Is tankersley neuro-marketing_slideshare

387
-1

Published on

Marketers have done a lot of exciting things with Neuroscience methods in recent years, and

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
387
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Is tankersley neuro-marketing_slideshare

  1. 1. Neuromarketing ©wimeuverman.nlIS12 Psych! Conference: Marketing to the Mind Dharol Tankersley, PhD Cognitive Neuroscience Data Analyst, Schipul Technologies
  2. 2. I.  What is Marketing?II.  What is Neuroscience?III.  What Neuroscience CAN do for MarketingIV.  What Neuroscience can NOT do for Marketing
  3. 3. I. What is Marketing?A system to discover and satisfy needs ofpeople (HMT)
  4. 4. Goal of Marketing Ø  Identify consumer needsI. What is Marketing? Ø  Solution - product/ service
  5. 5. Goal of Marketing A system to discover, satisfy and influecne desires of people (HMT)I. What is Marketing? Measure Desire Purchase
  6. 6. Traditional Measures of Desire What do I desire?I. What is Marketing?
  7. 7. Traditional Measures of Desire What do you like?I. What is Marketing? Focus Groups
  8. 8. Traditional Measures of Desire What do you like?I. What is Marketing? Questionnaires Focus Groups
  9. 9. Traditional Measures of Desire Which would you choose?I. What is Marketing? Simulated Choice Questionnaires Focus Groups
  10. 10. I. What is Marketing? Traditional Measures of Desire Not Consequential! Simulated Choice Questionnaires Focus Groups
  11. 11. Traditional Measures of Desire What do you want for dinner tomorrow?I. What is Marketing?
  12. 12. Traditional Measures of Desire What DID you choose?I. What is Marketing? Fully Consequential! Market Tests Simulated Choice Questionnaires Focus Groups
  13. 13. I. What is Marketing? Traditional Measures of Desire Market Tests Cost Simulated Choice Questionnaires Focus Groups Accuracy Adapted from Ariely & Berns (2010)
  14. 14. I. What is Marketing? Traditional Measures of Desire Market Tests Cost Simulated Choice Questionnaires Focus Groups Accuracy
  15. 15. II. What is Neuroscience?
  16. 16. II. What is Neuroscience?A system to measure the biology of desire Ø  Predict consumer behavior Measure Desire Purchase
  17. 17. II. What is Neuroscience?A system to measure the biology of desire Ø  Predict consumer behavior “Hidden Information”
  18. 18. II. What is Neuroscience? “Hidden” Information Ø  Emotional Ø  Subconscious Ø  Non-rational
  19. 19. Neuroscience Measures of Desire BiometricsII. What is Neuroscience? GSR Heart Rate Pupil Dilation Temperature
  20. 20. Neuroscience Measures of Desire Behavioral PhysiologyII. What is Neuroscience? Eye Tracking Facial Coding
  21. 21. Charity Selection Neuroscience Measures of Desire Brain ImagingII. What is Neuroscience? EEG MEG fMRI You will play for Easter Seals + Dharol Tankersley Cognitive Af
  22. 22. NeuroAnatomy of MarketingIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Liking mPFC (Medial PreFrontal Cortex) Disliking Insula Amygdala Attention/ Arousal Striatum
  23. 23. III.  What Neuroscience CAN do for MarketingØ  Success: Case StudiesØ  Summary: Promising Areas
  24. 24. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing What kind of product is being sold?
  25. 25. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing What kind of product is being sold?
  26. 26. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing What kind of product is being sold?
  27. 27. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing What kind of product is being sold?
  28. 28. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing What kind of product is being sold?
  29. 29. III. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Case Studies Eye Tracking
  30. 30. III. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Case Studies Eye Tracking
  31. 31. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Eye Tracking Website Optimization Packaging Ad Placement
  32. 32. III. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Case Studies Which design do you prefer?
  33. 33. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Biometrics 1 2 1000" 800" Sales"Rank" 600" 400" 200" 0" 0" 5" 10" Emo4onal"Engagement"Rank"
  34. 34. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Biometrics Ø Heavy detail that expresses attitude Ø Prominent facial features often with large eyes Ø Bold color palette with high contrast
  35. 35. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Biometrics Emotionally Engaging -> Twice the Click Thru Rate
  36. 36. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Which cover design do you prefer? 1 2 3
  37. 37. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Brain Imaging: EEG Overall effectiveness Attention Emotion Emotion Retention Purchase Intent Novelty Awareness
  38. 38. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Brain Imaging: EEG 12% Increase in Sales 2
  39. 39. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Which advertisement is the most effective? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf01Ti6bH8U Campaign A: Coffee Ad
  40. 40. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Which advertisement is the most effective? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR6odVmNTlw Campaign B: Jumping Out of Window Ad
  41. 41. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Which advertisement is the most effective? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weVp5FXVyqM Campaign C: Puppet
  42. 42. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Which advertisement is the most effective? Campaign A: Coffee Ad Campaign B: Jumping Out of Window Ad Campaign C: Puppet
  43. 43. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Brain Imaging: fMRI Expert self%report% Predictions 10" 8" 6" 4" 2" 0" A" B" C"
  44. 44. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Brain Imaging: fMRI Expert Calls to 1-800- self%report% Predictions actual& QUIT-NOW 10" 32" 8" 24" 30x 6" 16" 10x 4" 2x 2" 8" 0" 0" A" B" C" A" B" C" Experts & smokers fail to predict.
  45. 45. Case StudiesIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Brain Imaging: fMRI Brain: mPFC Expert Calls to 1-800- mpfc% Activation Predictions actual& QUIT-NOW 0.1% 32" 24" 30x 0.05% 16" 10x 0% 2x A% B% C% 8" !0.05% 0" !0.1% A" B" C" Frontal Cortex Predicts Advertisement Effectiveness
  46. 46. Promising AreasIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Ø  Visual – Attention Ø  Advertising Ø  Packaging
  47. 47. Promising AreasIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Ø  Emotion - Engagement Ø  Branding Ø  Politics
  48. 48. Promising AreasIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Ø  Consumption - Experience Ø  Beverages Ø  Films
  49. 49. Promising AreasIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Ø  Virtual Reality Ø  Shopping Display Ø  Architecture
  50. 50. SummaryIII. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing Ø  Visual Attention Ø  Advertising Ø  Packaging Ø  Emotion Ø  Politics Ø  Branding Ø  Consumption Ø  Beverage Ø  Film Ø  Virtual Reality Ø  Architecture Ø  In-store marketing
  51. 51. IV. What Neuroscience CanNOT do for MarketingØ  Cautionary TalesØ  MethodologyØ  CostsØ  Context
  52. 52. IV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Facebook Study Cautionary Tales
  53. 53. Cautionary TalesIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Facebook Study Emotional Engagement Facebook Yahoo NYTimes
  54. 54. Cautionary TalesIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Coke vs Pepsi Taste Test Blind Taste Test Labeled Taste Test
  55. 55. IV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Cautionary Tales Coke vs Pepsi Taste Test
  56. 56. IV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Cautionary Tales NewScience Magazine
  57. 57. IV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Confounds Cautionary Tales
  58. 58. Cautionary TalesIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Confounds “These methods do not reveal inner truth. Neuroscience techniques need interpretation in light of other information. Real understanding comes from integrating information rather than focusing on only one perspective.” Barbara O’Connell Vice President, Milward Brown
  59. 59. Methods: Reverse InferenceIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing tions. Interestingly, an a for pain placebo effects Our results have impl EP signal plays a centr serves as a teaching sig tunately, very little is k neural computation of t is the economic view, w sensory properties of th ular properties) and th suggest that the brain “Liking” sophisticated manner th properties of the substa tions about how good it that it might be adaptive Preference decisions in the future measurements of the qu of noisy measurements, quality of an experience tion. A related study (1 dence for this point by tions. Interestingly an ambiguous odor (‘‘c Fig. 4. Neural correlates of liking ratings. (A) Activity in the mOFC and the affectfor pain placebo e both subjective p midbrain correlated with the reported pleasantness of the six liquids at degus- mPFC tation time. For illustration purposes, the contrast is shown both at P Ͻ 0.001 and P Ͻ 0.005 uncorrected and with an extend threshold of five voxels. (B) Correlation related Our results have to EP. Unlike th al. (13) do not provideae EP signal plays pricing, can affect neura ActivationSecond, our a teachin serves as findings of pleasantness ratings and BOLD responses (r ϭ 0.593, P Ͻ 0.000). Each point Whereas there very little tunately, is ample denotes a subject-price pair. The horizontal axis measures the reported pleasant- ness. The vertical axis computes the betas from the general linear model in a 5-mm spherical volume surrounding the area depicted in A. neural computatio keting actions are succes is the economic vie that they can modulate n not been reported befor sensory properties Discussion provide some clues abou ular properties) a The main hypothesis of this study was that an increase in the lar, it seems that price c perceived price of a wine should, through an increase in taste experienced utility the n suggest that but b expectations, increase activity in the mOFC. The results de- ties of taste in the mann sophisticated prim scribed above provide evidence consistent with the hypothesis. properties of the s Third, our results hav The hypothesis was motivated by several previous studies, which important componentgo tions about how o have shown that activity in the mOFC is correlated with behav- omist’s termmight be ad that it for subjecti ioral pleasantness ratings for odors (10 –13), tastes (6, 14, and the standard economic f decisions in the 15), and even music (16). This, together with our behavioral erties of products, such a measurements of t
  60. 60. Methods: Reverse InferenceIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing My product is “liked” Preference tions. Interestingly for pain placebo e mPFC Our results have EP signal plays a serves as a teachin Activation tunately, very little neural computatio is the economic vie sensory properties ular properties) a suggest that the b sophisticated mann properties of the s tions about how go that it might be ad decisions in the f measurements of t
  61. 61. Methods: Multi-voxel Pattern AnalysisIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Beyond Reverse Inference Like Dislike New Product
  62. 62. CostsIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Intern Scan Subject Postdoc IT You are the postdoc. You should know how to make ends meet. $40 $500 $40 $10,000 $20,000 Data: $17,400 Overhead: $30,0 00 $47,400
  63. 63. CostsIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Return On Investment? “If I can spend $1000 to do a traditional market study that gets me 85% of what a $50,000 fMRI study does then the return on my neuromarketing investment is not great. Thinking about it another way, how much less or more could I get across 50 traditional studies relative to the value of one neuromarketing study.” -Craig Bennett Data: $17,400 Overhead: $30,0 00 $47,400
  64. 64. ContextIV. What Neuroscience Can NOT do for Marketing Ø  Loud Ø  Claustrophobic Ø  Stationary Ø  Repetitive
  65. 65. Summary: LimitationsIV. What Neuroscience Can Not do for Marketing Ø  Cautionary Tales Ø  Costs Ø  Methodological Data: $17,400 Overhead: $30,000 $47,400 My product Ø  Context is “liked”
  66. 66. Neuromarketing: ConclusionsPromise Caution Data: $17,400 Overhead: $30,0 00 $47,400
  67. 67. Thanks!DHAROL TANKERSLEY, PhDAnalystdharol@gmail.comwww.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Dharol/Tankersley
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×