Neuromarketing works best when cross-referenced with other research.
When I was in the Peace Corps, our bible, so to speak,was Where There is No Doctor, the most widely used health-education book in tropical and subtropical countries. (It’s been translated into more than 100 languages!)
This testament to better health provides valuable advice, such as: if a variety of people give the same indigenous cure for something, the cure works. But if a variety of people provide different cures, nobody knows the answer.
I love this and believe that it applies to everything. What is God? (No agreement) What happens after death? (No agreement) What is the best way to package soup? (Agreement! Read below.)
This approach actually has a name in research, where it is referred to as triangulation. Triangulation is the idea that you can be more confident about a result if different research methods lead to the same result.
And triangulation provides the best way to apply neuroscience to marketing.
About a month ago, Campbell’s made neuromarketing news with an article in the Wall Street Journal (note: readers can see only the lead two graphs without subscribing). The piece chronicled how Campbell’s had employed neuromarketing research in redesigning their iconic soup-can labels. It was reported that Campbell’s made major marketing decisions based on biometrics—measuring where subjects’ eyes focused, changes in their heart rates, skin moisture, and so on.
The article itself became a news story—at least in the Twitter and blogging world—because of what it implied. Critics decried the firm’s supposed reliance on neuromarketing, which some called pseudoscience, and the study’s small sample-group size: forty. Was Campbell’s insane to make such major marketing decisions based on such limited research?
A week later, neuromarketing blogger Jennifer Williams provided an intelligent analysis of the situation in Fast Company. Williams spent time digging a little deeper into the work that Campbell’s had done over the past two years, revealing that the company was not as suicidal as it might have first appeared.
Campbell’s research was actually quite extensive. It involved more than 1,500 subjects, and they brought in several companies to conduct different types of analysis at various points in the process. Campbell’s was not insane, unless by insane you mean insanely smart. Williams’s article cooled the debate, and helped put neuromarketing in perspective.
Specifically, I mean that neuromarketing is best used as one of several research methods, whose results can be compared to one another. This is what Campbell’s did when they “triangulated” their research, as Williams noted.
Neuromarketing may be the most remarkable tool to grace marketing’s toolbox in generations, but it is not a magic bullet (well, not yet). Use it wisely: cross-reference it.
Podcast: Play in new window
| Download
Follow us on Twitter
Find us on Facebook
Subscribe
Triangulation Tour de Force
Neuromarketing works best when cross-referenced with other research.
This testament to better health provides valuable advice, such as: if a variety of people give the same indigenous cure for something, the cure works. But if a variety of people provide different cures, nobody knows the answer.
I love this and believe that it applies to everything. What is God? (No agreement) What happens after death? (No agreement) What is the best way to package soup? (Agreement! Read below.)
This approach actually has a name in research, where it is referred to as triangulation. Triangulation is the idea that you can be more confident about a result if different research methods lead to the same result.
And triangulation provides the best way to apply neuroscience to marketing.
About a month ago, Campbell’s made neuromarketing news with an article in the Wall Street Journal (note: readers can see only the lead two graphs without subscribing). The piece chronicled how Campbell’s had employed neuromarketing research in redesigning their iconic soup-can labels. It was reported that Campbell’s made major marketing decisions based on biometrics—measuring where subjects’ eyes focused, changes in their heart rates, skin moisture, and so on.
The article itself became a news story—at least in the Twitter and blogging world—because of what it implied. Critics decried the firm’s supposed reliance on neuromarketing, which some called pseudoscience, and the study’s small sample-group size: forty. Was Campbell’s insane to make such major marketing decisions based on such limited research?
A week later, neuromarketing blogger Jennifer Williams provided an intelligent analysis of the situation in Fast Company. Williams spent time digging a little deeper into the work that Campbell’s had done over the past two years, revealing that the company was not as suicidal as it might have first appeared.
Campbell’s research was actually quite extensive. It involved more than 1,500 subjects, and they brought in several companies to conduct different types of analysis at various points in the process. Campbell’s was not insane, unless by insane you mean insanely smart. Williams’s article cooled the debate, and helped put neuromarketing in perspective.
Specifically, I mean that neuromarketing is best used as one of several research methods, whose results can be compared to one another. This is what Campbell’s did when they “triangulated” their research, as Williams noted.
Neuromarketing may be the most remarkable tool to grace marketing’s toolbox in generations, but it is not a magic bullet (well, not yet). Use it wisely: cross-reference it.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download