Brain sells: Cutting through the neuromarketing hype

Neuromarketing is sexy. Not only does it involve all sorts of fancy gadgetry, it also produces the kind of insights into what makes us tick that we all enjoy hearing and talking about. The problem is, it’s too sexy. The findings of brain-scanning research often arrive accompanied by a hype that seems unbecoming of science, as well as an aura of certainty that, even when the research appears robust, can leave one feeling suspicious.

That’s not to say that neuroscience isn’t a fascinating field. When our reporter James Verrinder volunteered to have his own brain scanned by NeuroFocus, he was impressed by the power of the technology to reveal things that he wouldn’t have been able to put into words. NeuroFocus’ CEO AK Pradeep is insistent that neuroscience will transform research and marketing, and that the only thing holding most companies back is fear of change. He may be right. But there are reasons the area is regarded by many with caution.

Two years ago Martin Lindstrom published the bestseller Buyology, which saw the author named by Time Magazine as one of the world’s 100 most influential people. The book was based on a major neuroscience study involving more than 2,000 participants.

Lindstrom, like Pradeep, is a slick ambassador for neuromarketing, convinced that we are on the cusp of a revolution. He makes his living as a branding expert and even seems to have branded himself, appearing always in a trademark black shirt. Lindstrom’s book was aimed at a mass audience, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but his willingness to leap from statements about parts of the brain “lighting up” to glib conclusions about what this must mean feels rather unscientific. Although he acknowledges the limits of what we understand about the brain, the book lacks the sense of caution that should result from this. Lindstrom is to be applauded for making Buyology an accessible read, but it’s hard to shake the feeling that something important was lost in the process.

It was also worrying to find that some of the book’s references (in the first edition at least) pointed to blog posts, and in at least one case to a comment posted on a blog by someone who didn’t even give their real name. This unnamed source was being used as evidence for a fairly trivial point about product placement in the movie ET, so it was no reason to doubt the primary research Lindstrom had conducted – but such a haphazard attitude to referencing in a high-profile book on neuroscience was surprising.

Most market researchers, we’re glad to say, are pretty level-headed when it comes to brain science. Graham Page, who heads the dedicated neuroscience practice at Millward Brown, enjoys fancy gadgets as much as the next man, but he knows the importance of keeping a sense of perspective. Page warned at this year’s Research conference that “hype means it is very easy to get carried away with exaggerated claims [for neuroscience]. The results don’t stand on their own: you have to combine this with something else.”

Millward Brown isn’t the only research giant that’s investing in brain science – Nielsen owns a stake in NeuroFocus, and TNS’s shopper research subsidiary TNS Magasin uses mobile brain-scanning devices in its research. But there are plenty of others who think these people are wasting a lot of time and money, and that areas like behavioural economics and social science offer more usable insights – not to mention a lower electricity bill. Doesn’t it make more sense to sit back and let the learnings of neuroscience trickle through into other research practices?

More recently New Scientist dabbled in neuromarketing to help design one of its front covers. The magazine designed three covers and, with the help of NeuroFocus, used electroencephalography to measure the responses of 19 people to the three options and pick the most effective one.

New Scientist reported that the issue carrying the chosen front cover saw a 12% sales uplift compared to the same date last year, but without a control group it’s impossible to tell if this resulted from the impact of the cover or from other factors – such as the publicity the stunt got in publications including the New York Times. Deputy editor Graham Lawton hailed the experiment as “a big success”, but acknowledges that it’s not enough to provide evidence of a causal link, and said the magazine has no plans to repeat it.

Meanwhile AK Pradeep of NeuroFocus, quoted in New Scientist’s press release, claimed the results provided “clear, unmistakable and very public validation for the core science that underlies what we do”. A Research Live reader countered that the results only offered validation that “publicity and word of mouth drive sales”.

New Scientist’s study also raised the hackles of some women readers because all the participants were men (apparently “more meaningful” results can be obtained if all subjects are the same sex). One reader wrote in to ask whether it had occured to the editor that the winning cover “bears a strong resemblance to a woman’s breast”.

Although you’d need a vivid imagination to see a breast in the cover image (which depicts a swirling galaxy), it’s odd that it took a reader to highlight the maleness of the study as an issue.

As it happens, the supposed differences between men’s and women’s thinking and behaviour are one of the topics where neuroscience is most frequently cited, and most frequently attacked. In a new book called Delusions of Gender, psychologist Cordelia Fine takes aim at “neurosexism”, criticising those who misinterpret neuroscience findings in order to sell popular books about why women buy so many shoes, or why men don’t talk about their feelings.

Fine argues that the complexity of the brain “lends itself beautifully to over-interpretation and precipitous conclusions”, feeding existing stereotypes and preconceptions about innate gender differences.

Gina Rippon, professor of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University, agrees that research into sex differences in the brain has often been “misleading and misogynistic”. But it’s not always the fault of the scientists themselves – at least not directly.

Rippon told the BBC’s Today programme yesterday: “Neuroscientists sometimes are naive in respect of the kind of work they do and the potential for it to be misquoted. People who do research into sex differences lay themselves open to what I call the populist books or ‘neurotrash’ where people quickly adapt a particular finding to suit a hypothesis that they’re trying to support without really checking their sources carefully.”

Proponents of neuroscience may be right that its impact is going to be huge. But in the near term they might also want to think about how they and their peers are perceived, what they do to ensure their work is properly interpreted by others, and whether a little restraint might be in order.