Anna Papadopoulos has a great post at ClickZ on why we buy what we buy. Her column is based on Martin Lindstrom's fascinating book by "Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy," which is the result of a three-year neuromarketing research project conducted by the marketing
wiz. Lindstrom and his team applied functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) technology in determining what happens
in consumers' brains as they are exposed to specific brands and advertising.
In simple
terms, neuromarketing looks at physiological responses that consumers have to
advertising and brands to determine its effects and the likelihood if one will
purchase a product. The consumers' reactions will be specific to colors,
tastes, sounds, and so on. The findings can help marketers create products and
services that are more focused to the brain's responses, the subconscious --
not the conscious, rationale mind that is usually triggered in focus groups.
Lindstrom's
research is the largest compilation of neuromarketing data available, and the
results are impressive and surprising. There are several main takeaways that
link back to what it means to be a human being and our primal needs and
associations:
Fear sells, sex doesn't. Our primal instinct as human beings is to survive; therefore, fear and sex are key. Fear relates to our survival: Do I have enough to eat? Will I have enough money when I retire? Is that product safe? Sex relates to procreation. In this respect, Lindstrom claims that political fear-based advertising is effective because it taps into our primal concerns of survival. Sex-based advertising, however, overwhelms us physically, so all we take away is the sexual part and we disregard the brand associated with it.
Pass the cigarettes, please. Did you know that global cigarette smoking has increased 13 percent and that warning labels are part of the reason? In fact, Lindstrom's findings suggested that the warning labels stimulate the nucleus accumbens, a region of the brain that increases cravings. Tobacco companies have actually been able to increase sales even though cigarette advertising has been banned in most countries.
Forget product placements. This is a hard one to swallow, but according to the research 99 percent of product placements are completely ineffective. What about the 1 percent? The only effective product placements integrate into the content in a completely meaningful way. Here's a way to test it out: if your brand can be replaced with any other brand and it wouldn't make any difference, your sponsorship or product placement is probably a waste of money. However, if the addition or removal of your brand would affect the environment's context, you're probably on the right track. Think of "American Idol." AT&T is a good integration, Coca-Cola is ok, but Ford isn't good at all.
Logos are meaningless. In many cases, it's preferable to not even have a logo on your advertising. [Editor's note: This is my favorite point. I sent a Sept. 10, 2008 e-mail to non-profit consultant Nancy Schwartz of the excellent Getting Attention and the outstanding Nonprofit Tagline Report on why exactly we need a logo. Her response the next day was, "Great question and one I'll answer in a near-term blog post!"... which was the last I heard. Or read. I'd still like to know why logos are deemed necessary.]
Advertising agencies should hire rabbis, priests, and imams as consultants. Lindstrom claims that strong brands are like religions and how a Catholic feels when viewing an image of the Virgin Mary is how a brand evangelist feels when experiencing his brand affinity. Brands should try to create rituals that are similar to religious rituals. Think about green bean casserole and Thanksgiving. The two are so connected that one of the key ingredients, French Fried Onions, probably wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for this holiday and the classic American dish.
There's a whole lot more to consider. Read the whole thing. And check out this great audio interview with Martin Lindstrom on WNYC.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83519b1c153ef0105362d498a970b
Anna Papadopoulos has a great post at ClickZ on why we buy what we buy. Her column is based on Martin Lindstrom's fascinating book by "Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy," which is the result of a three-year neuromarketing research project conducted by the marketing
wiz. Lindstrom and his team applied functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) technology in determining what happens
in consumers' brains as they are exposed to specific brands and advertising.
In simple
terms, neuromarketing looks at physiological responses that consumers have to
advertising and brands to determine its effects and the likelihood if one will
purchase a product. The consumers' reactions will be specific to colors,
tastes, sounds, and so on. The findings can help marketers create products and
services that are more focused to the brain's responses, the subconscious --
not the conscious, rationale mind that is usually triggered in focus groups.
Lindstrom's
research is the largest compilation of neuromarketing data available, and the
results are impressive and surprising. There are several main takeaways that
link back to what it means to be a human being and our primal needs and
associations:
Fear sells, sex doesn't. Our primal instinct as human beings is to survive; therefore, fear and sex are key. Fear relates to our survival: Do I have enough to eat? Will I have enough money when I retire? Is that product safe? Sex relates to procreation. In this respect, Lindstrom claims that political fear-based advertising is effective because it taps into our primal concerns of survival. Sex-based advertising, however, overwhelms us physically, so all we take away is the sexual part and we disregard the brand associated with it.
Pass the cigarettes, please. Did you know that global cigarette smoking has increased 13 percent and that warning labels are part of the reason? In fact, Lindstrom's findings suggested that the warning labels stimulate the nucleus accumbens, a region of the brain that increases cravings. Tobacco companies have actually been able to increase sales even though cigarette advertising has been banned in most countries.
Forget product placements. This is a hard one to swallow, but according to the research 99 percent of product placements are completely ineffective. What about the 1 percent? The only effective product placements integrate into the content in a completely meaningful way. Here's a way to test it out: if your brand can be replaced with any other brand and it wouldn't make any difference, your sponsorship or product placement is probably a waste of money. However, if the addition or removal of your brand would affect the environment's context, you're probably on the right track. Think of "American Idol." AT&T is a good integration, Coca-Cola is ok, but Ford isn't good at all.
Logos are meaningless. In many cases, it's preferable to not even have a logo on your advertising. [Editor's note: This is my favorite point. I sent a Sept. 10, 2008 e-mail to non-profit consultant Nancy Schwartz of the excellent Getting Attention and the outstanding Nonprofit Tagline Report on why exactly we need a logo. Her response the next day was, "Great question and one I'll answer in a near-term blog post!"... which was the last I heard. Or read. I'd still like to know why logos are deemed necessary.]
Advertising agencies should hire rabbis, priests, and imams as consultants. Lindstrom claims that strong brands are like religions and how a Catholic feels when viewing an image of the Virgin Mary is how a brand evangelist feels when experiencing his brand affinity. Brands should try to create rituals that are similar to religious rituals. Think about green bean casserole and Thanksgiving. The two are so connected that one of the key ingredients, French Fried Onions, probably wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for this holiday and the classic American dish.
There's a whole lot more to consider. Read the whole thing. And check out this great audio interview with Martin Lindstrom on WNYC.
