There is an argument championed by Dr AK Pradeep, one of the world's leading neuromarketing experts, that he articulates in this way: 'I bet you, long ago if you looked at cave paintings, there were a bunch of Cro-Magnon men and women sitting around a fire in focus groups wondering whether or not to hunt mastodon that night. Today our focus groups are no different.'
In 2005, Pradeep acted on his opinion that focus groups and surveys are a primitive tool by establishing NeuroFocus, a company that works with brands to better understand consumers' thoughts, emotions and behaviour by examining their brains.
NeuroFocus gained significant credibility in May when it was acquired by leading research company Nielsen. While neuromarketing is widely used, however, discourse about this often controversial discipline has been limited, and brands have, so far, not been open about their use of it in their quest to understand the consumer's brain.
Subconscious mind
'Neuroscience tries to get closer and closer to where the action happens,' says Pradeep. 'What does a brand really mean in the deep subconscious mind? Everyone talks about a brand, but nobody has touched it, nobody has felt it. It seems to be a collection of perceptions and feelings in the consumer's mind, and that's where the journey starts, long before you actually touch a product. Understanding what the journey is and where the brand sits in the deep subconscious mind is important.'
Neuromarketing measures three core metrics: attention, emotional engagement and memory. To do this, neuromarketers can strap electrodes to the heads of volunteers to measure the brain activity prompted by different sensory experiences.
It then places the findings within three core parameters: purchase intent, novelty and comprehension. All of this should result in identifying what Pradeep calls 'iconic signatures' of brands. This is where consumers react positively to a specific aspect of the brand, which should inform companies about how to take the proposition to market.
According to academic Hilke Plassmann, in 2000 there were five neuromarketing companies in existence, whereas today there are 150. She also points out that, in 2000, there were 12 Google hits for the search term 'neuromarketing', compared with more than 320,000 today, and contrasts this with the relatively few published scientific papers purporting to understand the benefits of neuromarketing.
This is a problem that has not been properly highlighted in the industry, argues Dr Daniel Mullensiefen, lecturer at the department of psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, who also works with ad agency DDB to bring a scientific approach to its work.
'There are many people out there making a fast buck by selling dodgy research to brands,' argues Mullensiefen. 'There is potential in the techniques of neuromarketing, but academics and brands need a greater understanding of it. They have seen a niche and hijacked this gap in the market at the same time that few new learnings about neuromarketing are emerging. I'm not saying there's nothing in neuromarketing, but there is a hype that we need to get to the bottom of.'
Academic credentials
Pradeep, however, is determined. Marketing meets him at NeuroFocus' UK headquarters in London's Covent Garden, just a few hours before he delivers a keynote speech to the Royal Institute of Great Britain at The Royal Albert Hall. It is clear, with academic credentials including a PhD in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, and professional achievements such as being named Person of the Year at the USA India Business Summit in 2010, that Pradeep does not fit Mullensiefen's stereotype.
Indeed, Pradeep insists that the argument that neuromarketing is a bona fide marketing technique has already been won. 'If I measure your temperature and then we discuss what the reasons are for the temperature being as it is, that is a proper debate. If the debate is about the measurement itself, that is the wrong debate. So the lovely thing that neuromarketing has done is provide that measurement, and now we can focus on things we should debate,' he says. 'This is the first time science has marched into the area, and it's spreading light in a dark room.'
Assuming for a moment that the argument has indeed been won, what can brands expect to achieve through neuromarketing?
'One of my clients trying to sell milk experimented with various imagery - farms, grass, hay, barns, farmers,' says Pradeep. 'The one that always wins out is cows. Somehow the source of a product is more evocative in the deep subconscious than anything else. This is something we've learned through neuromarketing.'
He also highlights Jo Malone as a great example of a brand that understands how to market to the 'buying brain'. The perfume brand often pictures product ingredients that, Pradeep says, trigger positive emotions in the brain.
'It is far more effective to advertise perfume by highlighting the source, rather than a man and a woman in a passionate embrace,' he argues.
Of course, neuromarketing is far more advanced than simple insights such as the 'primacy of source'. Pradeep has written extensively on the best ways to engage with older people, pregnant women and most other demographics. His argument that chemicals change the way the brain operates at various life stages is central to the application of neuromarketing.
Explaining creativity
Meanwhile, Mullensiefen argues (along with ad research firm Ipsos ASI - see box, right) that, while science has a place in marketing, neuroscience is not always the appropriate approach. He works with DDB to bring a balance to the creativity of agencies and consults on business pitches, aiming to add scientific rigour.
'Ad agencies are usually quite creative, but the thing that creatives can't always explain is why things work and what impact it will have,' says Mullensiefen.
DDB picked up the pan-European ad account for pudding and baked-goods brand Gu last December. Science was an unlikely ally in helping the agency land the business and Gu better understand its customers.
Having run through DDB's pitch for the work, Mullensiefen picked up on several points linked to consumers' reaction to chocolate, a core flavour across Gu's product range. Consequently, instead of playing on the 'guilty' theme of tucking into a chocolate 'treat', DDB made the proposition more positive and light-hearted, resulting in the 'Give in to Gu' positioning.
When it comes to neuromarketing, there are few case studies available, and brands remain reluctant to admit to using the technique to improve their marketing effectiveness. Pradeep puts this down to his clients not wanting to give up a competitive advantage over rivals, insisting that, when brands build their own neuromarketing labs, they don't want competitors to know about it.
Mullensiefen takes the line that brands must publish results, even if they are delayed by a couple of years, so that they can be scrutinised by peer review.
'It has to be established that neuromarketing delivers proper results,' he argues. 'That hasn't happened yet. Results need to be published openly and companies acting commercially must publish their studies, otherwise there is a lack of verification and analysis of data.'
While the industry has been carried away with the growth in neuromarketing, there undoubtedly remain some unanswered questions about the veracity of results. As far as Pradeep and other neuromarketing practitioners are concerned, however, the important factor is that, at last, brands are moving on from the Stone Age in their quest for truly useful consumer insight.
EXPERT COMMENT - Which techniques are best for measuring emotional response?
Keith Glasspoole, Deputy chief operating officer, Ipsos ASI
EEG - where electrodes are placed on the head to measure brain activity - seems a logical approach. To measure brain activity, put something on the head - right? Not necessarily.
Typically, we want to use neuroscience to understand emotional response, not what people are thinking. EEG provides valuable information, but it can read activity only 2cm deep into the cortex. The emotional centres lie much deeper in the brain. Furthermore, opinion is divided on the best way to execute EEG for marketing research.
Biometrics is a more appropriate way to gauge emotion - it measures the effects of brain activity in the body. When we are emotionally engaged, there are a range of physiological responses, such as the heart beating faster.
Biometric measurement is also less obtrusive. Respondents wear a belt around the chest and a sensor on the finger, but it's easier to 'forget' you are wearing those than that you are attached to electrodes.
In effect, EEG measures cognition, but we can already do that with survey research. Biometrics measures more effectively whether emotional response occurs. When this is backed by survey research, we can understand how, why and what difference it makes to brands.