One of the most repeated words lately in studies and analyzes that seek to help marketers is neuroscience. Neuroscience, and much more specifically neuroscience applied to marketing, neuromarketing, has become a kind of magic wand, an element that has quickly entered the favorites list and is used more and more to connect with the hearings.
Neuroscience’s secret to success in the marketing world is not so successful. Why have marketers become enthusiastic about this tool and its applications? Dominican Republic Phone Number List On the one hand, science is always a kind of safe value, because it offers data and guidelines that are taken for granted that they are contrasted safe. That is to say, everything that has the stamp of the scientific is seen as, in a certain way, more reliable. On the other hand, neuroscience starts from an element that makes it even more striking, since it helps to understand what happens in the consumer’s brain and, therefore, to better understand what their intentions are and the elements that drive their decisions about purchase.
But is the marketing universe starting to rely too heavily on neuroscience and should they start questioning what they are doing? There are more and more voices critical of neuromarketing, which invite us to reflect a little more about it and its potential.
One of the latest alerts has come thanks to two specialists from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, Rachel Kennedy and Haydn Northover, who have concluded that marketers should be more vigilant and be more careful before they go en masse to use the latest discoveries and tools of neuroscience in your work in marketing. And, as the experts explain, although traditional measurement systems have been too scarce on many occasions, this does not necessarily imply that neuroscience has become a kind of infallible guide that occupies that space. Experts acknowledge that neuroscience offers new possibilities, but remember that it is no longer a ‘holy hand’.
What is the main criticism that these experts make of neuroscience?
The key is that at the moment there is not yet a kind of infallible key to interpret the information. The data have to be interpreted, which causes a risk factor to be introduced, and the different analysis tools can therefore give different results in the face of the same reality.
It is not the only criticism they point to. Likewise, they also remember that the world of neuromarketing is not very transparent at the moment, which means that there is a certain misinformation when it comes to analyzing what the different providers do.
The neuroscientific bubble
On this last point, the truth is that it is not the first complaint or criticism made to the emerging world of neuromarketing. Another industry analyst pointed out not long ago that the market was filling with tools that use neuroscience as a claim to position themselves, but whose real science is quite questionable. The market is given over to a kind of ‘neuromania’, he pointed out, which has pushed neuroscience to trivialize and to not only be used to analyze anything and almost in any way but also to be used to sell practically everything.
In fact, the weight of this ‘neuromania’ is already so high that the neuro discourse has already entered the mass media and the resources that brands use to connect directly with consumers. That is, it is no longer just about what matters when doing your own work, but it has become one more element of communication with which you want to reinforce a certain brand value. The neuroscientific serves both to sell ‘brain training’ games and to convince of the benefits of a car (‘neurotics’ there are already those who call it), in advertisements with more than questionable messages.