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
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.
ReplyDeleteTom Reilly, Section 01.
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.
ReplyDeleteJourdan Stone, Section 01
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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Chen
Section 01
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