• Save
Neuro standards project sponsor feedback
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Neuro standards project sponsor feedback



At the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) 2011 Annual re:think convention, Richard Thorogood-Director of Strategic Insights and Analytics for Colgate Palmolive presented sponsor feedback on the ...

At the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) 2011 Annual re:think convention, Richard Thorogood-Director of Strategic Insights and Analytics for Colgate Palmolive presented sponsor feedback on the NeuroStandards Collaboration Project



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Neuro standards project sponsor feedback Neuro standards project sponsor feedback Presentation Transcript

    • Sponsor Feedback
    NeuroStandards Project Richard Thorogood Director of Strategic Insights & Analytics Colgate Palmolive
  • Introduction
    • People say No…but then they do Yes.
      • Understanding human decision making is complex
      • Explosion in NeuroScience tools in last few years
    • Great that ARF has led an independent review
    • And…great that 8 Vendors stepped up to have their applications reviewed
    • Colgate has experimented with tools around the world and is keen sponsor of the initiative
  • Seeing is Believing
  • TVC Feedback – Reinforced Learning
    • Generally all vendors thought the TVC was “good”
      • But the reasons for “Good” varied
    • Several identified “Germ Scan” as providing “response”
      • Some thought good, some bad
    • About half identified “12 Hour” working well
      • But half didn’t
  • TVC Feedback – Different Learning
    • Most suggested branding would be good
      • Initial in-market data suggested otherwise
    • Opening “what did you brush with” seen by several as too challenging
      • But other said characters were warm and appealing
      • No-one contextualized with comments vs. Brooke Shields
  • Feedback for Vendors
    • Many new measures
      • Challenging to compare across vendors
      • Challenging to comprehend some of the language
    • Lot of passion for “their” approach
      • Some approaches easier to “grasp” than others
    • Most “validated” and often have “Academic” endorsers
      • Without Ph.D in appropriate area, how to confirm validity?
  • General Thoughts
    • Highly interpretive – Possibly & Likely often used
    • Reports often lengthy/unfocused
    • Recommendations often push “theory”
      • eg use Music
    • Individuals not always “communication” experts
      • Ph.D in NeuroScience, not advertising
    • Some tools have no real scalability or restricted to static location
  • Communication is a Story
    • NeuroScience can take 100s of measures per second
    • It can collect data from 100s of different receptors
    • However communication is like a good story – so much more than a sequence of individual words
      • Remember what the forest looks like, not each individual tree
  • What Next?
    • New tools cannot 100% replace conventional
    • Need greater “research / business” acumen
      • Research/Agency partnerships?
    • May be best suited to “uncomfortable” areas of inquiry or very low involvement areas?
    • Work with one vendor to help them know your business
    • Still Art & Interpretation
      • No “E=MC2” type equation!
  • NeuroStandards Collaboration Project Report
  • ARF Insights Overview
    • NeuroMarketing Potential
      • New detailed data on attention/involvement and emotional reactions
      • Successful applications in marketing
    • NeuroMarketing Limitations
      • New, still developing field
      • Science does not provide conclusive evidence about many research objectives – interpretation needed
      • More validation through application of neuroscience recommended
      • Need to develop standards
  • NeuroStandards for Research Users
    • Use neurological/biometric methods as part of research program
    • Choose appropriate method given research objective, examine strengths and weaknesses of methods
    • Remember even findings based on science contain elements of interpretation
    • Examine sample size/quality, statistical significance, etc. – as in all other studies
  • 2. NeuroStandards Forum
  • 3. NeuroStandards 2.0
  • 4. Expert Review Network
  • Closing Remarks