This is your downloadology by Martin Lindstrom. Does sex sell? What do religion and ritual have in common with successful brands? How successful is product. 𝗣𝗗𝗙 | Neuromarketing is an important development in the field of understanding how the subconscious mind helps the consumer Author and marketing guru Martin Lindstorm's bestselling book “downloadology - M Lindstrom. Sanitary. 2. Old Mexican tradition. 3. From California. BRAND sense. BRAND sense download ology sense by Martin Lindstrom sense by Martin Lindstrom download ology.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|ePub File Size:||17.82 MB|
|PDF File Size:||20.54 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
musicmarkup.info - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read download- ology. Truth and Lies About Why We download by Martin Lindstrom At a cost of $7. downloadology PDF Summary by Martin Lindstrom examines the consumers' behavior and how to influence that circle. The comprehensive, in-depth. Editorial Reviews. From Publishers Weekly. Through extensive and expensive research, downloadology: Truth and Lies About Why We download by [Lindstrom, Martin].
You are on page 1of 9 Search inside document 1 The Business Source www. The money came from eight big commercial enterprises, who, naturally, had an abiding interest in the results of an investigation of how subconscious mental processes drive most of our decision-making. And the three years of effort were contributed not only by Lindstrom but also by researchers, 10 professors and doctors, an ethics committee, and a global team of thousands of volunteers whose brains were "read" by two hi-tech pieces of equipment. Many of the results are surprising, challenging the validity of popular and established methods of consumer research and signposting a revolution in the way marketers of the future will switch us on to their products. In fact, sometimes we even say just the opposite to what is going on in our subconscious. For instance, a brain-study of how people reacted to a TV pilot show correctly predicted its chances of success, in complete contradiction to what the viewers actually told researchers.
Martin and his team of experts realized that by utilizing fMRI and EEG technologies, you could read the minds of the customers and see how they react to specific changes. In other words, Lindstrom dropped a research bomb, in which he collected a massive amount of neuromarketing data. They discovered something extraordinary, a real breakthrough in terms of sales , which seemed too good to be true.
Neuromarketing was a neglected term, a concept that was never under surveillance. The main idea was to discover how the brain reacts and does it responds to a different marketing stimulus. Are those incentives strong enough for the customer to change directions? Indeed, we are inclined to agree, that escaping from the endless cycle of decision-making is a fictional conclusion. Are we leaning to one concept or the other?
Do we rely on intuition, or the inner voice, before we put the product in the bag? For instance, do you know that cigarette ads make people addicted to them even more?
They indicated that commercial benefit, is not at the center of human development, and as such must be restricted and controlled.
When we brand things, our brains perceive them as more special and valuable than they actually are. In simple terms. It forces potential downloaders into making split-second decisions and thereby guides them through the sales funnel.
If you participate in a survey commissioned by a credible organization, you must give some answers. You might want to provide a quick checkup of your stimulus and investigate whether your brain is prone to react. In plain English: There are other factors such as religious beliefs, superstition, sexual orientation that also determine your position regarding neuromarketing. Lindstrom comes to a conclusion that using neuromarketing to full extent will drastically improve your odds of success when launching a new product or service.
Once the market gives its thumbs up, then you ought to focus on market positioning, and building awareness. As you can see, plunging into the depths of neuromarketing can give your company the advantage to understand the market, and provide a solution to its problems. Lindstrom tries to engage the audience and minimizes the complex terminology to make it more easily readable. In the Western world, nicotine addiction still ranks as an enormous concern. Smoking is the biggest killer in Spain today, with fifty thousand smoking-related deaths annually.
In the U. Are smokers selectively blind to warning labels? Are they showing the world some giant act of bravado? Do they secretly believe they are immortal? Or do they know the health dangers and just not care?
It was twenty-five times larger than any neuromarketing study ever before attempted. Using the most cutting-edge scientific tools available, it revealed the hidden truths behind how branding and marketing messages work on the human brain, how our truest selves react to stimuli at a level far deeper than conscious thought, and how our unconscious minds control our behavior usually the opposite of how we think we behave.
For example, does product placement really work? The answer, I found out, is a qualified no.
How powerful are brand logos? Fragrance and sound are more potent than any logo alone. Yes, and it probably influenced what you picked up at the convenience store the other day. You bet, and increasingly so. What effect do disclaimers and health warnings have on us? Read on. Does sex in advertising work not really and how could it possibly get more explicit than it is now?
You just watch. And it employed two of the most sophisticated brainscanning instruments in the world: the fMRI and an advanced version of the electroencephalograph known as the SST, short for steady-state typography, which tracks rapid brain waves in real time.
The research team was overseen by Dr. And the results? The machine made a little ticking sound as the platform rose and locked into place. More pen-spinning. Her interview answers were clear enough, but now it was time to interview her brain. In, out, in again. A tic, a jiggle, a fidget, a grimace, body twitching—the slightest movement at all and the results can be compromised. Wedding bands, bracelets, necklaces, nose rings, or tongue studs have to be taken off beforehand, as well.
Marlene was in the scanner for a little over an hour. We continued to perform brain scans on new subjects over the next month and a half. Five weeks later, the team leader, Dr. Calvert, presented me with the results. I was, to put it mildly, startled. Even Dr. In other words, all those gruesome photographs, government regulations, billions of dollars some countries had invested in nonsmoking campaigns, all amounted, at the end of a day, to, well, a big waste of money.
Calvert discovered once she analyzed the results further. When stimulated, the nucleus accumbens requires higher and higher doses to get its fix.
In short, the fMRI results showed that cigarette warning labels not only failed to deter smoking, but by activating the nucleus accumbens, it appeared they actually encouraged smokers to light up. Most of the smokers checked off yes when they were asked if warning labels worked—maybe because they thought it was the right answer, or what the researchers wanted to hear, or maybe because they felt guilty about what they knew smoking was doing to their health.
But as Dr. But her brain—the ultimate no-bullshit zone—had adamantly contradicted her. Just as our brains do to each one of us every single day. The results of the additional brain scan studies I carried out were just as provocative, fascinating, and controversial as the cigarette research project.
If I could help uncover the subconscious forces that stimulate our interest and ultimately cause us to open our wallets, the brain-scan study would be the most important three years of my life. The coffee you gulped down this morning. The bacon cheeseburger and French fries you ordered in last week.
Your computer software. Your espresso machine. Your toothpaste.
Your dandruff shampoo. Your lip balm. Your underwear. As a branding expert and brand futurist meaning that the sum of my globe-hopping experience gives me a helicopter view of probable future consumer and advertising trends , businesses consider my colleagues and me something of a brand ambulance service, a crisis-intervention management team.
What makes it stand out? Are there any stories or rituals or mysteries consumers associate with it?
If not, can we root around and find some? Smell, touch, sound? A gasp the cap makes when you unscrew it? A flirty pink straw? At thirty-eight, I stand about five feet eight inches, and am blessed, or cursed, with an extremely young, boyish-looking face. So how did I find myself staring through a window into an antiseptic medical lab in a rain-soaked English university as one volunteer after another submitted to an fMRI brain scan?
By , it had become pretty clear to me that traditional research methods, like market research and focus groups, were no longer up to the task of finding out what consumers really think. Like Marlene and all those other smokers who said that cigarette warnings discouraged them from smoking, we may think we know why we do the things we do—but a much closer look into the brain tells us otherwise.
Think about it. As human beings, we enjoy thinking of ourselves as a rational species. We feed and clothe ourselves. We go to work. We remember to turn down the thermostat at night. We download music. We go to the gym. We handle crises—missed deadlines, a child falling off a bike, a friend getting sick, a parent dying, etc.
If a partner or colleague accuses us of acting irrationally, we get a little offended. They might as well have just accused us of temporary insanity. But like it or not, all of us consistently engage in behavior for which we have no logical or clear-cut explanation.
This is truer than ever before in our stressed-out, technologically overwired world, where news of terrorist threats, political saber-rattling, fires, earthquakes, floods, violence, and assorted other disasters pelts us from the moment we turn on the morning news to the time we go to bed. For example, consider how much superstition governs our lives. We knock on wood for luck. Does a briefcase count? A pencil? What about the floor? We cross our fingers for luck. Yet most of us continue to act on them, every day of our lives.
Under stress or even when life is going along pretty well , people tend to say one thing while their behavior suggests something entirely different. Needless to say, this spells disaster for the field of market research, which relies on consumers being accurate and honest. But 85 percent of the time our brains are on autopilot.
The concept of brand-building has been around for close to a century. Some, like the tobacco companies, are scarily smart. What causes us to choose one brand or product over another? What are shoppers really thinking? And since no one can come up with a decent answer to these questions, companies plow ahead using the same strategies and techniques as they always have.
Marketers, for example, are still doing the same old stuff: quantitative research, which involves surveying lots and lots of volunteers about an idea, a concept, a product, or even a kind of packaging—followed by qualitative research, which turns a more intense spotlight on smaller focus groups handpicked from the same population. But if those strategies still work, then why do eight out of ten new product launches fail within the first three months?
In Japan, product launches fail a miserable 9. How can its marketers know what these terms mean to most of us?
Tiny, barely perceptible factors can slant focus group responses. Or maybe the head of the research team reminded another woman of an ex-boyfriend who left her for her best friend and this okay, just maybe tainted her impression of the product.
Maybe they just all hated his nose. Point is, try putting these micro-emotions into words or writing them down in a roomful of strangers. So, if marketers want the naked truth—the truth, unplugged and uncensored, about what causes us to buy—they have to interview our brains. All of this is why, in , I became convinced that something was fundamentally wrong with the ways companies reached out to customers, to us.
Nor were they sure how to communicate in a way so that their products gripped our minds and hearts. Whether they were marketing cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, fast-food, cars, or pickles, no advertisers dared to stand out, or to try out anything remotely new or revolutionary. In terms of understanding the mind of the average consumer they were like Christopher Columbus in , gripping a torn, hand-drawn map as the wind picked up and his boat lurched and listed toward what might or might not be flat land.
It was time to throw everything up in the air, see where it landed, then start all over again. Which is where our brain-scanning study came in. A sharp drop later on, and the neurologist might infer the last thing in the world she wanted was a Smirnoffon-the-rocks. I was so excited by what I was reading I nearly rang the call button just so I could tell the steward. As I mentioned earlier, eight out of every ten products launched in the United States are destined to fail.
In , more than , new products debuted in stores globally, the equivalent of one new product release every three minutes. Margaret Thatcher was elected the leader of the conservative party in Great Britain. Color TV debuted in Australia. Bruce Springsteen came out with Born to Run. And executives at the Pepsi-Cola Company decided to roll out a heavily publicized experiment known as the Pepsi Challenge.
It was very simple. One cup contained Pepsi, the other Coke. The subjects were asked which one they preferred. More than half of the volunteers claimed to prefer the taste of Pepsi over Coke. Hallelujah, right? So by all accounts, Pepsi should be trouncing Coke all across the world. It made no sense.
In his best-seller, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell offers a partial interpretation. He cites a former Pepsi new-product development executive, Carol Dollard, who explains the difference between taking a sip of a soft drink out of a cup and downing the entire can.
In a sip test, people tend to like the sweeter product—in this case Pepsi—but when they drink an entire can of the stuff, there always lurks the possibility of blood sugar—overkill.
That, according to Gladwell, is why Pepsi prevailed in the taste test, but Coke continued to lead the market. Twenty-eight years after the original Pepsi Challenge, he revised the study, this time using fMRI to measure the brains of his sixty-seven study subjects. First, he asked the volunteers whether they preferred Coke, Pepsi, or had no preference whatsoever. The results matched the findings of the original experiment almost exactly; more than half of the test subjects reported a marked preference for Pepsi.
Their brains did, too. Interesting, but not all that dramatic—until a fascinating finding showed up in the second stage of the experiment. This time around, Dr. Montague decided to let the test subjects know whether they were sampling Pepsi or Coke before they tasted it. The result: 75 percent of the respondents claimed to prefer Coke. In addition to the ventral putamen, blood flows were now registering in the medial prefrontal cortex, a portion of the brain responsible, among other duties, for higher thinking and discernment.
All this indicated to Dr. Montague that two areas in the brain were engaged in a mute tug-of-war between rational and emotional thinking. That Dr. A newborn but intriguing window into our thought patterns and decision-making processes was a few sips closer to becoming reality. A similar, but no less powerful neuromarketing experiment soon followed on the heels of the Coke—Pepsi study.
The psychologists asked a group of random students to choose between a pair of Amazon. The brain scans revealed that both gift options triggered activity in the lateral prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that generates emotion.
The more the students were emotionally excited about something, the psychologists found, the greater the chances of their opting for the immediate, if less immediately gratifying, alternative.
Thus the interest in neuro-economics, the study of the way the brain makes financial decisions. Thanks to fMRI, it is giving unprecedented insight into how emotions—such as generosity, greed, fear, and well-being—impact economic decision-making.
A lot of what happens in the brain is emotional, not cognitive. In fact, politics, law enforcement, economics, and even Hollywood were already in on the action. Committees spend up to a billion dollars handcrafting an electable presidential candidate—and elections are increasingly won and lost by the tiniest fraction of a percentage point.
Imagine having at your disposal a tool that could possibly pinpoint what goes on in the brains of registered voters. Or so Tom Freedman, a strategist and senior advisor to the Clinton administration, must have thought when he founded a company known as FKF Applied Research. FKF is devoted to studying decision-making processes, and how the brain responds to leadership qualities.
In , his company used fMRI scanning to analyze public responses to campaign commercials during the run-up to the Bush-Kerry presidential campaign. The results? Yet Freedman found that Republicans and Democrats reacted differently to ads replaying the September 11 attacks; the amygdalas of Democrats lit up far more noticeably than the amygdalas of Republicans. Although using brain-scanning technology to sway political decisions is in its infancy, I predict that the American presidential showdown will be the last-ever election to be governed by traditional surveys, and that by , neuroscience will begin to dominate all election predictions.
Are they memorable, catchy, provocative? Will they hook our attention? As for law enforcement? One California entrepreneur has come up with a neuroimaging spin on the widely used poly-graph, or lie-detector, test with a product called the No Lie MRI.
Its assumption, as any capable dissembler can tell you, is that it takes effort to lie. Even the U. Pentagon has increased their research into an MRI-based lie detection program, partially funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which comes up with ingenious new tools and techniques for military use.
And what they found was that as the subjects gazed at a slide of a Mini Cooper, a discrete region in the back area of the brain that responds to faces came alive. It was a gleaming little person, Bambi on four wheels, or Pikachu with an exhaust pipe. You just wanted to pinch its little fat metallic cheeks, then drive it away. In a University of Oxford study involving an imaging technique known as magnetoencephalography, neuroscientist Morten L.
Kringelbach asked 12 adults to carry out a computer task while the faces of infants and adults similar in expression flashed onto a nearby screen. Daimler-Chrysler researchers then displayed images of sixty-six different cars to a dozen men, again scanning their brains using the fMRI. And what is often the most rewarding thing for guys?
It seemed, just as male peacocks attract female mates with the iridescence of their back feathers, the males in this study subconsciously sought to attract the opposite sex with the low-rising, engine-revving, chrome pizzazz of the sports car.
Yet at the time, all previous neuroimaging tests had focused on a particular product. So what the heck was I supposed to do next? The obvious next stage was to find the best scientists—and the most sophisticated instruments around—to help me carry out this experiment. I chose these for a number of reasons.
Neither instrument is invasive. Neither involves radiation. And both are able to measure the level of emotional attraction or revulsion we as consumers experience more precisely than any other tool available.
FMRI, as I mentioned earlier, is able to pinpoint an area as small as one millimeter in the brain. In essence, it takes a miniature home movie of the brain every few seconds—and in as little as ten minutes can amass a spectacular amount of information. Meanwhile, the less expensive SST brings with it the advantage of being able to measure reactions instantaneously while fMRI has a few seconds delay.
This made SST ideal for registering brain activity while people are watching TV commercials and programs, or any other kind of visual stimuli happening in real time. Why not half-and-half? A typical fMRI brain scan, which involves design, analysis, conducting the experiment, and interpreting the results, can be expensive. SST studies are far less costly. Until we began our research, no one had ever mixed and matched fMRI and SST on behalf of a broad-scale neuromarketing study.
If you think of the brain as a house, any and all previous experiments were based on looking through a single window, but our wide-ranging study promised to cast its gaze through as many windows, cracks, floorboards, attic windows, and mouse holes as we could find.
Politely pushy, you might call it. Those twenty-seven messages on your answering machine? Nevertheless, in spite of all my efforts, business after business turned me down. The people I approached were either intrigued-but-unconvinced, or intrigued-but-spooked. Our willing volunteers were genuinely excited to take part in the birth of a new science.
There were no complaints.