Course Description

This course aims to examine the development of mass society, mass production, consumption and the American consumer from the late 19th century to the present. Areas considered may include industrialization and the development of work in relation to leisure, Worlds Fairs, the development of the advertising industry, the impact of American suburbanization on consumer behavior, television, technology, shopping, mass production and consumption.



Course Instructor: Matthew Ferguson, Department of American Studies - Rutgers University

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Pavlov's Blog




Call me crazy, but the information in the first part of Martin Linstrom’s, Buy-ology seems a lot like the experiments that Ivan Pavlov did with dogs in the early 20th century. Picture scientists with white coats standing around the research subject, but instead of ringing the bell, the doctors are turning on the T.V. And instead of having a tube surgically inserted into a dog’s mouth, there is a human being there, donning a black shower cap with dozens of wires coming off of it, connected to a computer. As the participants watch an endless stream of advertisements, each one infused with a particular conditioning nuance, the scientists make notes on their clip boards as the subject’s brain waves react like an epileptic snake on the computer monitor. 

Although Lindstrom pays lip service to the ethical concerns neuromarketing creates, this technology is wide open for abuse. Given the automated nature of brain activity and the sway our emotions have on decision making, it is no surprise that marketing companies, politicians, the U.S Pentagon and Hollywood (Lindstrom 31)are salivating like Pavlov’s dogs to use the data from brain imaging technology to anticipate the way  people will think and act under particular stimuli. Lindstrom writes, “I knew my study could not only transform the way companies designed, marketed and advertised their products-but also help each one of us understand what is really going on inside our brains when we make decisions about what to buy” (33). I am trying to keep an open mind, but it is far-fetched to expect the general public to understand the complexity of brain activity. You can rest uneasily though, both public and private industries alike are determined to “uncover what’s already in our heads” (Lindstrom 35) and produce and market a plethora of fodder that make us drool like dogs and think it’s the greatest thing ever.

Lindstrom details the information neuroimaging studies have revealed. When a product is “integrated fully into the narrative” (Lindstrom 49) of the program the viewer, is far more apt to remember the product being advertised. As I watched Top Chef: Texas the other night, sure enough, as the chefs left the house to go to the rodeo, one of the contestants’ voices narrated the scene, “When it was time to go we all piled into the Toyota Siennas and went to the Tejas Rodeo.” Meanwhile the screen flashes images back and forth between the contests getting into a small fleet of Siennas and an assortment of shots of the Toyota Sienna. This kind of integration is pernicious! T.V, magazines, billboards, soda machines and every plate-glass window from here to East Bumblef@$% are full of some media schilling something. All the while everyone looks so happy consuming everything from soup to nuts!

At 420 words I’ll wrap this up with a not so novel idea but hopeful nonetheless. Our cultural connection to stuff and emotional satisfaction is a marketing campaign designed at selling more stuff. The scientific data reports that increasing our personal well-being occurs when we participate in acts of compassion and not in the false narrative of consumption therapy. We have to start somewhere, so check this five minute link from Graham Hill about Editing. If you are feeling particularly adventurous watch Matthieu Ricard, the happiest man in the world, talk about Habits of Happiness. Real, lasting well-being is inside us not outside.
M.Ciccone Section 01

7 comments:

  1. I agree that happiness is something that should come from within. Indeed, my blog made a similar point about the dangers of superficial happiness and the ability of marketers to look inside our brains. Unfortunately, as Lindstrom mentions in the book, shopping and buying can be a sort of euphoric experience, as it releases dopamine in the brain which increases our sense of pleasure. The more ability marketers have to give consumers that rush of pleasure, the more they will be able to get consumers to buy their products, and there lies the dangers of what Lindstrom calls “neuromarketing.” It is not that shopping itself, or even shopping for pleasure, is a bad thing. But when it literally becomes an addictive experience, and something marketers and advertisers are able to exploit, it is at that point that we should begin to reassess our habits of consumption. The problem is, as you say, that advertising is everywhere, and it is always trying to give us that emotional high.

    Tom Reilly, Section 01.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that you make some very good points in your blog. I agree that some advertising is a lot like Pavlov's dogs experiment. The whole idea of advertisiing is to spark a need in the mind of consumer about a particular product. Therefore, good advertising will work the same way as his experiment and when you hear a certain slogan or see a symbol, working like the bell you are reminded of that need. The reaction to that stimulus of the advertisement and will initate the purchase of that product and provide the marketing companies with a positive result to their advertsing.
    Jourdan Stone, Section 01

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think this is a great comparison! Advertising companies single out one demographic and through persuasion convince their market that without this product they will be a lesser person. The concept of "neuromarketing" that Lindstrom talks about is a dangerous one definitely. This concept in a way has several folds; it can be disastrous physically, mentally, and economically. Each sector flows into one another and if done successfully drives the consumer to almost depend on the product/products to the point where they can not function without it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is pretty frightful that companies are able to use scientific research to sell us things we don’t really need in a systematic way. Bottom line is that the companies need to make money and they will spare no expense to achieve that objective. I like how you compared Lindstrom to Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning experiment. I believe we are actually not that far away from or may even be in the early stages of being classically, or any other variations of it, conditioned to want things. For example, when we browse the internet our searches and browsing history is remembered so that when we go on sites later related advertisements pop up in our browser to make us take a second look and eventually want to buy that something more. It will be very interesting to see where all of this will lead and how much we will salivate for material goods in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The concept of neuromarketing that Lindstrom talks about, I believe is a key figure in what stimulates a person to buy into a product or idea. It continues to go along with the idea of buying products that we are familiar with and accustomed to using. Words, color, design all play a major role in influencing our decisions. We develop such strong physical and mental attachments to products that some individuals begin buying for the sake of buying. This addiction may help economic growth but its a dangerous habit for the consumer and if everyone were to continue buying just to buy there would be negative repercussions indefinitely.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would rather compare Pavolov's theory with smoking. The dogs have associated training with rewards, in comparison with the smoker's desire to smoke whenever they see the smoker's warning signs concerned about health it would provoked them to smoke. However, emotions seemed to seperate the test subjects. Advertising prehaps provoke more emotions than treats.
    Jennifer Chen
    Section 01

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree it does resemble pavolovs's studies. I still do not think this is a reasonable way to calculate the reasons when looking at the reason that people purchase certain items. This is a grey area of science and a lot more work needs to be done in this field before this can be deemed as credible. With this being said I do think that it could play into why people purchase the material goods that they do.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.