You say: “I’m more interested in ‘how you feel’; and the ONLY legitimate way to measure that accurately is for the respondent NOT to know it’s being measured.”
How do you do this? How do you measure neural response without the respondent knowing they’re being watched/assessed?

…I notice Ms Ward has only 14 month’s of commercial work experience, so perhaps this impacts the naiivity of some of her statements?

perhaps Ms Brookes writing would benefit from being reviewed by her unclothed peers before publication – as someone perhaps unkindly noted earlier it is their credibility as well as hers

Tom

It’s not that the respondent doesn’t know they’re being assessed, they do. However, they don’t know what they’re being assessed for and when.

One of my clients engaged a neuroscience company and it worked like this.

Eight respondents were placed in a viewing room. They all sat in comfy armchairs. Each wore a cap with a couple of wires coming out the back. The respondents then watched a 30 minute TV program [in this case Friends] and like normal TV the show featured all the normal ad breaks etc. [One of which was the clients ad]. This was repeated a number of time until nearly 50 respondents responses were measured.

As it was explained to me, the readings from first few minutes [say 2-5 mins] aren’t considered accurate as the respondent is still assuming a normal neuro-state [I imagine that’s the equivalent of putting on a baseball hat and over a few minutes forgetting you have it on].

The respondents view the show. They view the ads. The data is taken. The show ends. They respondents are given their money and that’s it.

So, they know they’re being researched. But they don’t know what for. They’re never asked to say anything or answer any questions. They just sit back and watch TV for 30+ minutes and go home. [Three of the respondents fell asleep and had to be woken!].

My client’s stated reasoning for using neuroscience was simply, “the brain doesn’t lie, the mouth does”.

I hope that helps.

But don’t take my observation as being any more reliable than Ms.Ward’s opinion. If I was you, I’d wait for the ARF findings. At least then, you’ll know who’s right and who’s not.

Tom

Further to my comments above, I suggest you go to the ‘ARF neuromarketing study’ link mentioned by blogger #2.

Please note the stature of the companies who are involved and/or sponsoring the study. From my understanding, a list equally as impressive could be made of those not mentioned.

You have every right to be skeptical of yet another research methodology claiming to be the holy grail. However, I think anyone would view this study as being legitimate and view its findings [and the scientific peer group review panel] as having more substance than Ms.Ward’s opinion.

Hi all

Again, thanks for joining in the conversation.

A lot of you seem to be solely attacking my credibility. Just a few points to make here:
– Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. I can understand the sensitivity of the issue for some, but just because I am young does not mean my opinion counts any less – certainly any less than those who choose to remain anonymous and hurl insults from the sidelines.
– I am a registered psychologist and entitled to use the title consumer psychologist.
– I stand by my original points, and also welcome the much-needed ARF study (or any other evidence). Until then, as Shane rightly pointed out, the confinement of neuromarketing to the commercial (and subsequently confidential) sphere has meant a disconnect with the academic world and hence an atheoretical, individually-driven approach has prevailed.
– Just to recap, my arguments against neuromarketing are its lack of precision, frequent disconnect with actual behaviour, lack of explanatory power, its newness and resulting unfamiliarity, and its inefficiency in relation to resources. I welcome anyone who cares to provide any evidence to the contrary.
– Finally, any new methods in the field of research with humans are subject to criticism, debate and scrutiny. In fact this is how we get to better and more improved ways of doing things. Not by turning a blind eye and keeping our fingers crossed.

Nice to see you back Brooke, we thought you had retired hurt.

Yes you are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to all the credibility your short 14 months of experience gives you. Eventually you will develop the wisdom that comes with experience too.

No one seems to dispute that you are entitled to use the title consumer psychologist, well psychologist anyway, along with the 24,982 other psychologists in Australia.

You won’t be surprised to know that many of them disagree with you, and many more don’t care.

Unless you have undertaken some serious research into Neuromarketing some psychologists may think that you are using your qualification to imply that your opinion is somehow expert and that your dismissal of it is authoritative instead of , as Carol says an obvious swipe at a competitor or competitors who have made the intellectual and financial investment in exploring a new technique.

It is the swipe rather than a considered evaluation which gnaws at your credibility and crosses the boundary between smart thinker and smart arse.

@Brooke. I am flogging a dead horse I know and as professor has stated – maybe I shouldn’t care – but it gnaws me to the ethical bone. Brooke visit the AHPRA website; speak to your supervisor who signed off your supervision plan to get you to be registered, I don’t care but do something to be informed – consumer psychologist is not an endorsed area of practice under the National Registration Board. Case in point, health psychology has not been granted an endorsement, so someone who has a doctorate in health psychology and years of experience is not allowed to call themselves a health psychologist – and to do so is serious misleading to the public and subject to legal proceedings – so I am not sure why you hold a false belief that an area of practice that does not exist under the law and registration guidelines is appropriate.

But yes your opinion is your opinion but don’t put your qualifications or made up title as a significant entree to that opinion because the general public uses titles as a basis for taking short cuts to authenticity, reliability and validity – and your personal opinion now becomes a professional opinion an inference of something entirely different. Particularly when the general punter off the street still don’t know the difference between a counsellor, a psychologist or a psychiatrist – keeping it real is a professional responsibility. Using the title psychologist is an earned privilege not a right – be reminded of that everyday but as you said you are entitled and I couldn’t agree more because it indeed seems you are being a little entitled for thinking any different.

@ShaneMoon
As someone taking the ethical highroad you should probably get your facts right. APS is the governing body of psychology in Australia and they recognise both the title health and consumer psychologist (the latter found under organisational psychology).

Now that the great debate over titles appears to be settled (and I am assuming that Shane is thrilled over now being able to claim his hard earned title) can we please get back to the question at hand: the credibility of neuromarketing.

Some of these anonymous comments, get close to cyber bullying.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/art.....ial-media/

In terms of the title ‘Consumer Psychologist’. If anyone is in doubt please contact The Australian Psychological Society – we did.

Now, please stop attacking and perhaps address the concerns raised about Neuromarketing?

Adam Ferrier
Consumer Psychologist

@Brooke and everyone else out there given this is a bit of an educational piece. you said “Testing one ad on 20 participants will set you back tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars including researcher time, equipment and facility hire, and the participants themselves”…

well not sure what you know about pricing models in the market research industry but let me tell you 4 or 5 focus groups knock you back about 5 or 6k per group; in depths are anywhere from 1200 to 1800 per interview – all these are inclusive of the list of extras you have quoted. As for neuro market research a typical study which can include up to 5 or 6 Ads and 35 participants would set you back roughly 35k plus gst including all the extra things you listed. Again, not sure where you got your grossly inflated 100’s of thousands figures from again I suggest you check your facts or get someone to do it for you if you couldn’t be bothered – at least then your opinion (personal or otherwise) will be somewhat informed.

Then again, as you stated:

“my arguments against neuromarketing are its lack of precision, frequent disconnect with actual behaviour, lack of explanatory power, its newness and resulting unfamiliarity, and its inefficiency in relation to resources.”

I thought it was an opinion piece not a scientific debate – two mutually exclusive propositions. But then again the scientific evidence against “newness’ as a reasonable platform must be insurmountable; or the fact that the proper methodology used in neuro research has been derived from the clinical neurology, neuroscience and cognitive and clinical psychology worlds using the same equipment used to diagnose and monitor many neurological disorders or impairments etc etc; I suppose if you ever develop a cognitive impairment or indeed know someone who does, you won’t let them see someone for an EEG or fMRI because there is no precision in it (in your opinion).

One other point for interests sake, atheoretical is again a blind oversight in terms of the methods used in neuro research – can’t speak for all mind you, but the majority out there adhere to the strict principles and guidelines outlined in referred journals for conducting these types of studies. There is not always smoke and mirrors in front of what one does not truly understand.

BTW happy to provide a full list of referred journals.

@Blog psychologist and Adam. Lets get that fact straight for all. APS is not the governing body of psychology in Australia for registration as a practicing psychologist that is the registration boards in each state now becoming the the AHPRA. The APS is a professional organisation that one does or does not become a member BUT you DO have to be part of the AHPRA through registration and historically by default one had to have their qualifications assessed by the APS in order to become registered but the flaws in this process have resulted in the changes we see today due to the conflicts between professional organisations and registering bodies. I could be a member of the professional association for just about anything doesn’t make mean expert in that area. Just so we are clear, the facts are this the title ‘psychologist’ and the use of the title comes under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 of which all registered psychologist fall under the AHPRA not the APS. I would advise the public to contact the AHPRA not the APS for so many reasons beyond this post. Seems as though the general consensus is to move on from it so lets… and also lets open the forum to scientific discussion towards all research methods including neuromarket research….

Dr Shane Moon (DPsychClin, MPsychSport, BAPsych, MBA)
Psychologist

And at what stage, talking of being disingenuous, was Adam Ferrier going to disclose he is Brooke Wards employer?

Ummm…. not meaning to get in the middle here… but she works at Naked, everyone knows he’s a founding partner of the Sydney office… so isn’t that blindingly obvious??

Tom. Phd-of-nothing-except-hot-monkey-loving.

Don’t be silly Tom, ‘everybody’ doesn’t know although their 15 minutes of fame is happening now. They may well like your sweeping generalisation though.

Now the Daleks are getting angry … “Exter-min-ate! Exter-min-aaaaate!!”

@Adam Ferrier is right – be nice or leave. Please. Personal attacks make pretty boring reading. Pro-neuros, if you a want a really clever retort “show us the money”

Give us some case studies that show this method has moved out of academia and delivered concrete results for Australian businesses/government depts.

@everyone. Maybe James Surowiecki might calm some of the storm but who knows maybe these companies who are using neuro research in their tool box have got it wrong too. If anyone can get their information specifics (ie. case studies) other than a public release saying neuro market research has been very beneficial blah blah blah then that would be welcomed – I for one would read with interest. A list of known neuro market research buyers: Frito-Lay; Budweiser; Nissan, Good Year, Unilever, Campbells, Citigroup, Hyundai, Chevron, Disney, Microsoft, Canon, Proctor and Gamble, Pepsi, to name a few.

@Tom – I completely accept the difficulty there is in NPD research and agree that MR should be extremely cautious in suggesting it can forecast successful product uptake. Personally I’d try to refrain from said predictions, or deliver them with a large caveat (particularly around awareness of the product / service at launch).

Just thought I’d ask! 🙂

Dear Adams

Ms.Ward seeks the comfort provided by academic and professional credentials, yet presents her arguments like a disgruntled junior copywriter.

If she wants to claim the ‘moral and professional high ground’ then she needs to present her case accordingly. Until she does, ‘clutching at straws’ seems a more apt description of Ms.Ward’s comments than the claims of neuroscience marketers.

As for detailing facts, figures and methodologies to support neuroscience marketing; that all sounds fair enough in principle, but I don’t see Ms.Ward detailing chapter and verse how she conducts Naked’s market research.

Nor do I see her providing commercial client information to support her work that’s any more, or less comprehensive than the neuroscience marketers she and the Adams seem so intent on criticising.

Unlike Ms.Ward’s work, most neuroscience marketers have had their work published and passed peer group review [even if for applications other than market research].

So, those organisations who are involved with the ARF study should be congratulated for their willingness to put their claims to the test. Unlike Ms.Ward, there are many neuroscience marketers prepared to provide all the information and scientific evidence required for their claims to be substantiated.

This study is not to facilitate a rubber stamp for anyone claiming some neuroscience legitimacy. Rather, it’s a serious study to separate the legitimate practitioners form the pretenders.

I look forward to the day Ms.Ward submits her own theories to such scrutiny. But somehow, I think we’ll be waiting quite a while.

Dear Naked

You’ve built a business on espousing the joys of a brave new world in marketing.

Yet, the moment another front of the brave new world of marketing is opened, your only response is to defend the status quo and preach fear of the new.

The irony isn’t lost on me. How about you?

I think Brooke is winning this debate. Attach some wires to my brain and draw a graph if you don’t believe me.

Leon, if you think Brooke is winning this debate your brain is not where the wires need to go.

John, if you’re suggesting what I think you are – brilliant idea! I can see it now: “erectile marketing”; the ultimate way to measure arousal. The perfect way to test those Lynx ads before they air.

This is a really excellent posting by Brooke!! Well done.

My second book The Branded Mind: What Neuroscience is Really Teaching us about the Puzzle of the Brain and the Brand is allready advertised on Amazon – so those of you that do not agree with Brooke can order a copy in advance.

There is a lot of neurobullshitting happening in the name of neuromarketing and many marketers are going to lose a lot of money. Unfortunately this will give neuromarketing a bad name and result in the baby being tossed with the bathwater.

Neuroscience has taught us a lot, but not to read minds about things that people are supposedly not aware of. Certainly not that everything we know about why people buy is wrong. In fact, neuroscience (not wires around the cranium, is confirming a lot of what we know as good marketing principles and good market research.

Go Brooke.

Gosh Erik, on the same day that Millward Brown announce they are launching a Neuroscience tool you back Brooke’s condemnation of the science. Assuming you are still with MB in South Africa are you out of your mind or should MB here retire hurt?

Go Erik.

How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?

None. The light bulb will change itself when it’s ready.

Erik is right.
There is a lot of neurobullshitting that gives neuromarketing a bad name.
So, I expect Eric and Ms.Ward will welcome the ARF findings when they’re published; because separating the neurotruth from the neurobullshit is exactly what the study will do. [I’m sure marketers everywhere would welcome a study to do likewise with ‘consumer’ psychology].
Erik is also right to claim neuromarketing doesn’t allow researchers to read minds, but he’s wrong to suggest neuroscience can’t measure and track neuro responses that respondents aren’t aware of; it can.

Hi Professor,
No, I don’t debunk bio measures at all, they should just be seen (and used) in the right perspective.
Firstly, they should be used in conjunction with introspective questions and databases that help one to interpret what you are measuring. This is what I understand Brooke to argue for.
Secondly, over claiming what they are doing at this stage is dangerous – it can spoil the future for a great step forward in science.
There seems to be two groups: those that claim bio-measures now tells us everything, when in fact it only tells us some part of the brain has been active – not even why or what it was doing, as Brooke explains (which is a very refreshing statement from a psychologist)., and then those, like MB, that is treating this as an adjunct to well constructed research.

Hi spare me: I stand corrected. You are right.

Eric you may not be debunking bio measures but Brooke is. By defining Neuromarketing narrowly, by suggesting that is is used in total isolation, not as you say as an adjunct to well constructed research she leverages her grand title to debunk Neuromarketing per se. She does so to undermine the utility of it for competitive advantage.’If we don’t have one I’m going to break everyone elses” Better I would have thought to be constructive and outline how it might be improved and best used. Certainly more mature and wise.

Professor – must admit I don’t know Brooke or what she does and what she has access to or not.
You might feel she is breaking everyone else’s, but her arguments are valid. She ends up saying that neuroscience does not replace good research – which is what I believe and what MB say.
(She might not be saying that it should be used in conjunction with.)
I think that the term neuromarketing is a sad misnomer and should never have been invented – when you say she defines it narrowly I think you share my view.
The contribution from neuroscience is much wider – from understanding the role of emotions in decision making to defining the role of background feelings to biomeasures. I.e. at a more philosophical level (Damasio) there is a lot to be learned. At a biomeasure level there will follow a lot to be learned.

A prediction.

The ARF study will confirm the bona fides of some neuro-marketing claims/companies and shame others. [It will separate the bullshitters from the legitimate practitioners].

Those neuro-science marketing/market research companies that survive the ARF’s extensive scientific and practical study peer group reviews and receive the ARF ‘seal of approval’ will experience massive growth.

And marketers, having an industry standard benchmark by which to judge the claims of operators in the neuro-marketing category will finally be able to engage the category with confidence.

The end result will be a neuro-science marketing boom and it will do so at the expense of the guesswork of traditional market research. For as much as there might be questions about neuro-science as a market research tool, once answered by the ARF study, we can then turn our attention to the next great challenge for the market research industry;

what to do with all the unemployed ‘consumer psychologists’?

Replacing good research? Define good research – when 90% of new products are failing in the market within 1st 12 months and 9 out of 10 new ideas are researched where is the good research backing these up. Subjectivity of interpretation has plagued research and something has to give way to a new frontier maybe neuromarket research maybe not will the ARF study help – lets hope so but that depends on the inputs – as they say garbage in garbage out.

Hi What the..
You should be careful with statements like: 90% of new products fail (implying) because of research, therefor all research make products fail.

I see a number of contributors use such sweeping generalizations. (I now reread the contributions).

Certainly some of the contributions are playing the man rather than the ball. Whether Brooke has the right to call herself a consumer psychologist or whether even calling herself a psychologist matters in the scheme of the discussion has to be irrelevant.

She has made a number of clear statements for her views, I happen to think they are all valid (I am not a psychologist or neurologist). Not one of the comments addresses one of her statements. It would help us all a lot if someone will raise a reason why her technical statements are wrong.

Even if someone will introduce real issues to debate (e.g. the technical reasons why 16 electrodes are better than 2? Other than that is what the law requires to show you are dead.)

We all know that the ARF study will not help much: it is too early days to judge. At best they can make us aware of what we should consider when evaluating a biomeasurement supplier.

At last we expose the fraud that is Erik.

Quote: ‘We all know that the ARF study will not help much: it is too early days to judge’.

At least you’re right in one sense – IT IS too early to judge.

May I suggest all the doubters press pause on their self-interest and wait for the ARF findings.

Alternatively, someone could inform ARF the panel of eminent scientists they’ve chosen to conduct the peer review of the science won’t be necessary as Erik [someone who’s declared himself neither a psychologist or neuroscientist] has already published his findings to save them the trouble.

In a nutshell, he’s concluded that only some neuro-measures in conjunction with oral interviews is valid.

Funny how that just happens to mirror Millward Brown’s position. Just like Ms.Ward’s position on this matter reflects Naked’s.

So, once again, will Ms.Ward [and now Erik] submit their theories to an independent peer group review?

Even more to the point, is there anything the ARF study could find that would change Erik’s and Ms.Ward’s mind?

I’d be interested in their response.

@Erik. Thanks Spare Me! Talk about sweeping generalisation: We all know the ARF study will not help much – feels like a cheap segway into another self proclaimed sales pitch for you new book – I wonder what Dr Stephen Sands from Sands Research would say or Dr Richard Silberstein from NeuroInsight would say – two very eminent scientists in their own right who are putting their techniques under the microscope – please. As for the article there is so many broad generalisations that others have pointed out, but there is much substance to the article as there is in an inert gas – we might engage in a little CAVE analysis of the article to see what she is on about – for those who don’t know it – google it.

‘end of focus groups’ – no neuromarket research company is suggesting so and if they are – then they are wrong –

‘activity in the brain doesnt equate to preference’ or ‘brain activity isn’t predictive of behaviour change’ – omigod get real is an understatement – time to pick up a copy of kandel and schwartz principles of neural science and the 900+pages should be an easy read for such an accomplished ‘consumer psychologist’ but then again its probably too early to tell a little more than 2 years out of a uni undergraduate degree so maybe an intro text like Carlson’s physiology of behaviour would be a bit easier to understand.

‘a host of other factors play a part too…. throwing memory in there – good one, thats one of the measures neuromarket research is able to measure memory centre activation in relation to stimuli” – neural science is the field that gives us the understanding that if stimulus is not activity the centers associated with memory it will not be encoded and transferred into long term memory – maybe have a read into long term potentiation and memory processes –

‘criticism of neuromarketing and neuropsychology, is that it doesn’t actually explain anything …to attribute casuality…’ – this statement is so ludicrous particularly the level of detail in an undergraduate program for neuropsychology is next to 0 for most unless you seek it out and then its pretty basic – Pick up the handbook of neuropsychological assessment or read the manual for the Weschler Memory Scales – in fact the studies in neuropsych, cog psych, neuroscience in the understanding of unusual brain structure the resulting changes observed is why we know what we know about human behaviour – Antonio Damasio has just been told his lifes work doesn’t explain anything by some 4year undergraduate ‘consumer psychologist’ – not to mention might as well tell Joseph Le Doux, Eric Kandel (nobel prize winning neuroscientist), James Schwartz they all too wasted their careers –

‘an area of the brain showing more activity against one stimuli versus another, we we can only speculate why its so, with out articulation we won’t be able to explain it or replicate it’ – are you serious – its called time locked eye tracking in the process to complete a second by second analysis of viewed elements associated with brain activity at the exact same time –

‘amygdala associated with reward and fear’ – well wonder how that finding came about – oh thats right from neuroscience research on unusual brain structure or lesion studies on the amygdala the resultant lack of stimulus-reward capabilities – but thats right – Ms Ward’s opinion is that these studies don’t tell us anything – so does that mean then your opinion doesn’t really tell us anything either –

‘newness….guessing games…more problematically the outcomes of neuropsych test is a supposed effect on memory’ – talk about clutching at straws – using some very basic understanding of neuropsych tests this 4th year undergraduate is attempting to make some pretty poor bridges much like the recent one in the Delhi games that came crashing down – again have a look at the handbook for neuropsychological assessment – there is so much more to neuropsych tests than what you think you know

‘recall alone….to loyalty’ – which neuromarket research company has made that claim – talk about putting words in the mouths of competitors – loyalty measures are very convoluted measures at the best of times (read Pritchard, M.P., M.E. Havitz, & D.R. Howard (1999). Analyzing the Commitment-Loyalty Link in Service Contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (3), 333-48 as a starting point) and further studies on loyalty typically show that affective commitment or emotional attachment is the largest predictor of loyalty – but such an astute ‘consumer psychologist’ such as Ms Ward probably already knows that –

‘time and money….100’s of thousands’ – looks like Shane Moon covered that one off would be nice to see others fees to see if thats the case –

‘developing better insights and a deeper understanding….talk to your customers…observe their behaviour and develop proven frameworks’ – wow nice motherhood statements sounds really lovely – maybe we could run across the fields of marigolds in the mid summer sun too – get real market research has been trying to that for 25-30 years with minimal change from piling 8-10 people into a room getting to tell us what they think we want to hear – observing their behaviour is great but so what? an observational study is just that so what Mrs So and So walked in to the store turned left walked 20meters bought X, picked her nose and then left the store….mmmm thats insightful to know what was going on for her?” – I know thats a gross understatement of observational research but it captures my essence –

and this is one of the golden goodies I found in the article ‘develop proven frameworks’ – wow, I wonder who out there already knows their framework is proven before they actually develop it – wouldn’t that be a great money maker. Ms Ward get real…. any framework needs to be developed first, tested, re-tested, scrutinised and then it may be considered ‘proven’ but I suppose the techniques you have used in your exemplary academic research and market research experience are indeed proven because let us not forget you are a pre eminent consumer psychologist

Brooke? Brooke? Where are you Brooke?

Because I’d love you to respond to ‘get real’.

And when you do, don’t forget to tell us when you’re going to submit all your and Naked’s work for independent critical peer review.

It’s just another way to suck money from insecure clients. Somebody ask Steve Jobs what he thinks of it all.

Hi Andrew,

I haven’t had a chance to form my opinion neuromarketing, as I am too busy sucking money from the computer illiterate, image conscious ‘consumers’ out there.

I’ve been calling for Ms.Ward to submit her and Naked’s work for independent critical peer review.

Having just re-read Ms.Ward’s ‘opinion’ piece, and her subsequent comments,
I’ve concluded this course of action would serve little purpose.

But a review of Naked’s work is still important to maintain a sense of fairness.

Trouble is, I can’t decide who’s best qualified to conduct it; Oprah,or Dr.Phil?

Thanks for proving my point 78.

That stuff that gets people excited and handing over their money often can’t be measured well.

I think Oprah and Dr Phil are over qualified to conduct such a review. The lovely ladies on ‘the circle’ would make much better candidates.

One of the biggest predictors of shopping behaviour is emotion; be it positive or negative, which can be measured accurately using techniques such as EEG or fMRI.

A number of articles have been published that show this link…..

Stevie J, mostly no problem with that.

Problem with pre testing stuff that’s not made properly eg. animatics.

I am interested whether any university (Aus. or elsewhere) teaches something like neuromarketing as an elective, or considers doing this.

Erik…Melbourne University offers neuromarketing as a 3rd year elective for marketing, commerce, business degree students. They’ve done so, very successfully, for approx 3 years now. I believe others have expressed a keen interest to do likewise.

Good try Erik but it’s impossible to take you seriously after……..

Quote: “She [Ms.Ward] has made some clear statements for her views. I happen to agree with all of them”. – Erik du Plessis.

If I was you, I’d stop embarrassing myself and get ready for the call you’re about to receive from your global CEO. I think it’s known as ‘biting the hand that feeds you’.

[Australian university courses in neuroscience marketing are as plentiful as those in ‘consumer psychology’. Really, you’ve got to do better than that.]

Thankyou Peter.

Erik. I’d stop while you’re BEHIND if I was you!

It can only get worse for you from here.

@Shane Moon are your title is:

Dr. Shane Moon MBA
Consulting Psychologist and Synergy Strategic Entrepreneurial Management Business Coach

Interesting title.?

@spare me you have a similar writing style to Peter Pynta. Just sayin.
@get real, if you’re putting that much effort into your answer you could identify yourself – it would make your argument stronger
@erik not that i am aware of

Let’s wrap it up and call it a draw.

John , don’t be an absolute prat.

Wrap it up and call it a draw?

Somebody die and make you King?

You display the same naive arrogance as Brooke and look where that got her.

You could idnetify yourself too, but then again no, we really don’t want to know.
If you are bored with it piss off, we are having fun poking holes in the puffed up.

And we’ll carry on, if you don’t mind of course.

Sorry to disappoint you John, but I’m not Peter Pynta.

As for declaring this a draw, are you mad?

Ms.Ward’s gone missing.

Adam Naked is nowhere to be seen.

Erik has scored an own goal at Millward Brown and in danger of having his contract terminated.

The neuroboffins have supplied chapter and verse in rebutting Ms.Ward’s [and Erik’s] false assertions.

And soon they’ll submit the science they use and case studies [as determined by and supervised by the ARF] to a peer group review panel comprising some of the world’s leading neuroscientists.

AND after some months of critical review of the science, the case studies and extensive interviews with the practitioners, the ARF will publish the findings for all to see.

If that’s a draw then I’m Peter Pynta.

@erik. Melbourne uni. Guest lecturing next week. Dr phil harris runs the subject.

@john googled me eh. Synergy success strategies is indeed a company i consult to hence the consulting psychologist (its a verb not a noun if that is what you are implying)- they employ positive psychology and learned optimism (dr martin seligmans pivotal work) to solving business culture issues and salesforce engagement which yes involves coaching which is again is based on my MBA that specialised in strategic entrepreneurial management. Hope that clarifies it for you.

…the freed Chilean miners, having read this thread, have unanimously voted to go back down the mine.

Thanks Shane,
Pse contact me at erik@impact.co.za (too much noise here).
I am interested in what is included in such a curriculum.
Regards,
Erik.

Hopefully taking ‘In other news….’ with them.

An interesting opening argument has degenerated into a sad rabble.

Absolutely 11:03 and it’s not helped by comments from sad dickheads like you & me.

I beg to differ 11:03.

What could have been an interesting discussion was foiled by Ms.Ward from the outset.

This is a serious subject. Much of the science Ms.Ward disputes, ignores, or dismisses out of hand has been tried, tested, reviewed and published.

This doesn’t mean every claim being made by every neuroscience marketer is based in fact. Like every every area of market research and consumer behaviour there will always be those ‘practitioners’ who over-claim, straight out lie, or let self-interest get in the way of the truth.

But, as you can see from some of the responses, there are many claims neuroscience can make [re: its application to market research and measuring consumer behaviour] that have passed the most testing of scrutiny and are not in dispute.

The same cannot be said for most market research methodologies.

The role of the ARF study is to separate the genuine practitioners from the pretenders. Already, some ‘neuroscience marketers’ are believed to have declined to participate in the study. You can reach your own conclusions as to why.

But those that are participating and subject their science, their case studies and their claims to the ARF peer group review study and are still standing at the end will change the market research industry for ever.

For as trite and ignorant as Ms.Ward’s comments may be about neuroscience’s role in market research, one look at the companies funding the ARF study should tell you, her opinions are not shared by the people who matter.

I’m following Spare Me’s advise and retiring, bruised but not hurt, to see whether I still have a job.

Sorry ms Ward, you are now on your own among this anonymous pack.

Thanks guys.

I’ve used neuromarketing as part of my advertising research budget for the last few years. I run it once a year with all new ads we run on our brands. I don’t think using it by itself tells you a lot, in fact it gives you less than a LINK test, but when you combine it with tracking results and concept development qual you can use it to identify executional issues, post production and compare and contrast ‘good’ ads for learnings with your agencies.

Sorry, I am back.
As a result of this discussion I opened a page on my website hopimng to get some feedback on how one should teach neuromarketing.
Any positive contributions will be appreciated.

http://www.erikdup.com/Teachin.....eting.html

Sounds great Erik. I am sure my opinion on this would be as well received as some of my research papers were received by the rest of the class in my undergraduate physical anthropology subject titled ‘The fallacy of racism: why racism does not actually exist’ or my philosophy of the mind paper titled: “Mind and brain: same same’….

Nonetheless, the structure of such a course or single subject would be quite difficult. The arguments would likely be a need for breadth versus a need for depth as a lot of academics see these as mutually exclusive teaching/ learning experiences. Interestingly, in Australia we are attempting to develop a national education curriculum for K-10 at the moment – one word – debacle!

Everyone ‘feels’ their position is the right one when if we objectively look at the situation and ‘think’ about it – it is not something to be taken lightly – human behaviour has some of the most complex dynamics and the reality is a scientist-practitioner model would be great but the commercial reality is – get me the end result (dollars) – don’t really care about the process in getting there and this in turn is driven by short term incentives to achieve – I think Umair Haque captures this scenario really well if you don’t get carried away by his emotional investment in the topic – check TEDtalks for him.

Personally, I don’t think a single subject barely scratches the surface of the requisite knowledge required and a whole course – I suspect it would initially be a ‘dogs breakfast’ much like the early marketing courses were until the field hammers out what the commercial world expects from the practitioners of neuromarket research. But – will drop your site my two cents.

Do my eyes deceive me?

Or is Ms.Ward’s great defender Erik, now wanting to become a neuroscience marketing teacher?

May I suggest a degree in neuroscience would be a good place to start Erik.

Unfortunately, unlike ‘consumer psychology’ neuroscience is not something you can be an expert in overnight.

To all those genuinely interested…

Neuromarketing is like any emerging technology. Initially there is little understanding of it in the market place and some are threatened by its potential. Also, there can be a tendency by some to overstate their claims relating to its capabilities. For any research methodology it is important for both; those making the claims, and those critically assessing the claims of others, to do so in a robust and considered manner. We are happy to stand to scrutiny and outline the rationale forming the basis of our claims – we think the same standard should apply to all involved in the discussion – whatever the methodology.

To provide some background, at Neuro-Insight our approach has involved:

1. Developing a robust scientific methodology
Neuro-Insight’s methodology has scientific rigour (based in academic research). Even though it might not be to everyone’s liking, I suggest you Google Scholar “R Silberstein SSVEP”, where you will find citations from many Peer Reviewed publications.

2. Linking the science to the commercial world
In terms of applying the methodology in the commercial world, we have published findings demonstrating a relationship between our measures and subsequent consumer behaviour (such as the 2008 IJA paper: http://www.internationaljourna.....#038;Num=3). These “lab based” studies are critical to building the bridge between interesting academic research and a commercially viable product (implementable in the “real world”). Once again, these findings have been accepted for publication after successfully passing through the Peer Review process. In her response to Peter, Brooke did critique selected lines within the cited papers, but we request she takes into consideration that the paper in its entirety has passed the Peer Review process. We are happy to give Brooke the benefit of doubt and assume she isn’t suggesting that the referees involved in the Peer Review process were wrong – or that the process itself was flawed? For those who would like to critique such studies, or offer a superior alternative, we welcome your involvement in this dialog. All we request is that you subject your credentials to the same level of scrutiny that has been demanded of (and provided by) us. Principally, Peer Reviewed publications supporting your claim(s).

3. Demonstrating the product has commercial utility
Finally, we have a variety of real-world examples from around the globe demonstrating a link between the application of our product and commercial outcomes, which is the ultimate test of any research methodology. Some were presented at the Cannes Advertising Festival back in 2005. Others are more recent. Such as the Grand Effie awarded to the Nestlé campaign for “How Allen’s Put the Smiles Back into Jellies” (http://www.effies.com.au/effies/home.aspx).
To Adam Joesph, who says… “Give us some case studies that show this method has moved out of academia and delivered concrete results for Australian businesses/government depts.” Adam, maybe this will go some way to satisfying your request. Furthermore, this particular study was a collaborative project between Neuro-Insight and Inside Story – two market research companies implementing a multi-modal approach to achieve a meaningful real world commercial outcome. Instead of attempting to denigrate other research methodologies, Neuro-Insight is happy to work collaboratively. The Grand Effie awarded to the Nestle campaign is an example of what can be achieved when working constructively and in a professional manner.

Our Director of Marketing, Peter Pynta, would be delighted to share these and other outcomes with those who are interested in and respect research that is:
1. Based on sound science demonstrated through publication in Peer Reviewed journals
2. Has established the link between the science and real world application (that has also successfully passed through the Peer Review process), and
3. Has been successfully used in delivering actionable insights that contribute to marketing decision-making and subsequent commercial outcomes.

For more information, visit our web site (www.neuro-insight.com.au), leave your details and we will follow up.

Game, set and match to Shane Moon, Geoff Nield and neuroscience.

Hey guys perople stopped reading this around 3 days ago.

Not ALL people 9:44pm. You’re still reading it.

But you’re right in suggesting there seems no point in continuing.

Having re-read read all the contributions I’m left with the inevitable conclusion Ms.Ward’s article will be forever remembered as:

‘Consumer Psychology aka Clutching at Straws’

@Spare me, you truly are a dickhead.

Dave Canning congratulations – with nothing worthwhile to say you make a stupid worthless comment. Lets face it you are out of your depth when it comes to multisyllabic words. Clever though to delete yourself from the list of freelance writers for all thinking CDs

Still would have liked to have heard about those alternative methods for getting at the subconscious reactions…