Presentation for Client Leadership - Buy.ology
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•1,337 views
![Contents: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (12)
Similar to Presentation for Client Leadership - Buy.ology
Similar to Presentation for Client Leadership - Buy.ology (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Presentation for Client Leadership - Buy.ology
- 1. ‘ Buy.ology - How everything we believe about why we buy is wrong’. Heather Martin
- 4. fMRI SST
- 7. Pepsi vs. Coke Taste Test Tug of War
- 9. Immediate gratification or delayed reward – which would you choose? $15 $20
- 11. American Idol
- 15. Chapter Four: I can’t see clearly now
- 16. Subliminal Advertising? 1990 Pepsi Cans 2006 KFC Buffalo Snacker
Editor's Notes
- I am just going to note that there are 11 chapters in the book but I am only going to talk about chapters 1-10, the last chapter is a conclusion chapter basically summing up the entire book.
- fMRI = when a portion of the brain is in use that region will light up like a red-hot flare, by tracking this activation, neuroscientists can determine what specific areas in the brain are working at any given time. SST - Its basically a black turban like cap wired with a dozen electrodes, looped over volunteers heads and worn with a pair of viewing goggles. SST can also measure the degree of subjects emotional engagement, memory and approach and withdraw (i.e. what attracted or repelled them about an image)
- The experiment as I already said was being conducted on 32 smokers and was being done to see if the warnings on cig boxes actually worked. The results - warning labels on the sides, fronts and backs of cigarette packs had no effect on suppressing the smokers cravings at all. Cigarette warnings whether they informed smokers they were at risk of contracting emphysemas, heart disease etc had in fact stimulated an area of the smokers brains called the nucleus accumbens aka the craving spot. It’s a spot on the brain that lights up when the body desires something i.e. alcohol or tobacco. When stimulated this nucleus accumbens requires a higher and higher does of whatever is craved to get fixed. So not only did the warning labels not stop or discourage smoking it actually encouraged smokers to smoke
- Perhaps one of the biggest known experiments of all time. In 1975 Pepsi decided they wanted to tackle Coke so they set up an experiment in shops and supermarkets around the US and handed out 2 unmarked cups to consumers one with coke and one with Pepsi. Consumers were asked what they preferred – over half said they preferred the taste of Pepsi. Going by this than Pepsi should be out selling Coke but they were not. There are many theories on why Pepsi should be outselling coke for example Malcolm Gladwell in 2005 decided to try and interpret this. His result was that because consumers were only given a small cup of the drinks or ‘a sip’ and not a can or a bottle of them that they preferred the sweeter taste and weren’t overloaded by it – in other words they preferred the small sip of Pepsi they got but if they were to drink a whole can of it that there is the potential to be overloaded with sweetness. Therefore this is why he thinks Pepsi did well in the sip test yet Coke still lead in the sales race. However before Gladwell came out with this theory, in 2003 Dr Read Montague (director of the Human Neuroimaging lab at Baylor College of Medicine in Huston decided to re-look at the results from the 1975 test. This time however, he would be using fMRI scans. He completed two stages for the test with 676 volunteers. The first stage was asking them which they preferred or if they had no preference at all. This matched the original results – over half said Pepsi. They also drank some of each and again the part of their brain the ventral putaman (stimulated when we find tastes appealing) lit up too. The second stage however had him tell the volunteers which drink they were drinking before they drank it and then asked them which they liked more. This result showed 75% of volunteers claiming to like Coke more than Pepsi. Then in the fMRI scan not only was the ventral putaman lighting up but so was the medial prefrontal cortex – the portion of the brain that is responsible for higher thinking and discernment. This indicates that there was a ‘tug of war’ going on in the brain between rationality and emotions.
- So what does all this mean? Well it means that the history of Coke, memories when drinking it, their ads, everything about the brand is more powerful than the taste of Pepsi. This shows us that emotions are the way in which are brain encodes things and these emotions will win every time. This study also proves that there is a link between branding and the brain but how strong it is, is really the shocker.
- Princeton University study – using fMRI scans to see which subjects wanted more. Test was chose either a $15 voucher which you could get now or wait two weeks and get a $20 voucher. Part of the brain that reacts to emotion lit up but the possibility of getting something immediately caused an unusual flurry of stimulation in the limbic areas of most students brains (a group that is responsible for our emotional life and the formation of memory). What was found was if the students were more emotionally excited about something than the chances of opting for immediate gratification than the higher the chance of going for it.
- Product placement is something I find really interesting in marketing, so interesting infact that my thesis for my undergrad was on how effective product placement in movies is. And what I found from completing the thesis – its not as effective as you think it is. Consumers are widely aware of product placement now and personally I have developed the most annoying habit when watching TV/movies etc is not only looking for the products that have been placed but also counting them. All I can say is thank god I do it in my head and not out loud. I actually picked the habit up in my final year when for one of our classes on product placement we had to watch the Will Smith movie ‘Hancock’ to count how many times there was a product placement – if your bored one night and have never watch it, its an alright film so watch it and see if you can count how many there is. Anyway, at the time of writing my thesis PP wasn’t permitted in Ireland and from what I remember was limited in the UK, it was however allowed in the US and other countries. As of May 2 nd 2011 PP has become legal in Ireland as long as the following rules are followed – these rules only apply to TV: Free product placement can be included in all types of programmes but paid for product placement can only be included in films, sport, dramas (one-off and series) and light entertainment Paid for product placement cannot feature in news, current affairs, documentaries, docu-dramas, religious programmes and children’s programmes The placement must be editorially justified It can not directly encourage the purchase or rental of the product or service There cannot be any undue prominence of the product or service Alcohol product placement (except drinks with over 25% alcohol content) is permitted but must comply with the wider advertising code. Viewers must be clearly informed of the existence of product placement (at the start and the end of a programme and when a programme resumes after an advertising break) Product Integration and thematic placement is not permitted The first paid for PP is on TV3 and came in last month - Kenco coffee will feature prominently on the Morning Show and Midday and will become the first paid-for product placement on Irish television since the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland revised its advertising code of practice earlier this summer. Under the 12-month deal, worth in excess of €250,000, Kenco will sponsor the two programmes and presenters Sybil Mulcahy, Martin King, Colette Fitzpatrick (pictured) and Elaine Crowley, as well as their panel of guests, will be expected to drink the instant coffee – or at least pretend to – from heavily branded Kenco mugs
- American Idol: There are three main sponsors for AI Coke, Ford and Cingular who each spent $26 million per series. Lindstrom took a group of over 400 people in LA and hooked them up to the SST system to see if it was worth paying all that money for pp – how did he do this? ST is cheaper than fMRI, can be done on more people and is easier to transport. I showed you a photo of a SST at the start but in case you’ve forgotten Its basically a black turban like cap wired with a dozen electrodes, looped over volunteers heads and worn with a pair of viewing goggles. SST can also measure the degree of subjects emotional engagement, memory and approach and withdraw (i.e. what attracted or repelled them about an image) Well the first thing he did was show 20 images of products who aired 30 sec ad’s during AI including the three product placement logos as well as logos that don’t appear Fanta, EBay etc. He then showed a 20 minute clip of the show as well as another clip of another show and he then showed the logos again three times. So what did he find? Well before the show both branded logos from the show and the non-show related brands were remembered equally; after the show the ones that were related to the show inhibited the recall of unbranded logos. Well what does this mean for the three product placed logos? Coke was the most rememberable, followed by Cingular and finally Ford. Ford didn’t just come last though it preformed horrendously. It was remembered less after it was seen in the show than before. Lindstrom concludes that because coke is so integrated into the show – they have red walls in the auditions, the judge’s drink out of coke glasses and the judges chairs are shaped like coke bottles – that is why it preformed so well, this is in comparison with Ford who just had a traditional 30 second ad. It has to be basically dripping in the product for it to work in other words the results revealed that we have no memory of brands that don’t play an integral part in the storyline of a program – they become white noise, easily, instantaneously forgotten. From the study what also can be deduced is that product placement has also got to be slyer and sophisticated than just shoving a product somewhere for the sake of putting it there. It also has to make sense for the product to be there.
- Mirror Neuron – discovered in 1992 in Italy when studying monkeys to see how the brain organises motor behaviours, looking specifically at F5 or the pre-motor area, they would light up not just only when the monkey would pick up a nut but also when they saw other monkeys picking up nuts. This was a surprise as generally it doesn’t respond to visual stimulation. Grad student eating an ice-cream = monkeys brain lighting up. Called mirror neuron’s because they are neurons that fire when an action is being performed and when that same action is being observed. However only light up when they are responding to ‘targeted gestures’ i.e. activities that involve an object – eating an ice-cream – rather than just a random movement. This neuron is also why we often unknowingly imitate people’s behaviour for example whispering when someone whispers to you, or in the case of my 21 month old nephew when I shake my hair around he shakes what little hair he has of around too. Mirror neurons are at work constantly in our brains – for example they are the reason if someone smiles we will most likely smile back, if someone hurts themselves we are likely to wince or flinch in sympathy for them.
- They can also be activated when we are reading words – for example YAWN – Lindstorm wrote this in the book and asked if you yawned when you read it. I did. This is because mirror neurons work even when you are reading about a person’s behaviour.
- Next we move onto mirror neurons and how they impact on buying behaviour. Lindstorm gives an example of walking through a shopping centre seeing a dummy dressed in a nice outfit and you thinking to yourself ‘oh once I buy that I’ll look like her’. Mirror neurons in this case are overriding your rational thinking and subconsciously imitate what you are seeing before you. Imitation is a huge factor in why we buy things. Lindstorm gives an example of seeing a product for the first time and thinking ‘ugh that’s horrible’ to seeing them over and over again and eventually buying them – in my case Uggs, I thought they were the well ugliest things I have ever seen in my life no matter how comfy they were I was never going to buy a pair, then both my sisters got pairs and almost everyone I know had a pair. I now own two pairs. However, when making that purchasing decision there is also the chemical dopamine working in conjunction with it. Dopamine is also known as the ‘happy hormone’. Dopamine overtakes are rational mind and affects are emotions when making a purchase. According to researchers it takes 2.5 seconds to make a purchasing decision. Also according to researchers in the area called ‘Brodmann 10’ of our brain is activated when we see products that we think are ‘cool’. It is also where we asses’ products based on their ability to enhance our social status. Lindstorm says ‘As marketers being to learn more about how mirror neurons drive our behaviour, they’ll find more and more ways to play upon them to get us buy’. This however is not only linked to shops and companies trying to get you to buy small goods – the new car smell is another example and one of the oldest tricks in the book to get people to buy a house? The smell of coffee and freshly baked bread.
- In 1957 a market researcher called James Vicary coined the words ‘subliminal advertising’. He claimed that he had placed a mechanical slide projector in the screening room in a cinema that projected the words ‘drink coca-cola’ and ‘eat popcorn’ for 1/300 of a second onscreen every 5 seconds during the showing of the movie Picnic. He then went on to claim that sales of coca-cold increased by 18.1% and popcorn increased by 57.8%. In 1958 the American Television Networks and the National Association of Broadcasters banned subliminal advertising. In 1962 Vicary was challenged to repeat the experiment by Dr Henry Link the president of the psychological corporation, and he did. However this time there was no jump in sales. Why? Because Vicary had made the whole thing up. However the damage was done and people were afraid of ‘subliminal advertising’.The American Psychological Association defined SA as ‘confused, ambiguous and not as effective as traditional advertising’. 1974 subliminal techniques in advertising we banned after a book subliminal seduction was published with the tag line’ are you sexually aroused by this picture’. They were banned because subliminal techniques in advertising whether they worked or not, were ‘contrary to the public’s interest’. SA is officially defined as ‘visual, auditory, or any other sensory messages that register just below our level of conscious perception and can be detected only by the subconscious mind.’ No explicit ban on SA in the US or the UK however anything that ‘might’ constitute a deceptive or unfair practice is banned.
- Harvard experiment: 1999 group of 47 people aged 60-85 gathered to be tested on the power of subliminal suggestions. Series of words were flashed at them while they played a computer game that they were told measured the relationship between their physical and mental skills. Group A were exposed to positive words (wise, astute, accomplished) Group B were exposed to negative words (senile, dependent, and diseased) – the purpose of the experiment was to see if subliminal messages about ageing could affect their behaviour. All participants were measured on walking speed and swing time (standing with one foot off the ground) and it was found that those exposed to positive words improved by almost 10% - therefore it can be concluded that those exposed to positive stereotypes had a positive psychological effect which then improved their physical performance Subliminal messaging when it comes to paying: Happy faces = consumers paying up to twice as much for drinks Angry faces = not as much
- Used another fMRI machine Remember the first experiment - Anti smoking labels = mirror neurons lighting up and craving spots activated. This time he conducted two tests: Test 1 Shown images to do with cigarette brands but with no logos i.e. American west, cowboy on horse, Formula 1 and NASCAR stuff etc All images were associated with cigarette adverts back when governments allowed advertising Test 2 They were shown cigarette advertising images along with logos Want to see if the subliminal images would create the same cravings as images with logos Results: When shown packs of cigarettes, pronounced response in the nucleus accumbens (area for reward, craving and addiction) Shown test 1 = reaction in craving region of brain in less than 5 seconds and more activity in the primary visual cortex. More activity in reward etc region when shown test 1 than test 2 Direct emotional relationship between Formula 1 and NASCAR and cigarettes – consumers were subconsciously linking them Explaining results: Once you see logo you raise your guard you know that cigarettes are bad for you, but no logo = no raising of guard so brain is not on high alert anymore which leads to it responding subconsciously and enthusiastically to what they can see. Companies have successfully by passed government regulations by creating stimuli powerful enough to replace traditional advertising. Logo is 99% dead, logo free advertising is on the rise (Ralph Lauren, A&F etc). Philip Morris company (own Marlboro) pay nightclubs etc to fill their venues with colour schemes, specially designed furniture, ashtrays, suggestive tiles designed in captivating shapes similar to parts of the Marlboro loo and other subtle symbols when combined convey the very essence of Marlboro without the mention of the name. Using have red sofas in front of TVs with scene of the wild west designed to evoke the essence of the iconic Marlboro Man Also big sponsors of Grand Prix and Formula One – convey feelings of risk, cool, youth, dynamism, raciness and living on the edge. Drivers in red jumpsuits, cars painted red.
- We all perform rituals everyday and Lindstorm refers to these as different stages: Getting up and getting ready – preparing for battle Eating meals with others – feasting Making ourselves pretty – sexing up Turning lights off/setting the house alarm etc – protecting yourself from the future Rituals are all to do with gaining control - many you don’t even notice yourself doing – not walking under ladders, avoiding cracks on the pavement, saying bless you to someone sneezing, toasting to good health. Rituals that have stuck with brands: Drinking a Corona with lime – only around since 1981 when a bar man put it in a drink to see if he could get others doing the same. 1990’s Guinness advertising ‘good things come to those who wait’ ‘119.53 seconds for the perfect pint’ – all to convince the English it is worth waiting for. The way you eat an Oreo cookie When Tipperary had no fridges Bulmers was served with a glass of ice – stuck with brand and now advertising uses ‘Bulmers over ice’. Fears: Number 13 in western culture – Brussels Airlines added another star to their logo to make it 14 Air France and KLM don’t have a row 13 Asian cultures have number 4 as unlucky and 8 as lucky. Hotels don’t have a 4th floor, mobile phone providers charge ‘premiums’ for mobiles with the number 8 in them. Kit-Kat is doing extremely well in Japan as it sounds like ‘Kitto-Katsu’ win without fail in Japanese – students eat it before their exams. They are in blue bags to make people think of heaven and now with ‘Prayers to God’ written on it people go online to send their prayers to him on the Nestle website. Superstitions: Dr Bruce Hood (Uni of Bristol) at a British Association Festival of Science in Norwich held up a blue jumper and offered £10 to anyone who would try it on; lots of people put up their hands to say they would he then said it once belonged to Fred West a serial killer believed to have murdered his wife and 12 other women; only a handful of people said they would still try it on; they then tried it on and Hood noticed people started edging away from them; he then told them it didn’t actually belong to Fred West but it didn’t matter.
- Brands also have the 10 common pillars: For example Coke vs. Pepsi – one or other can’t be both – sense of belonging to the ‘club’. Sensory appeal is a big part of the world’s great religions – again how products look. Every successful brand has a story to it – it completes their own meaning. Hooters. Some products inspire wonder just by the scope of their vision i.e. Google maps Evangelism – when Gmail first launched only allowing x number of people to join. Symbols – crosses etc for religion – Nike sign, Apple logo etc etc Mystery – powerful in religion – brand = secret coke recipe; X9 factor in Unilever shampoo in Asia
- Somatic Markers are the reason why you chose something. Its a chain link of concepts and body parts and sensations. Short cut within brain = choosing something faster/remembering not to touch the oven without an oven glove. For example German Cars – somatic marker = reliable, precision, rigor, efficiency etc = purchase of car. Advertisers try to make these by creating surprising and even shocking associations between wildly disparate things; humorous and memorable ads; fear – diet pills can cause a somatic marker - Sony and Spiderman 3 = men’s urinal on the roof of a bathroom
- Can NM help a product succeed, can it help create a product that consumers will like, can it reliably scientifically predict the failure of a brand or product? Experiment to see if the show would air in the us Dec 2006 4 groups of 50 men & women using SST to see if show would be good Half the group shown a show that was a failure (The Swan); second half of group shown a show that was a hit (How Clean is Your House?) to ensure that the results would be accurate To ensure that there was no ‘novelty effect’ of seeing the show for the first time all volunteers were given a DVD 24 hours earlier to watch. Stage One: Given a questionnaire asking how they felt about the shows that they had just seen. Stage Two: SST results Both shows: 50/50 results for volunteers who claimed they would watch either the swan or hciuh, SST results said that they were more emotionally engaged with hciuh than the swan – what does this mean? SST backs up how well the shows actually did Quizmania – questionnaire results shows that as of now they rated it the least likely show they would watch out of both SST Results: Swan/hciuh – front part of brain said that engagement low to moderate, engagement high Quizmania – according to SST they all liked it even though in questionnaire they said the didn’t. Results said the if shown quizmania would be more successful than the swan but less successful that hciuh. It did air in the UK and Aus but its actually off air now…..
- Roughly 1/5 of all advertising today uses overt sexual content to sell its products 2007 experiment in Uni of London Divided a group of 60 young adults into 4 groups 2 groups watched an ep of sex and the city, the other 2 groups watched Malcolm in the middle In the ad breaks one group watched sexually suggestive ads while the other didn’t So what did they remember? Well it turns out the group shown the sexually suggestive ads were not able to remember the ads better than the other group. The group that watched sex and the city actually remembered the ads worse – the researchers concluded that the sexually explicit ads were overshadowed by the show. Another experiment in New England showed that when looking at print ads men looked at the model more – bypassing the logo, brand name etc so much so they couldn’t even recall what product it was for. Only 9.8% of men could recall what the product was for, compared to 20% of men shown none sexual ads. This has been called the ‘vampire effect’ – when the content is taking away from the attention of what the ad is actually trying to say. Sex can be offensive to some people – A&F catalogue got complained about being called soft porn, Dolce and Gabanna ads were critiqued for promoting gang rape etc – however these can be more remember able due to the fact they cause offensive. Its all about the shock value. Ok so now are saying that sex doesn’t sell so what about beauty - are they more effective than using ‘real people’ ? A study in Uni of Florida showed that out of 250 women the more natural, un-made and the more clothes the models had on the more the women related to them. This result is similar to a 2001 survey which said that twice as many people will buy a product if it shows images of love (53%) than if it showed images of sex (26%) Taking all this into consideration we can now see why consumer generated advertising is on the rise. For example the Dove ‘real women’ campaign. Lindstorm says this is a ‘fasinacating marriage between the world of the airbrushed supermodel and the world of the ordinary consumer – a blurry union between perfect and not so perfect’ So if we say we don’t like sexy advertising how is it still selling? This all goes back to chapter three and the effect of the mirror neuron – by simply observing a model doing something , wearing something that we want to wear we will buy it. Its all about ‘wish fulfilment and planting a dream inside someone’s brain’. Lindstorm believes because we have all become so desentualised to sex – it is everywhere now – that advertisers will start to get sneakier in how they use sex in adverts for example he says that they will propose the idea and consumers will take it into their heads