Neuromarketing is basically measuring the brain activity of the human being to analyze the decision-making process behind purchases, and subsequently adapting advertising practices to increase the chances of that purchase. Among its obvious advantages, neuromarketing offers marketers the opportunity to gain real knowledge of what motivates consumers as opposed to the sometimes-misled knowledge gained from traditional customer surveys and focus groups.
This sounds great! To who? Well, to the marketers, of course. By getting inside the brains of human beings, marketers may be able to close more deals, deliver more convincing sales presentations and create compelling commercials and advertisements. After all, poor advertisement costs them money and time.
However, where do we draw the line between the marketer's control over the consumer's mind and the control retained by the consumers themselves? It may even be that as technology continues to develop, consumers will simply surrender all of their control to marketers and no actual decision-making will take place by the consumer.
According to the New York Times, Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, which works to safeguard digital privacy, says the government traditionally hasn’t restricted advertising for adults because adults have defense mechanisms that can distinguish between truth and untruth. “But if the advertising is now purposely designed to bypass those rational defenses, then the traditional legal defenses protecting advertising speech in the marketplace have to be questioned.”
Call me old-fashioned, but I might prefer the good old days where I actually had a choice between Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King based on the P's and C's and not brain scans.
Drawing the line on what is ethical in today's marketing industry is an interesting topic. I agree with you on the idea that I like having a choice in what products and brands I decide to buy. Neuromarketing takes that control out of the hands of the consumer and places it into any business willing to use this technology. I think Neuromarketing could be seen as a "good" tool, but I think I'm leaning on the side of "bad and ugly" and others would agree with me.
ReplyDeleteI don't think neuromarketing is bad or evil if businesses use it to find out what consumers like and/or want, and then deliver that to them. Neuromarketing is a form of market research, not brainwashing.
ReplyDeleteRoger
Historically all changes have been rejected by the human being due the fear of the unknown, but is also true that innovation, so far ,have brought an enormous advantage to our today’s societies. Photography for instance, was a revolutionary idea that woke up many regrets among artist at the moment of its discovery due to the easy way to reproduce images. Later on, photography was seen as a dangerous instrument for next generations who had access to horrific images from the past such as wars, natural devastations, etc. According to Susan Sontag in her book “On photography”, “Images anesthetize” and the open accessibility to them is a negative result of photography. On the other hand, photography has contributed in a large scale in many fields of this new era such as engineering, architecture, trade, law, science and for most in medicine. So, who can measure the real end of these inventions? Who can stop science to growth? It would be better to get a rational analysis of these topics before to close the doors to the future.
ReplyDeleteReference:
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/178853
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the advances of science in this field are going to keep improving and it is important to establish some limits on people privacy and to use this analysis research not just in benefit for the companies, but also for customers. At the end I consider that human being decisions cannot be completely manipulated; they are going anyway to choose what they really want!
ReplyDeleteSource:
http://blog.cgsm.com/tag/neuromarketing/
The comment Maria (Gabriela Azacon) made above comparing the neuromarketing of today that Jennifer (Diaz) describes with the photography of yesteryear is quite profound, particularly considering her reference to Sontag's On Photography. Sontag approached photography, and photographers in particular, as being quite exploitative. Interestingly, long before Sontag, some considered the written word in the same fashion, and now today many look at neuromarketing (or for that matter, marketing in general) in a similar way. I would have enjoyed hearing Sontag's opinion on social networking sites such as Facebook, however, wherein so many participants are self-exploiting to some degree (with information, photos, connections, and more). In fact, as consumers willingly move more and more personal information onto those types of websites, marketers may not even need neuromarketing to know what's inside consumers' heads.
ReplyDeleteHumans are always skeptical when they see something new. It’s good to be cynical but then we have to understand we are the smartest species on this solar system. Companies are just trying to adapt them self to rational human behavior . I don’t find anything wrong about it. We are born in the age where we can’t just buy products because Kim Kardeshian or Kendra endorses it. We buy products based on the merit of the products. Now companies are trying to match up to our merit and expectations. They are trying to understand our expectations. This by no chance bad or evil. People against it may say it violates their privacy but then we also have changed and become more intelligent and smart .
ReplyDeleteKnowing "where to draw the line between the marketer's control over the consumer's mind and the control retained by the consumers themselves" is the same concern I have regarding neuromarketing. The sad part is that consumers are allowing it to happen and with open arms! Subjects taking part in a neuromarketing study must consent to it and take time to participate, but many are unknowingly letting go of what was once private and only known by them. Some individuals and consumer protection organizations have already contacted the Senate and requested they investigate neuromarketing noting three key problems: increased incidence of marketing-related diseases (obesity, type 2 diabetes), more effective political propaganda (civil strife and wars), and more effective promotion of degraded values (violence, materialism, gambling)
ReplyDelete(Source: http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/neuromarketing/commercial-alert-asks-senate-commerce-committee-to-investigate-neuromarketing)
Sure, many claim that by staying within means, neuromarketing isn't damaging or evil, but I'm still skeptical. The point you make about neuromarketing being able to bypass natural human defenses requires questioning and investigation; it leaves consumers vulnerable. Also, being old fashioned has its merits; I, too, prefer being able to have a choice about the products and services that I will consume and I know we're not alone!
I don't think that Neuromarketing should be seen as a bad idea or a concept that leads towards mind control. Let us remember that companies are operated and manage by people and that just as the rest of us they are consumers.
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, I definitely don't believe that there is a manipulation plan to turn us all into robots just for the sake of getting a certain product into the market. However I agree with you in the fact that if this is the future of marketing the rules of how to use the information obtained through any type of biometric reading have to be clear. After all, free will is the most valuable possession that the human race has, therefore no one should be allowed to interfere with it or to take it away from anybody.