"The hope in neuromarketing is that there's some process in the brain that is a better predictor of whether people will actually buy things than what we already have," said Colin Camerer, professor of business economics at the California Institute of Technology.
But is that all there is to neuromarketing?
What is neuromarketing? Neuromarketing is a marketing strategy which focuses on brain chemistry rather than product differentiation. At this point, researchers are using brain scans to determine brain activity during buying decisions ... to supposedly help them predict how one will act. But it could easily go further ... beyond making predictions, to influencing decisions.
Does this sound like an opportunity for mind control to you? As I reflect on it, however, it is a logical outworking of a worldview which assumes several things.
One: the mind is the brain and the brain is the mind.
Two: humans are machines ... complex stimuli-response computers.
Three: the goal of life is the greatest pleasure for the greatest number.
Four: ethical relativism is true.
Given these assumptions, it is perfectly rational for a company to focus their reasearch and marketing dollars on finding neural triggers that they can fire to cause prospects to buy their product or service. It is not manipulation. It is marketing.
It seems to me that given a worldview that assumes these four things to be true, it would be tough to argue persuasively why such marketing tactics would be wrong. Stated differently ... if determinism is true, why not use it to your economic advantage?
I don't share the worldview you spell out there, though I'm closer to it than to yours. But presumably you don't think that this is really a problem; the concept might be objectionable to you, but in practice you think assertion 1 is wrong, so it's not going to work anyway. Correct?
Posted by: Paul | June 03, 2005 at 10:26
Paul,
Correct. I don't think neuromarketing will ever work because I don't think its presuppositions are true.
Posted by: Jeff | June 03, 2005 at 10:39
Jeff:
It's already gotten worse than you think. Watch Section 5.
Posted by: tgirsch | June 03, 2005 at 14:32
If the video doesn't work, see the text on narrowcasting.
Posted by: tgirsch | June 03, 2005 at 14:34
Tom,
I listened to about half of the video [section 5]. It seemed to be more focused on using language to be persuasive ... versus using reasoning and argumentation.
I have studied marketing quite a bit [during my MBA days]. I fully understand trying to be persuasive ... and keying in on certain words and avoiding certain language.
Where neuromarketing goes further, is that it has the goal to go beyond the message to finding ways to push neural buttons to get the desired behavior. That is pure mind control ... but it is a logical result of determinism. Why not find out what inputs are required in order to produce the outputs you want?
Do you think this is ethical?
Posted by: Jeff | June 04, 2005 at 00:29
No, I don't think it's ethical.
They address this, too, in the Frontline special. Basically the whole point is to go for the visceral reaction, to get people to put aside their reason and their critical thinking. It started in advertising, and it's spilling over into politics, with great effectiveness.
And I don't think that's ethical, either. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | June 04, 2005 at 02:08
If we went with your proposal for adverstising ... we might have to throw out 98% of current ads.
Sex sells. Not a lot of critical thinking there ;-)
Posted by: Jeff | June 08, 2005 at 10:37
If we went with your proposal for adverstising ... we might have to throw out 98% of current ads.And this would be bad why? :)
Posted by: tgirsch | June 08, 2005 at 17:15
It is not bad. It just sounds like a comment a conservative Christian might make ;-)
Posted by: Jeff | June 08, 2005 at 17:39
Well, the liberal in me wouldn't ban sex in advertising, nor would it ban humor, which is what a conservative Christian would do. I'd simply ban advertising that is either patently false or highly misleading (which you'd think conservative Christians would be on board with...)
Posted by: tgirsch | June 09, 2005 at 00:21