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

Friday, November 18, 2011

The Problems of Neuromarketing

Martin Lindstrom’s book, Buyology, offers an in-depth look at the psychological reasons why consumers buy the products they do. Indeed, Lindstrom defines Buyology as “the multitude of subconscious forces that motivate us to buy” (6). Lindstrom goes on to say that the new science of neuromarketing “is the key to unlocking…our Buyology” (3), as it will allow scientists to peer into the human brain and witness these subconscious forces in action. By seeing what drives consumers to buy, scientists and marketers will be able to make products and advertisements capable of tempting the irrational, subconscious part of our minds. Although this may seem scary, even immoral, Lindstrom praises neuromarketing as a science that will be used for the good of consumers as well as advertisers. He states that “neuromarketing is not about implanting ideas in people’s brains, or forcing them to buy what they don’t want to buy” (35). Instead, Lindstrom believes that neuromarketing will actually give consumers more control “because the more we know about why we fall prey to the tricks and tactics of advertisers, the better we can defend ourselves” (Lindstrom 5). Furthermore, he asserts that neuromarketing will give consumers more meaningful products that will satisfy marketers and consumers alike by “earn[ing] more money and satisfy[ing] consumers at the same time” (Lindstrom 5).

Lindstrom’s views concerning neuromarketing, however, are very narrow-minded. Once marketers know exactly how to engage the subconscious minds of consumers, they will have a tremendous amount of power in influencing us to buy whatever they want to sell us. The subconscious mind is, as Lindstrom admits, irrational, and if marketers can influence that part of a consumer’s mind, they could potentially make consumers spend money in irrational ways. Perhaps neuromarketing could allow marketers to sell us products that we really want, but at what cost? After all, neuromarketing may allow marketers to sell products powerful enough to make people pay anything for them. The result may be that people are selling their homes and their savings to buy an emotionally powerful product. Is this really a good thing for society? This link, while somewhat quirky, offers a glimpse into the dangers of neuromarketing.

Lindstrom also fails to take into account the problems of over-consumption. Hyper consumption has already reached a breaking point in our society; as it has become increasingly unsustainable. If neuromarketing becomes the main means of selling products, consumption may finally reach its breaking point. Rather than trying to peer into people’s brains in order to sell more products, perhaps we should be looking for ways to make people want to consume less. Maybe the problem is not trying to find out what material things people really want, but what emotional and mental needs people have. By doing this, maybe consumption can be curbed.

Several questions arise from these points. Is neuromarketing ethical? Is it dangerous? Is it good for consumers? In our already over-extended consumer society, is neuromarketing what we really need?

Tom Reilly, Section 01

10 comments:

  1. Just the term "neuromarketing" is somewhat scary. As we know, neuromarketing studies the consumers' senorimotor, cognitive and affective response to marketing stimuli. This marketing uses technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography and steady state topography to measure activity in different parts of the brain. Just the thought of all that is scary. I also question if neuromarketing is ethical. It does have the potential to be invasive as it may bypass the consumers rational defense mechanisms.
    Thomas Walsh 01

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thomas is right, the thought of it is scary. But the overall method of using technologies using fMRI and SST is an ingenious idea. It gives us the honest answer about the effectiveness of marketing campaigns. In response to: "Is neuromarketing what really need?" I feel like we don't need this at all. But then again, it's a company's priority to establish a brand. I really don't know what can come next after product placement. With technology advancements, we'll find an ingenious way to incorporate brands into every day society, but only at a higher level than in today's world.

    Miles Kong
    Section 01

    ReplyDelete
  3. While you point out the possible threats of this new form of marketing research, he was aware that this could be used for harmful purposes and states it. As with most technology, this too can be used for harm, but I think you are over-emphasizing its power to an extent, in the sense that I feel you are saying we cannot defend against marketers. We know cigarettes kill us but we continue to use them right? The reality is, the smoke is killing us. The facts do not change, it's just how strong we are internally at fighting these temptations. I don't think this is the fault of marketers, but of individuals inability to fight temptations.

    So I find neuromarketing as a tool, which can definitely be used unethically if desired. But, I do not feel we should claim we are defenseless to it since we understand it exists. Just always strive to act objectively with the "things" that enter, exist in, or exit your life. If you don't need a car, don't buy a car. Granted this is a simple, but I can't really think of a better way to put it. And don't claim to "rebel" because then you're just buying into commodified rebellion (ex: Converse). Just become an outlier to the system all together.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that this is a new form of marking to the consumer. Advertisments are now just placed into certain movies or shows; this has been happening for years. Most consumers are just truly starting to notice it because it has now become more main stream for the the creators of the programs to ask for support in away from company. It helps to line the pockets of the the creators & also to boost sales for the product. I think most times people may buy this because they need them but sometimes we do buy products because we have had them slipped into our subconsious and then we end up with a product that just sits in our house or we end up throwing out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comment dated from Nov. 21 at 12:06 posted by AnneMarie Esemplare sec. 80

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tom, to comment on your blog regarding neuro-marketing studies, my belief is that they are acceptable and will provide further insight to educated and topic-interested consumers about how advertisers and marketers target consumers. I for one, am interested in how consumers are targeted, therefore the research conducted by study groups such as one put together by the author Martin Lindstrom will further educate consumers and prepare them on identifying schemes and tactics that are used by advertisers and marketers on consumers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. neuromarketing studies are without a doubt very intriguing. I do not agree with the validity that is being portrayed with these studies. Neuroanalyses is still being unraveled by scientists and can not be counted as reliable and replicable data just yet. There is a lot more work that needs to be put into understanding these results and figuring out weather the results are consistent and replicable. This also poses humans as somewhat helpless against many marketing strategies which I find to be an irrational assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Neuroscience is an amazing technology that explains how people unconsciously buy products. But it is sad how buisnesses used that science to create neuromarketing for their own profitable gain. However I suspected that if humans continued to watch television, listen to the radio and surf on the internet are more prone to buy more stuff.
    Jennifer Chen
    Section 01

    ReplyDelete
  9. I felt very similar to you in as much that decoding the stimuli that encourages buying is ripe with points of abuse. I also think that we should generally be open-minded that the following chapters will live up to some of Lindstrom’s statements, like the one you quoted on page 5. I also have to admit that I think Lindstrom is way too involved in helping marketers sell stuff to legitimately be concerned about consumers. It seems the underlying sentiment, so far, is to make “stuff” more attractive to buyers regardless of need or usefulness.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

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