CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES
June 2009, Vol. 51, No. 5
Although I was never much of a cigarette smoker, I sometimes feel the urge for a Marlboro if I order a drink at a bar. Deep inside me is an association between smoking and social drinking that bypasses my consciousness. I never feel like a cigarette at home, even if I'm sipping a bourbon, and I doubt I could distinguish a Marlboro from a Virginia Slim.Martin Lindstrom wondered why so many product roll-outs fail, despite intensive surveys of potential customers. Consumers say one thing, but do another. Lindstrom concluded that marketers needed more accurate techniques for predicting consumer behavior. He set out to test the effectiveness of “neuromarketing” in a three-year study that employed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and steady-state typography (SST) to test consumer reactions to products.
FMRI and SST identify which parts of our brains are most active at any given time. Since specific brain functions and emotions are associated with particular sectors of the brain, researchers get a good idea of what's going on inside our heads, even when we ourselves don't.
Lindstrom could not understand why smokers do not heed warnings printed on cigarette packages and anti-smoking ads shown on television. Interviews demonstrated that smokers saw the warnings and recognized the dangers of smoking. Neuromarketing tests, however, revealed that anti-smoking messages actually INCREASED cravings for cigarettes. Subjects told researchers that anti-smoking messages caused them to cut back, but the craving area of their brains “lit up” on fMRIs when they viewed anti-smoking ads.
What about “subliminal messages?” Most of us have heard about the theater that boosted refreshment sales by repeatedly flashing on screen, for a fraction of a second, the words “Eat popcorn” and “Drink Coca-Cola” during movies. The flashes were so brief that no one was conscious of them. Although that incident was a hoax, it led advertisers to experiment with more subtle ways to insinuate products into our subconscious. Lindstrom set out to evaluate their effectiveness, again, focusing on cigarettes.
Rather than flash “invisible” instructions to consumers, marketers hide advertisements in plain sight. They carefully cultivate images in their advertisements, then present those images to us in situations that are not overtly commercial. My Marlboro urge may be the result of subliminal advertising. The Philip Morris Company spends much money encouraging owners to decorate their bars as “Marlboro motels.” The decor features color schemes, furniture, fixtures, and accessories associated with the Marlboro brand and its packaging, and images from its old television and print advertisements. Lindstrom showed smokers images that were associated with certain cigarette brands. FMRI results demonstrated that these “non-ads” were MORE effective in stimulating cigarette craving than overt advertisements! Lindstrom speculates that subliminal ads “catch us with our guard down.” While we can protect ourselves somewhat from obvious advertisement, we offer little resistance to ads that do not look like ads. Instead, our brains open wide to subtle messages and subconscious visual associations.
The author was aware of studies that identified recognizable patterns of brain activity that occurred while subjects thought about religious or spiritual experiences. Since many people seem “religiously” devoted to what he calls “strong brands,” he speculated that brain activity in consumers viewing images of such brands might resemble patterns associated with religious thinking. Lindstrom confirmed this theory by comparing fMRI reactions of subjects to strong brands vs. their reactions to weak brands. He noted that advertisers utilize religious-like imagery. He cites the use of “mystery” ingredients and efforts to make consumers feel they are participating in something bigger than themselves (e.g., Weight Watchers, pilgrimage to the Super Bowl). He observes that many products employ a “we vs. them” marketing approach (e.g., Coke vs. Pepsi, PC vs. Mac) and elements of evangelism (e.g., invitation-only promotions used by American Express and Google Gmail to introduce new services). Of course, powerful symbols are common to both religion and advertising (e.g., Apple's logo, McDonald's golden arches). Lindstrom cautions us, however, that logos, generally, do not have the same power advertisers once attributed to them. There are simply too many of them competing for our attention.
So, what kind of marketing might yield the best results in the near future? Lindstrom suggests that the marketing of fear will be the trend. We live in complicated, stressful, and scary times. We crave “solid foundations.” Lindstrom believes that buying things brings us temporary contentment and relief. He reminds us that, after the shock of 9/11, the President sent us all out shopping. Libraries may be able to offer a solid foundation of another sort, a foundation more relevant to a depressed economy—a comfortable place where consumers can “buy” entertainment, education, information, and hope. Or, we can talk bar owners into redecorating with the “library motel” look!
Return to Looking at Books Online