So I love working with non-profits.  The only thing better is working with Social Entrepreneurs and really awesome companies who give back.

That’s why I’m really excited about Roger Dooley’s upcoming webinar on Neuromarketing for Non-Profits.  Tuesday, August 10 at 1PM ET. Roger will be giving tips to non-profits about take-aways he’s learned from Neuromarketing that can be applied to non-profits.

Tuesday, wait, what else is on Tuesdays?

Oh YES, Neuromarketing chat (#nmchat) on Twitter!

Perfect timing.  Attend the webinar at 1PM and then we’ll discuss at #nmchat at 3PM ET.  If you can’t make the webinar, don’t worry, I’ll take lots of notes (though you should try to make it!).

Oh, and we may see an appearance by Mr. Dooley himself at #nmchat —  if he can get out of a phone conference early enough to join us.

*If you’re not familiar with #nmchat, leave a comment and I’ll get you up to speed.

Paul Zak and other researchers do studies to find out why, when, and how Oxytocin is released to better help us understand how humans (and animals) bond.

That’s what this article was about.  Paul Zak’s research.  We are taken through the details of three studies.  It is the third “study” that was picked up by Social Media, right up to the top Honcho Mashable who published a post, “Social Media Increases “Cuddle” Chemical Production in the Brain“.  Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere were ablaze with the idea that using Social Media released the same hormone that makes us fall in love.

Awww.

Too bad that study never happened. That’s right.  That third study was not a study at all.  The author, Adam L. Penenberg, and Paul Zak thought it would be “fun” to run an experiment to see what would happen to Adam’s Oxytocin levels after he spent a few minutes on Twitter. Lo and behold, Adam’s Oxytocin levels went up 13.2% after just 10 minutes spent on Twitter.  And while this is fascinating to consider, ONE test subject who is AWARE of what is being measured and for what reason DOES NOT MAKE A STUDY!

So while it’s a happy little idea that engaging in Social Media raises our levels of the “cuddle hormone”, and maybe even a likely possibility, we just don’t know if that’s actually true or not.

Be careful out there on the Interwebs folks!

New Scientist teamed up with NeuroFocus Europe to test 3 different possible cover designs. 19 male subjects (we won’t discuss the glaring absence of any female test subjects because that’s just irksome) were hooked up to EEGs and shown the three designs.  The below design came out as the winner when tested across various criteria.  Did it light up areas in the brain associated with memory recall, emotional engagement, and attention?

**UPDATE: I found the line up of the three cover designs that were tested.  New Scientist is running a survey to see how readers would respond to the various designs, and you can see them there or below:

WHAT MADE THE WINNER THE WINNER?

Here’s an image of the testing process and results (click for larger image):

But that doesn’t really tell us WHY, does it?  Here are a few of my theories.

Promotes Easy Eye Movement and Focus – Look at each design.  You can literally feel how much easier it is for the eye to move from element to element in the winning design (middle).

Image Dominance – In the winning design the image dominates without obstructing or confusing other elements on the page.  Notice how the image on design 1 makes it more difficult to read the text?  Or how the image on design 3 is smaller and less dominant?

Cognitive Fluency – Both of the above factors along with choice of title text maximizes cognitive fluency.  The design makes it easy to locate and understand what is being presented.

Additional thoughts?

Original is here and hat tip to Roger Dooley.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_GVDoCXCt4

To make things easy for you, I regularly update the Verilliance YouTube Channel with videos relevant to Neuromarketing, Behavioral Economics, etc.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtF13U5t8xE

And I had to wonder…did Old Spice employ Neuromarketing to help create this wildly successful campaign? So I did a little digging.

Here’s the Evidence

I couldn’t find any definitive evidence that Old Spice collaborated with any Neuromarketing firms, but here is what I found.

Wieden & Kennedy is the advertising agency behind the Old Spice Manly Man.  Wieden & Kennedy was also behind the award winning Coke Superbowl ad. Emsense, a Neuromarketing firm, was also brought in on the Coke ad, both to whittle down from the possible creatives to determine which ad would be aired during the Superbowl, and to fine tune the ad with editing that resulted in an engaging ad start to finish.

Procter & Gamble owns Old Spice, and P&G has been named as one of the big brands regularly employing Neuromarketing.  Martin Lindstrom, author of Buyology and Neuromarketing “guru”, has claimed P&G as a client.

So, P&G owns Old Spice and is connected to Neuromarketing and Martin Lindstrom. Wieden & Kennedy is behind the Manly Man campaign and is connected to Coke is connected to Neuromarketing firm Emsense.

When you do the math, probability seems high, doesn’t it?

Regardless -- Here’s What They Did Right

• You-Centric - the ads come out of the gate engaging with the audience directly.  ”Ladies…”   Sit up and pay attention ladies, Manly Man is talking to you.
• Targeted to Women -- Women dominate purchases in their households, including products for their men.  So it makes more than sense to target the sensibilities of women. Manly Man appeals to women not just because he’s attractive, but because he hits on the deeply-wired wishes of women to have a partner who is simultaneously strong (protection and resources for off-spring), and sensitive and attentive (translated -- he’ll stick around for the long haul). It’s sexist, I know, and there’s no way this would’ve flown with most women if it weren’t for the humor.  The conscious mind of women doesn’t need a man to take care of stuff, she is perfectly capable on her own. And this is absolutely true.  However, at the same time, we are wired to seek partners, and the deep primal unconscious has its own wants.
• Storytelling -- the brain loves stories, and the Manly Man tells us a story through language, props, and movement.
• Signature Sounds -- Each little piece of the story of the ads is accompanied by highly recognizable and emotionally evocative sounds, topped off with the famous and updated Old Spice whistle.
• Cognitive Fluency -- Though the ads are fast-paced and a lot happens in a small space of time, it flows and the story is told with both words and visual props making it super easy for the brain to digest and process.
• Alpha Power -- Presence of an Alpha appeals to men and women, even though it simultaneously can induce feelings of discomfort and inferiority. That’s why Old Spice nails it by using…
• Humor -- The tongue-in-cheek humor of the Manly Man disarms any feelings of discomfort for both men and women, allowing both sexes to comfortably envy and identify with the Alpha male.
• Memorable -- The above cocktail of powerful elements means high emotional engagement and attention, increasing the likelihood of the ads, AND the product being committed to memory.
• Personal -- As if the ads weren’t already spectacular and personal, Old Spice took it that extra step up the success ladder right into the blue sky of A W E S O M E N E S S by really making the campaign personal through social media and engagement. Through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, anybody could leave a comment for or ask a question of Manly Man and maybe get it answered in a personalized YouTube video in near turn-around real time.  Genius.  Effing genius.

Did I miss anything?

Would you buy these shoes just because Paris Hilton was holding them or wearing them? According to a new study, you probably wouldn’t run out the door to find them, but you would be more likely to pay attention and remember the shoes.

I like shoes, though probably not as much as “the next girl”.  Honestly, I’m more of a sock gal.

The Dutch team of researchers found that if my favorite celeb were to show up in an ad wearing a funky pair of over-the-knee socks, I would be more likely to snap to attention and remember those socks than if just any attractive woman were wearing them.

When confronted with a celebrity, the team documented heightened activity in a certain part of the brain – the medial oribitofrontal cortex. The same was not observed when pictures of an attractive non-celebrity were presented.

What’s going on here?

Is it that women think celebrities are cool and they want to be like them?  The “fame factor”?

Sort of. Here’s my theory.

One of the most fascinating things about the brain is that it is an organ that runs all by itself, without conscious thought, and that much of the “programming” is quite ancient, established and handed down generation to generation from the time when we lived in groups out in the wild.  It was programmed to interpret stimuli, and to react quickly to much of that stimuli, without having to access timely and costly conscious thought. This means the brain will react to false stimuli, or mimicry, in much the same way it reacts to real stimuli.

All media is mimicry of real stimuli.

Trust, being crucial to our survival as a communal species, is powerful to our brains.  We tend to trust those we know more than we trust strangers (though we trust strangers too, which is why we can so easily be duped by con-men).  Still, we trust what’s familiar, and through technology, celebrities are brought to us in the virtual flesh through televisions, movies, and the internet.  We become familiar with them.  Our brain thinks we know them.

Another thing going on is that as a species we tend to emulate and follow the Alphas in the group.  Again, though celebrities are arbitrary Alphas, our brains don’t know the difference. Our brains are duped into thinking that fame is leadership.  Fame is Alpha.

Harking back to the our early times when we needed the group to survive, Alphas were those in the group willing to take the first step into the dark woods, to poke their stick into that new hole, to drop their toe into those foreign murky waters, to get close enough to sniff the newcomer while the rest of the pack hung back.  So when the Alpha does something new, and it works out for them, we are deeply programmed to follow.  Deeply programmed to let the Alpha lead the way, and to follow them.

How to Use the Fame Factor

Big businesses will do what they will, and they can afford to hire big Hollywood guns.  And they do so at their own risk, since we all know celebrities tend to be narcissists, and narcissists tend to behave poorly in the end.  Small to mid-sized businesses are priced out of using the fame factor, and it’s just as well.  We could all use a little less celebrity worship.

The good news is that there are other more ethical, accessible strategies.  Here are a few suggestions:

• Implement Social Proof with testimonials, social media, audience engagement, etc.
• If you’re lucky enough to have a highly likable, affable team member, make them your spokesperson.  Just be sure they plan on hanging around for a long while.
• Go the way of Geico and create your own lovable character.
• Get your product, service, or cause in front of influencers who are most aligned with what you’ve got to offer.  If they pick it up on their own, this is infinitely better than paying a spokesperson — not because it’s cheaper, but because the endorsement is more honest and believable.

Don’t Fall for Fame

Like it or not, we are deeply, primally wired.  Humans have a tendency to selectively defend their behaviors with this knowledge depending on what they want to keep or throw out, but get immediately up in arms if someone tries to exploit these hard-wired weaknesses.  I get it, and your best defense?  Slow down, take time to think, learn about human behavior so you know what drives you, accept what isn’t harmful to you per se, don’t be afraid of it, don’t be afraid of some fun, and always rememember…Paris Hilton is a media-construct.

You probably can’t answer those questions.  Oh, you think you can, but according to the overwhelming evidence of research, you probably can’t. Why?  Because the brain is a dastardly, clever little organ that likes to play tricks and keep things hidden from you — especially how you really feel and what really drives your behavior.  But researchers have figured out a way to out-trick the brain and predict relationship viability with some clever word association tricks.  The idea being to tease out what’s in the sub-conscious.

Freud would be so proud to know the sub-conscious is making such a powerful come-back.

But what does this have to do with your audience or clients?  That what you think you know, and what your audience or clients tell you? Probably not exactly accurate.  So throw out your traditional questionnaire/interview/feedback models.  You’re wasting your time.  If you really need to know how your audience/clients feel, find more clever ways to uncover what they wish they could tell you but their sub-conscious mind is keeping hidden.   Test actual behavior through split A/B testing and other hard data available to you that show how your audience is actually responding, and then trust that data, not what you want to believe or what your audience wants to believe.  And, of course, stay up to date on studies of human behavior.

]]> http://www.verilliance.com/2010/07/14/252/feed/ 0 http://www.verilliance.com/2010/07/01/the-funny-truth-about-buying-behavior/ http://www.verilliance.com/2010/07/01/the-funny-truth-about-buying-behavior/#comments Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:55:09 +0000 Verilliance http://www.verilliance.com/?p=213 Who needs a complicated blog post to explain how cognitive bias and perception influence our buying behavior when a funny YouTube video sums it up like this?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=trB5CSDmf1E

Want to see more videos on marketing, behavior, and the brain?  See here.

I thought for sure tonight was the night.  I had a busy day, and a couple of time conflicts that were creating hurdles, but I was determined to be there at 7:00 because, well, you seemed so interested.  So I bent time a little and shuffled things enough so that I could clear the deck and be there.   We were just going to chat, nothing earth shattering.

I arrived at a few minutes after 7:00, sure that I was going to be apologizing for being late.  I rushed in a little frazzled around the edges, but ready to go.

And you. weren’t. there.

As the clock ticked the minutes off, I wondered if you were just late, or if you had changed your mind, or maybe something came up unexpectedly.  And I fretted a little.

Oh, I didn’t get stood up on a date, I’m talking about Neuromarketing Chat (#nmchat)!

And technically I didn’t get stood up, everyone was just late.  But it was the same small group.

Neuromarketing chat folks – I know you’re interested in #nmchat because you tell me so every week.  In fact, after every #nmchat with just the few of you that have been there from the beginning, I think to myself that maybe I need to change the time, or throw it out altogether, rethink the delivery model.  But then I get messages and emails and shout outs and questions so I think, no, people are interested so I’ve got to keep it going. Which means, there’s some obstacle that’s causing low attendance.  Here are my theories:

• The time is all wrong wrong wrong.  Maybe Thursday night is your bowling night?  Baseball games?
• You need a reminder before hand because you’re juggling too many things.
• Maybe a tweetchat just isn’t the best venue for this topic.

Here are my proposed solutions:

• New day time schedule for #nmchat.  I’m proposing Tuesdays at 3PM ET.
• I’ll send you a friendly email reminder.  Just DM me with your email.
• Throwing out #nmchat and writing more on the blog, and maybe scheduling Skype chats once a month?

So let me know what you think.  After all, this is for you.  :)