Your Brain on Ads

Hello!

Vanessa is taking a break this week, so the following post comes to you courtesy of me – Katie Norwood. Nice to meet you all!

Vanessa and I were exchanging thoughts last week about a New York Times article that looks at “neuromarketing,” a new science that uses neuroscience to analyze people’s responses to advertisements, products and promotions. Neuromarketing testing techniques are poised to mine the untapped resources of the unconscious to help marketers understand more of what makes consumers tick. Perhaps predictably, marketers have embraced the science, the idea being that by learning how advertisements effect consumers’ brains, they will be able to tap into consumer’s subconscious in order to market more effectively, and sell more products.

Angling to maintain a competitive edge, a number of major corporations including Google, CBS, Disney, Frito-Lay and A&E Television have already embraced the neuromarketing techniques to test consumer impressions and responses. And they’re not alone in their support of the science. Proponents of neuromarketing contend that traditional market research methods are less effective because they are only measure participants’ opinions and impressions on a conscious level; and considering only 2% of the brain’s energy is expended on conscious activity and the rest is mainly devoted to unconscious activity, the importance of exploring the untapped unconscious is certainly significant.

A Controversial Approach

Technologically innovative though it may be, neuromarketing has been met with opposition from some consumer advocate groups, who have been quick to term the technique “brandwashing” – a clever combination of branding and brainwashing. Consumer groups have expressed concerned that the technique could be used to exert excessive influence over the subconscious mind, shaping consumers into robots without their consent and without any regard to the ethical implications of such action. However, as Singer’s article notes, scientists have expressed doubt that neuromarketing can trigger brain activity that can directly influence consumers’ buying behavior. The human brain, it seems, is much too complicated for such trickery.

But if neuromarketing could directly influence consumers’ buying behavior – what would happen then? Perhaps corporations would embrace neuromarketing wholeheartedly. Perhaps, over time, traditional advertising would be deemed outdated and obsolete.

On the other hand, if neuromarketing was able to successfully circumvent adults’ rational mental defenses, it might not be legally protected in the same way that traditional advertising is protected. And it might not be ethical.

What do you think? I’d love to hear what you think – you can reach me here or directly at knorwood@thinkinkpr.com.

In Response to Word Crimes

I received a number of responses to my Committing Word Crime post last week, and not all of them in agreement with me.

My columns are designed to do just that – start dialogue and debate - and confirm why it’s so important not just to provide “how-to” advice, but to delve into deeper issues -- like word usage – for us to think about, and think about how this impacts our (PR) industry and what we do.

This particular column came about from frustration and tiredness. I was reading press release and after press release all using similar “positioning” and opening lines… “XYZ, the leader in XYZ, announces it breakthrough leading-edge innovation platform/solution that will transform XXX.” At the same time, a number of clients insisted upon using hyperbole-laden phrases in their messaging and I just threw my hands up. I thought to myself “every company is now a leader, every company displays thought-leadership. Every company is the first to, blah blah, blah. Where’s the creativity, or differentiation folks?”

It is hard to keep coming up with new insights, and that’s exactly why we are seeing the same words used the way they are. It’s also a reflection of the overwhelming speed of our communication cycle and the volume of content that is being created.

What words can we use that will make the most impact? How can we get through all of this content and information?

It is a struggle, to be sure.

But in this discussion, there’s no right or wrong answer. I do believe, however, that through sheer overuse the value of certain words and phrases becomes diminished. Perhaps you also cringe at the words paradigm, synergistic, and out-of-the-box, that were some of 2004-2005’s buzzwords?

The same thing happens each year, and so most likely we’ll revert to the words we used in 1998-1999 next year, as they’ll feel sort of new again?

As one writer said, "language is to be used." I agree. It just should be used creatively and meaningfully.

In Social Media We Trust?

Marketing companies are now offering a new service: social media coverage in the form of front-page placements on websites like Digg and sponsored tweets from Twitter “power accounts” yielding hundreds of thousands of followers. The cost of this service is cheap and the promised exposure is enticing – but is it all ethical? That is the question asked by Forbes’ Elizabeth Woyke in a recent article, “$240 To Place Story On Digg Front Page: One Marketing Firm’s Pitch,” and it’s not an easy one to answer.

Some have argued against the pay-for-play model that is slowly becoming prevalent across social media networks, but on the other hand, social networks need a way to make money and if companies are transparent in their dealings, is there anything really wrong with this model? As much as social media has been discussed over the past few years, it is still a burgeoning phenomenon. Social media is evolving, and because there is no formal regulation – yet – us marketers are learning and making up the model as we go.

A Mutually Beneficial Relationship

The survival of social media networks is entirely dependent on its users – if there are no users, there is no network. Sites like Digg and Reddit are completely dependent on user-generated content. Meanwhile, companies seeking increased visibility may opt to use PR companies to generate and distribute content on their behalf, or set up a corporate social account in order to share content. Social networks need content and companies want exposure– marketing companies that offer to connect the two are, in a sense, facilitating a mutually beneficial relationship (while charging a fee, of course). Is this not a win-win scenario?

While marketer’s ethical conduct in regards to social media is a topic that is still somewhat new, the issue of pay-for-play in media sponsorships has long been the subject of debate and industry scrutiny. Five years ago, advertisers were faced with considerable pressure as product placements were being written into television and movie scripts. Last year, it was the “Mommy Bloggers” who were called to task failing to be transparent in their product reviews and their “sponsors.”

Relevancy and Transparency

In these dealings, what’s critical is transparency – and relevant, meaningful content. Provided that companies fully disclose that they have sponsored the content, and that the content is useful and interesting, users won’t really care where it is from. The second that consumers believe that they are trying to be swindled by false or inauthentic content, the company’s brand reputation will be shot. Consumers will read sponsored content if it is relevant and engaging – but what they won’t stand for, and shouldn’t stand for, is having their intelligence insulted, free content or not.

What is your view? Do you care if someone has paid to take top-billing on a blog or a social media site if what they are delivering is of use, value or meaning to you?

Location-based marketing is poised for growth

Executive summaries of industry research reports are not necessarily documents one expects to mine for great writing.

But I came across the following sentence good enough to “borrow” in a recent report by market researcher Borrell Associates:

“Mobile marketing is where Web marketing was in about 1996: plenty of excitement, lots of experiments, general agreement that it will be Really Big, but not much data to provide visibility into how it will all unfold.”

OK, maybe it is not Hemingway, but I thought it was spot-on.

Locating potential
I also thought this sentiment was particularly apt for location-based mobile marketing and advertising, which this publication and others has been touting as the next big thing in the mobile landscape for some time.

Now, with the news awash in reports of Starbucks and L’Oreal entering into a six-month trial with O2’s location-based mobile advertising service, it seems like location-based marketing is finally starting to unfold.

Starbucks and L’Oreal: that is big. But is it the Really Big that we are talking about? And if not, what will it take to get there?

The fact that these brands are gearing up to participate in location-based marketing is indicative of the strategy’s potential.

Certainly, this potential has driven interest in location-based marketing since technology first enabled the prospect of it.

Reaching consumers where they are most likely to commit to a purchase, at the precise time they are in the proximity? And circumventing the time and distance inherent to most traditional marketing and advertising which targets consumers mostly in the home?

Why would marketers not jump at that opportunity?

Continue reading here.

Committing Word Crime

This article originally appeared in MediaPost on November 10, 2010
Perhaps it's a little early for the annual Best Of/Worst Of lists, or a look back over the year just squandered. But why wait until December or even January to protest the overuse and abuse of words whose meanings have been diluted and diffused with every re-churned blog post, hash tag, social media release or hyperbole-laden marketing/PR piece?

Don't get me wrong, I love a good metaphor as much as the next writer, but can we push the envelope just a bit farther? Yes, it seems we can and so I would like to propose a collaborative effort with MediaPost readers to create an extensive list of the most meaningless words of 2010.

Following is my "starter-kit" of most meaningless word usage this year - your comments and additions are welcomed.

1. Leading
Add "thought leader" into this mix. Firstly, who decides this? Is there a contest? And who is on the panel? At least "4 out of five dentists" leaves room for discourse. Until there are legal ramifications for falsely claiming "leader," it is quite meaningless and nobody is fooled (for long).

I propose to replace this with thought-trailers; those who pick up the crumbs of the thought-leaders and do something useful with them. I also call it the "Hansel and Gretel method of creativity."

2. Social media
Although it's a useful "platform" (see #7) can we please stop talking about it now? Even my 87-year-old granny in Bulgaria has a profile, so cut it out. Now, show me the companies that are managing their social media presence in a meaningful, measurable and profound way, then we'll talk. In the words of my hero Anthony Bourdain, "Social Media This!"

Which brings us to ...

3. Strategic
Whose meaning is generally not stretched. Its usage does adhere to the literal definition, but like solution, it has meandered into the buzzword arena and through sheer overuse fails to instill confidence. To a word-weary customer, it could well flip on the trickery switch. Use sparingly.

4. Cutting-edge
Everything is cutting-edge, stop insulting our intelligence.

5. Offline
Simply put, this means "in reality." This becomes confusing to those of us who spend so much time here online (where the really interesting things happen.) The other day I had the pleasure of being driven as opposed to driving, and so could enjoy the scenery. Gazing out the window, I marveled at how three -- dimensional the clouds looked - until the driver kindly pointed out that they appeared that way because they actually were three dimensional -- in reality. I should be driven more often, it's enlightening.

6. Apps
More lazy nomenclature. MIS-apps? Per-apps? ...Apples? What's 3 more syllables in the great scheme of things? Find the time folks, find the time.

To continue reading, click here.

Communicate or Die Mr. President

In the vein of all things political this week, I've been looking at the impact of paid media on the elections. No need to point out that the Dems got absolutely hammered by digruntled voters. But was it the misleading ads, the relentless tea party coverage and the extreme soundbytes from the extreme right polluting our eardrums that have contributed -- to what I believe -- is a temporary demise?

Or could our polarized, 24-hour/cable news cycle have tipped voters over the edge?

Or perhaps it was the billions of dollars that under-the-radar orgs like
American Action Network, or American Crossroads pumped into the most heinous ad
campaigns that, anywhere else, would have led to massive libel suits?

The answer is all of the above. And more still, the lack of communication from Mr. POTUS and Co.

Like millions of Americans, I fell in love with the new vision being sold to us in 2008. I don't believe that vision has changed drastically. But what's clearly lacking is communication from the White House - and from our President.

Working in PR, I know too well that when a company you work with cuts back on the communication, or "goes dark" for a while, this is exactly the time that eager competitors pounce - and find their spot in the limelight. Sometimes deservedly so, other times not.

We've seen that spending $140 million doesn't assure a win (too bad Ms.Whitman), but consistent communication does.

So Mr. President, here's my PR advice to you right now.

Communicate with your people, or die.

Because sorry won't be good enough in 2012.

No Frills Language

I subscribe to a great blog, "Life In the Boomer Lane." Her posts are just
hilarious and deliver a lovely little dose of reality every day, or so.

I'm not in the boomer lane just yet but seem to share and/or relate to some
of this blogger's experiences. I've always felt I was an older person trapped in
a younger body.Proof perhaps?

One of Renee's posts last week had me in absolute hysterics - Six Word Memoirs.
Apparently the AARP recently published memoirs from the senior community. Hers
was a cracker, but the premise of such an exercise got me thinking about the
current trajectory of our language, being reduced to 140 characters, or short
bytes that can be digested in 30 second spans - the most time that people have
available before moving to the next post.

In other words, stripping everything superfluous, discarding the verbose
and really, communicating in the most rudimentary way. It can be unintelligible
and selfish at times. No frills indeed.

I will be exploring the meaning of words - the frilly and not so - in my next
MediaPost column, but in the meantime here are a few of my six word memoirs:

- Started way too young, oh well.
- Ahead of my time. Cliche? Yes.
- Still learning to walk the walk.
- Lots of frequent flier points accumulated
- Tinting hasn't affected my brain cells (I cheated here)
- Round the way girl lived here.
- Most obnoxious line used, "Google Me!"

What are your six words?