If it sounds a little like something out of Arthur C. Clarke’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”, it is. New technology has been developed in Berkeley, California known as NeuroFocus. According to an interesting article on Reed Business’s Multichannel News site, NeuroFocus is “Leveraging marketing, engineering and neuroscience expertise from the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the company measures–on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis–attention, engagement and memory retention”. Hmmm. . .sounds like the old Vulcan mind meld, doesn’t it?
Apparently, the Nielsen Company is so impressed by this new technology, it has partnered with NeuroForce to “bring an array of science-based products, services and metrics to clients in consumer packaged goods, television, film and emerging media”. By integrating the new scientific techniques with its existing services, Nielsen is hoping to shed more light on the elements of successful consumer engagement.
NeuroFocus measures brainwave, eye-tracking and skin conductance measurements to track the effectiveness of various consumer touchpoints, including advertising, branding, packaging, pricing and product design. When consumers don a special cap embedded with sensors, their brain responses are then tracked an astonishing 2000 times per second as they interact with these touchpoints. In that way, precise, instantaneous determinations can be made about the specific aspects of marketing messages that resonate with consumers. Not only that: emotional engagement can be tracked as well as the portions of marketing messages that are moved to the memory center of the brain.
Besides tracking brain activity, NeuroFocus’ ability to add eye tracking and impulses from the skin help to corroborate the brain wave analysis portion of their testing. Nielsen Executive VP Susan Whiting: “This alliance will enable us to gather truly unique insights about consumers’ attitudes and behavior about which they themselves may not even be fully aware and will complement our other measures of consumer behavior.”
For those executives who have long wanted better ways to measure the effectiveness of their marketing departments–advertising, branding, packaging and product innovation features–NeuroForce may be perceived as a great way to finally get the best scientifically-based metrics in place. Eye tracking has been in place for some time now, but augmented by brain wave and skin measurements, NeuroFocus technology may be very tempting. Nielsen is obviously banking on that.
Questions:
* What do you think of using NeuroFocus technology for marketing applications?
* Do you think consumers will willingly be tested? Or do you think this methodology too invasive for most people?
* Would you be willing to be a test subject for Nielsen in its NeuroFocus labs?
I’d love to hear from you.
Ted,
Where do we wear these caps? Is this primarily a focus group strategy?
Lewis,
The caps are worn on the head to measure brain responses to visual stimuli. . .and yes, this would be used with focus groups. What do you think of this development? Too invasive, or a case of killer scientific app for marketers?
Ted, since these are focus groups, and presumably a very small sample size, as a marketer, I’d be wary of drawing any concrete conclusions from these analyses. I would, however, use the output as a data point in my overall decisioning equations on shelf placement, packaging colors etc…
Paul,
All focus group samplings are small and just one indicator of what the market for specific products and packaging might look like. However, what people say in focus groups vs what their actual brainwave activity tells us, might well be two different things. While interesting from a data retrieval point of view, and likely to be more accurate a measure, this might be too invasive for some people. Thanks for your comments, Paul.
Ted, I guess what I was trying to say, perhaps not very eloquently is that marketers sometimes have a problem with induction-thinking the traits of the sample size must apply to the whole. Because these studies are “scientific” we could get carried away and start making decisions based solely on this data.
Your point, about the value of this research to determine differences between what customers “say” vs. really think is right on.
I did understand your point, Paul, and you’re right in saying there might be an inherent danger here if marketers feel that the more scientific nature of this data gathering method might be considered more conclusive. If this data becomes the sole determinant in decision making, without consideration of other factors, it will lead to some real problems. No matter how scientific and sophisticated we become, we have to remember that a number of marketing tools should be utilized in our decision-making processes. Thanks for making that point so well, Paul. I appreciate it.
Ted,
Seems like a better way to measure individual responses in focus groups. The downside is that consumers with my concerns regarding distrust of Big Brother in whatever form it appears, won’t participate. And we tend to be vocal consumers so our POVs are lost.
I think you make an excellent point, Lewis. There is a distrust on the part of many of us when it comes to all of these intrusions into our privacy. . .now it seems, that intrusion extends into our very thoughts. Due to the invasive nature of this data gathering procedure, I think you’re right: some people won’t participate.
As to our enunciated POVs, my only comment is that it’s been proven that what focus group subjects say vs what they mean are sometimes distinctly different things. Have you found that to be the case, as well?
Sign me up to be a guinea pig. I don’t have any privacy issues with sharing my deepest, darkest emotional response to a web page. I mean, what’s it gonna reveal? That my eye goes straight to the image of a cute puppy? That my pulse increases if I’m reading a promotion for Dove chocolate?
The main issue I see, is that if it is a focus group it does not reflect the real world. Measuring responses in a controlled environment could be very much different than a real situation.
We live in an environment that has a lot of other stimuli and distractions, so unless the results are gathered in that environment I would suspect them.
Hi Patricia,
Your statements just go to show that some consumers really don’t mind being part of focus groups, even if participating includes delving into their minds and emotions. Of course, you’re right: this entails taking subjective readings on impersonal objects.
Harry, you’ve hit on something here, and it is a very valid point. However, I will say that knowing how Nielsen works as well as some very large CPG companies, I’m sure the test environments would be highly controlled. And as Paul and I had already observed, and we concur with you: consumer focus groups can be a valuable tool, but findings as a result of conducting this testing must be taken into consideration with other measurements. Taken alone, results might be misleading since the test group is a small one.
Thanks for weighing in, Patricia and Harry. I appreciate your input.
Patricia, you just didn’t put the link to your blog here. Do you have secrets?
(actually I would like to read it, since I’ve seen some of your comments very thougtfull and interesting)
Well, anyway – Ted, thank you for this discovery. Seems like science will influence in marketing very much. I’m just in the middle of thinking to write a post:
“2029: the year that marketing dies”.
It comes from the ideas in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/7258105.stm
Dusan,
You’re welcome. Interesting article, by the way. It seems science is coming up with a lot of ways to provide fodder for blog posts with these kinds of technological advances. Thanks for adding your input, Dusan.
Any effort to understanding consumer behavior as a guiding principle to assist in making marketing decisions must be applauded.My concerns will be;- The interpretation of the data especially as one is attempting to measure personality stimuli in the purchasing process – The creative application of this information pool to provide segmenting profiles [to assist with targeting and positioning]- To embrace the data and establish benchmarks from which participating control instruments could be utilized so as to improve the quality of the strategic marketing planning endeavor – Finally, the realization that the data provides only limited output and by extension can impact the strategic marketing exercise only to the extent of this output.
Cool, I’ve got a fan in Slovenia! Seriously, I appreciate the comment, Dusan. I don’t have a blog — one of those things I keep telling myself I need to do — just lots of opinions & observations.
This is Folly.
I’ll bet everyone scores a perfect score if a product stimulates the Limbic systems. The Marilyn Monroe velvet series would doe this. This research will measure only immediate impact, not long term product use. This will take the all the traditional tools.
When someone comes up with a method that actually determines the responses rather than simply measuring the , I” be interested. Until then, it is simply a new shiny toy which has stimulated Nielsen’s Limbic zone.
Very well articulated, Edward. As is the case with many new marketing tools, we have to temper our enthusiasm with reality. That means understanding the value scientific tools can give us vs their limitations. Thank you for adding your insights. I appreciate it.
I respectfully disagree, Steve. I do think measuring brain waves, eye tracking and skin impulses add great validity to subjects’ responses to products and product marketing. It is far more persuasive than verbal responses. Having said that, most of the readers who have made observations to this post have taken great care to state that this isn’t the end all–be all. I do agree with that. If taken alone, this data is not sufficient to a sound new product launch, or marketing campaign. We’re all entitled to express our opinions in this forum, and I thank you for adding your voice to my post. Steve. I’m sure many other readers feel exactly as you do, as well.
Patricia, you should!
Just let me know when you start. I’ll try to be the first to comment.
Science is making huge strides in the marketing arena. It’s certainly fascinating and can help marketers with improved decision-making to increase ROI on marketing investments.
On the flip side, do we risk taking the fun and art out of marketing? If we knew that our restaurant patrons only wanted bland food on the menu, yes, we could make more money giving them what they wanted. But what enjoyment would great chefs gain from that? BORING. I know we’re in it for our customers, but there may come a time when those who create and ideate will not be given the opportunity to innovate because the consumer demand and proof didn’t come first. Which would we prefer?
Interesting insights, Elaine. Your comments point to the need we have as to balance the scientific and artistic elements of marketing as much as we can. While it’s dangerous to rely on our gut, it’s equally problematic to rely on data solely from one source. . .even if that source is grounded in a more scientific approach. The key then is to use as many tools as we can since the best ideas and strategies usually lie somewhere in the middle. Thanks for your input, Elaine. I appreciate it.