Redefining neuromarketing as an integrated science of influence

Abstract

Multiple transformative forces target marketing, many of which derive from new technologies that allow us to sample thinking in real time (i.e., brain imaging), or to look at large aggregations of decisions (i.e., big data). There has been an inclination to refer to the intersection of these technologies with the general topic of marketing as “neuromarketing”. There has not been a serious effort to frame neuromarketing, which is the goal of this paper. Neuromarketing can be compared to neuroeconomics, wherein neuroeconomics is generally focused on how individuals make “choices”, and represent distributions of choices. Neuromarketing, in contrast, focuses on how a distribution of choices can be shifted or “influenced”, which can occur at multiple “scales” of behavior (e.g., individual, group, or market/society). Given influence can affect choice through many cognitive modalities, and not just that of valuation of choice options, a science of influence also implies a need to develop a model of cognitive function integrating attention, memory, and reward/aversion function. The paper concludes with a brief description of three domains of neuromarketing application for studying influence, and their caveats.

Welcome to the jungle! The neuromarketing literature through the eyes of a newcomer

“…The most well-established issue is one of reverse inference, which our analysis found to be indeed mentioned as a problem by several conceptual neuromarketing papers (e.g. Breiter et al, 2015;Reimann et al, 2011;Plassmann et al, 2012;Plassman et al, 2015). However, while conceptual neuromarketing work does refer to this issue, it is rarely mentioned as a potential limitation of the reviewed empirical neuromarketing work.…”

“…Becker and Cropanzano, 2010;Becker, Cropanzano and Sanfey, 2011;Butler and Senior, 2007), and there are a reasonably large absolute number in neuroeconomics, a larger proportion of space in these disciplines is given over to theoretical debates as cited earlier, as well as developing frameworks of how neuroscientific research approaches can inform theory development. Marketing scholarship seems to have been rather shy of developing such frameworks, with but a single paper (Breiter et al, 2015) claiming to use neuroscientific principles to develop a framework of marketing itself as a discipline. Again, this seems like a missed opportunity.…”

“…A separate database was created for each type of research paper and information was include articles that develop a conceptual framework for the field of neuromarketing (Breiter et al 2015), or develop a theory in traditional marketing areas, such as branding, that lends itself to empirical testing with neuroscientific methods (Schmitt, 2012). Papers in the Critical !…”

Neuroethics: the institutionalization of ethics in neuroscience

“…Educational methodologies and curriculum proposals have been founded upon the knowledge derived from neuroscience 10,14 . Research studies in neuromarketing have investigated consumer preferences using brain-imaging technologies such as fMRI in support of advertising and product marketing campaigns 15 . Major companies such as Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook have created new products based on consumer preferences based on studies of neuromarketing 11,15,16 .…”

“…Research studies in neuromarketing have investigated consumer preferences using brain-imaging technologies such as fMRI in support of advertising and product marketing campaigns 15 . Major companies such as Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook have created new products based on consumer preferences based on studies of neuromarketing 11,15,16 . Similarly, judicial decisions, such as the form and extent of punishment, have been influenced by the knowledge derived from neuroscience 12,13 .…”