Neuro standards project sponsor feedback

655 views

Published on

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

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
655
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Neuro standards project sponsor feedback

  1. 1. <ul><li>Sponsor Feedback </li></ul>NeuroStandards Project Richard Thorogood Director of Strategic Insights & Analytics Colgate Palmolive
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>People say No…but then they do Yes. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding human decision making is complex </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explosion in NeuroScience tools in last few years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Great that ARF has led an independent review </li></ul><ul><li>And…great that 8 Vendors stepped up to have their applications reviewed </li></ul><ul><li>Colgate has experimented with tools around the world and is keen sponsor of the initiative </li></ul>
  3. 3. Seeing is Believing
  4. 4. VIDEO
  5. 5. TVC Feedback – Reinforced Learning <ul><li>Generally all vendors thought the TVC was “good” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But the reasons for “Good” varied </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Several identified “Germ Scan” as providing “response” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some thought good, some bad </li></ul></ul><ul><li>About half identified “12 Hour” working well </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But half didn’t </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. TVC Feedback – Different Learning <ul><li>Most suggested branding would be good </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial in-market data suggested otherwise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Opening “what did you brush with” seen by several as too challenging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But other said characters were warm and appealing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No-one contextualized with comments vs. Brooke Shields </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Feedback for Vendors <ul><li>Many new measures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Challenging to compare across vendors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Challenging to comprehend some of the language </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lot of passion for “their” approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some approaches easier to “grasp” than others </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most “validated” and often have “Academic” endorsers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Without Ph.D in appropriate area, how to confirm validity? </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. General Thoughts <ul><li>Highly interpretive – Possibly & Likely often used </li></ul><ul><li>Reports often lengthy/unfocused </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations often push “theory” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>eg use Music </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Individuals not always “communication” experts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ph.D in NeuroScience, not advertising </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some tools have no real scalability or restricted to static location </li></ul>
  9. 9. Communication is a Story <ul><li>NeuroScience can take 100s of measures per second </li></ul><ul><li>It can collect data from 100s of different receptors </li></ul><ul><li>However communication is like a good story – so much more than a sequence of individual words </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Remember what the forest looks like, not each individual tree </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. What Next? <ul><li>New tools cannot 100% replace conventional </li></ul><ul><li>Need greater “research / business” acumen </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research/Agency partnerships? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>May be best suited to “uncomfortable” areas of inquiry or very low involvement areas? </li></ul><ul><li>Work with one vendor to help them know your business </li></ul><ul><li>Still Art & Interpretation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No “E=MC2” type equation! </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. NeuroStandards Collaboration Project Report
  12. 12. ARF Insights Overview <ul><li>NeuroMarketing Potential </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New detailed data on attention/involvement and emotional reactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Successful applications in marketing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NeuroMarketing Limitations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New, still developing field </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Science does not provide conclusive evidence about many research objectives – interpretation needed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More validation through application of neuroscience recommended </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to develop standards </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. NeuroStandards for Research Users <ul><li>Use neurological/biometric methods as part of research program </li></ul><ul><li>Choose appropriate method given research objective, examine strengths and weaknesses of methods </li></ul><ul><li>Remember even findings based on science contain elements of interpretation </li></ul><ul><li>Examine sample size/quality, statistical significance, etc. – as in all other studies </li></ul>
  14. 15. 1. WHITE PAPER
  15. 16. 2. NeuroStandards Forum
  16. 17. 3. NeuroStandards 2.0
  17. 18. 4. Expert Review Network
  18. 19. Closing Remarks

×