Search This Blog

CCE in brief

My photo
Recovering backpacker, Cornwallite at heart, political enthusiast, catalyst, writer, husband, father, community volunteer, unabashedly proud Canadian. Every hyperlink connects to something related directly or thematically to that which is highlighted.
Showing posts with label Neuromarketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neuromarketing. Show all posts

Monday, 27 January 2014

On Accountability and Doing Jobs Well






Absolutely true.  Anybody can lobby government over issues or bugaboos.  We're all equal, right?  It just happens that the best lobbyists are highly strategic, connected and know exactly the right buttons to push.  Much like the Political Parties they cut their teeth in, these super-lobbyists build coalitions of support, identify and mitigate potential threats and spin like crazy to get what they want.  That's why they get paid the big bucks.


Not responsible for the actions of staff, but responsible for getting a thorough understanding of consequences and planning for fallout accordingly.  Gotcha.  So from whom do they get that thorough understanding again?

Don't worry about it.  Just have a glass of milk instead - it does the body good, doncha know.

Friday, 30 August 2013

Context Marketing and Microtargeting

Political micro targeting is a variant of this theme - though really, it kinda ignores the "context" part.
 
People focus more on what they want than what they need; nothing special about this, it's just biology.  Our body sends us signals indicating feelings that we have to interpret as Requests For Action; we may want a burger because we're in the mood, but what we need may be iron.  It's the external flavour bits worked into the product that give us a narrower craving, which of course is a result of product design and marketing.
 
Same with politics.  We may want to hear strictly about what politics has to do with what we feel is directly relevant to us - say, crime and punishment policy.  What we need, though, is to have the proper context - what are the cognitive determinants of criminal behaviour?  How does social development impact that process?
 
When we have blinders on, someone behind us gets to dictate our direction.  Add context and you get better choices.
 
Being the one who provides context - who is able to marry both wants and needs - now that's adding value. 
 
And value sells
 
 

Context Marketing Is Newest Social Media Buzz

 
When you put a noun in front of “marketing,” you get a new trend, #RockHot topic and buzzword. I’ve said that in a blog post or two. It was bound to happen sooner or later – content marketing is being dethroned. Instead of content, insert “consumer.”

Consumer is king and content is queen.

We bloggers and content marketers are the royal subjects to none other than the king. In this case, that’s the consumer, our community, our followers, engagers, lurkers, subscribers, and readers.
It is our inherent duty to deliver relevant and remarkable content our king can use. When a consumer shares and comments on the content you create, then you’ve done your duty. You can remain in the monarchy.
I bet you’ve gotten bored with the “content is king” mantra, too. So, it was no surprise that “context” has become the latest trend on the ‘sphere.

What Is Context Marketing?

I am a HubSpot user; aiming for that digital marketing certificate to put a label on my educational investment this year. When you do inbound marketing, you first must know your buyer persona. Who is most likely to purchase your services or product? What are the demographics around them?
With that knowledge, you begin to feed appropriate content that matters to your prospects. Give them what they need at their doorstep.
• Use RSS feeds to deliver relevant blog posts.
• Build your email marketing list and develop solid content in newsletters.
• Engage at a higher level with even higher level professional content.
• Become the authority for your audience with remarkability.
You’re likely already doing context marketing. Now, you just need to be aware of its cognitive definition.
Give consumers what they need, in the best place at the right time.
Are you already using context marketing?
 
This article “Context Marketing Is Newest Social Media Buzz” first appeared on Soulati

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

Food cravings engineered by industry (Kelly Crowe)

 

Food cravings engineered by industry

How Big Food keeps us eating through a combination of science and marketing

 
Standing in her kitchen in downtown Toronto chopping vegetables for dinner, Pat Guillet is aware she has entered the battleground.
 
"Whenever you go grocery shopping, or into your kitchen, you're in a war zone. You have to really be prepared before you go in," she said. She decides, in advance, exactly what she's going to eat, and she forces herself to stick to the plan. Because she knows she is just one sweet mouthful away from a descent back into hell. Pat Guillet is a food addict.
 
"I ate to the point it hurt to move. And I would just lie in my bed and wish I was dead," she said. She has finally wrestled her addiction under control and now she counsels other food addicts to avoid processed food. "Yeah, just the sight of the packages will trigger cravings," she said.
 
Craving. It doesn't just happen to food addicts. Most people have experienced the impulse to seek out and consume a favourite packaged snack food. On one billboard, recently put up in Toronto, the intention to make you reach for another one is prominently declared, in large letters that tower over the city street. It's a picture of a box of crackers, and the promise "You'll be back for more."
  • Bliss point
  • Burn
  • Crunch
  • Flavour trail
  • More-ishness
  • Mouth feel
  • Sensory specific satiety
  • Vanishing caloric density
  • GLOSSARY: 8 terms used by the industry when engineering processed foods (iStock)
  • Bliss point: The optimal amount of sweetness added to a product before it tastes too sweet. For instance the sweetness in ketchup or tomato sauce. (iStock)
  • Burn: Low-level pain created by spicy foods such as chili. It produces endorphins and increases pleasure. (iStock)
  • Crunch: Describes the physical force required to bite into food like potato chips and the sound produced by chewing. Crunch affects how fresh food is perceived to be. (iStock)
  • Flavour trail: The sensory "message" (or quickly fading after-taste) that is meant to stimulate the senses and enhance more-ishness. Diet pop drinks are often formulated this way. (iStock)
  • More-ishness: The response that makes a consumer desire more of a product. A food that promotes more-ishness keeps consumers coming back for more, such as reaching for another chocolate chip cookie. (CBC)
  • Mouth feel: Typically associated with fat, this term is used to describe the texture of a food like chocolate and its ability to spread and reach flavour receptors. (iStock)
  • Sensory specific satiety: A flavour or texture that leads the consumer to feel full or lose interest in the product, such as carrots. This is the enemy of more-ishness. (Matthew Mead/Associated Press)
  • Vanishing caloric density: Term associated with foods that quickly melt in the mouth, such as Cheez-Its. This tricks the brain into thinking it has not consumed calories. (CBC)
1 of 9
They know you will be back, because they've done the research necessary to make it happen.
"These companies rely on deep science and pure science to understand how we're attracted to food and how they can make their foods attractive to us," Michael Moss said.
 
The New York Times investigative reporter spent four years prying open the secrets of the food industry’s scientists.
 
"This was like a detective story for me, getting inside the companies with thousands of pages of inside documents and getting their scientists and executives to reveal to me the secrets of how they go at this," he said. What he found became the title of his new book, Salt, Sugar Fat: How the food giants hooked us.
 
"I was totally surprised," he said. "I spent time with the top scientists at the largest companies in this country and it's amazing how much math and science and regression analysis and energy they put into finding the very perfect amount of salt, sugar and fat in their products that will send us over the moon, and will send their products flying off the shelves and have us buy more, eat more and …make more money for them."
 
It's not surprising to Bruce Bradley. He's a former food industry executive who spent 15 years working at General Mills, Pillsbury and Nabisco, and ran some common food brands including Honey Nut Cheerios and Hamburger Helper. But one day he discovered he couldn't do it anymore.
"There were certainly times that I felt uncomfortable or troubled by what I was doing," he said. "I think that’s ultimately one of the reasons why I left the industry. As you start to get glimpses of products and you understand better how consumers are using them, and then you see trends like obesity and health issues that are increasing, mainly driven by the food we eat, it was hard for me not to just take a more thorough assessment of what I was doing."
 
Now he writes a blog, critical of the food industry.
 
"I decided to step out and ultimately speak out in hopes of bringing more awareness to the issue," he said. "What we eat and drink from a lot of these big food and beverages companies isn't that good for us and we should reconsider it,” he said. "These products are designed to keep you coming back to eat more and more and more. They're trying to increase their share of your stomach."
 
Pat Guillet said it's hard to overcome the addictive appeal of processed foods like ice cream.Pat Guillet said it's hard to overcome the addictive appeal of processed foods like ice cream. (CBC)
 
A Google search of the patents held by the food industry provides a glimpse of the complex technical engineering that goes into building a simple cracker. Scan the scientific journals, or read the food industry publications and a picture emerges of an army of chemists, physicists and even neuroscientists, all working to make sure you want a second cookie.
 
And to understand the research, you need to speak the language. There's 'mouth feel,' 'maximum bite force,' and the important concept of 'sensory specific satiety,' the rate at which a food product loses its appeal as it is being eaten.
 
"That's an expression that says when food has one overriding flavour, if it’s attractive, it will be really attractive to us initially, but then we'll get tired of it really fast," Moss said. "And so these companies make a concerted effort to make their foods not bland, but really well blended."
 
That's so people don't get too full too fast, and stop eating too soon. "If the taste builds too much, consumption will stop … and snacks need to be eaten non-stop until the packet is finished," Thorton Mustard wrote, back in 2002. He was a food industry consultant who revealed, early on, some of the secrets of the food industry, in a book called The Taste Signature Revealed. He wrote that fullness or satiety, is "quite a serious enemy for a product."
 
Mustard claimed he could help food companies design foods that were guaranteed to be "more-ish," which he defined as a quality that made a consumer want to eat more. It helped, he advised, if the food was easy to chew.
 
"If people had to chew the food to extract the flavour enjoyment, it would take longer to eat, be better digested, and the feeling of being full reached far sooner. People would need to consume less," he wrote.
 
Thornton Mustard has retired and couldn't be reached for comment, but Chris Lukehurst is continuing his work through The Marketing Clinic, the consulting company that Mustard founded.
 
"So people read that book, and we've been contacted by people saying, can you really do this? Because we’ve got a problem and we think you can solve it," Lukehurst said.
 
On the art of "more-ishness," Lukehurst explained it this way. "Some products, like most savoury snack products, want to be continually more-ish, so at the end of each product, they want you to reach out for the next product and put it in again, and they often achieve that by having an intense taste at the front of the mouth, and that dies off quickly, and so by the time you’ve finished each mouthful, you're looking to re-taste what you've lost."
 
Chocolates tend to be round to create a pleasant, melting sensation in the mouth.Chocolates tend to be round to create a pleasant, melting sensation in the mouth. (Martial Trezzini/Keystone/Associated Press)
 
The crunch is also crucial, Lukehurst said. "It's partly the noise, the noise amplifies, through the jaw bones connected to your ears, and you can hear the crunch quite loudly when you bite. But it's also the physical requirement to chew on something and crunch it. It just distracts you and pours your mind onto what you’re eating."
 
The importance of "crunch" was confirmed in a study funded by Unilever where the scientists tested whether people's perception of a chip was altered by the sound it made when they bit into it. The researchers concluded that "the potato chips were perceived as being both crisper and fresher when … the overall sound level was increased," indicating another possible way to control the perception of the product, although, the authors wrote, "consumers are often unaware of the influence of such auditory cues."
 
It also helps if the food dissolves quickly in the mouth, tricking the brain into believing that no calories have been ingested. It's called "vanishing caloric density."
 
"What happens is that your brain gets fooled into thinking the calories have vanished and you’re much more apt to keep eating before the brain sends you a signal …you've had enough," author Michael Moss said.
 
The ultimate goal is the bliss point. "The company's researchers have learned to study their products, fiddle with the formulas until they hit that very perfect spot of just enough and not too much sugar to create what they call the bliss point," he said.

Melt-in-the-mouth appeal

Food scientists have even studied the architecture of the mouth. In a paper published in the Journal of Biomechanics, scientists from the Nestlé Research Center examined the "detection mechanisms in the oral cavity," to study how well the mouth could detect the thickness of a plastic disc placed on the tongue. The researchers created a model that would predict the load exerted on the disc when it was deformed by the tongue.
 
Three years later, Nestlé announced a new chocolate with a shape based on the geometry of the mouth, that hits "certain areas of the oral surface, improving the melt-in-mouth quality while simultaneously reserving enough space in the mouth for the aroma to enrich the sensorial experience," the press release announced.
 
It's a clue to understanding why chocolates tend to be round. It seems consumers don’t enjoy a piece of chocolate as much if it has sharp edges. "Absolutely, we're looking for chocolate to be comforting, to be a really pleasant, lovely experience in the mouth," Chris Lukehurst said. "Melt is a very soft, soft experience, and if it's got sharp corners, you're really spoiling that and setting the consumer on edge slightly, before they get the melt. Much better if it’s nicely rounded and they’re already comforted and enjoying it first."
 
And whatever happens on the tongue triggers a response in the brain. That's why neuroscience is the next frontier for the food industry. Francis McGlone was a pioneer when he left academia to work for Unilever, one of the world's largest food companies, back in 1994.
 
"I think I was the leading edge of something which I think is going to become far more prominent," McGlone said. After more than a decade of industry research, he's back in academia, but he remembers his time in the food industry fondly. "As a basic neuroscientist, I was able to look at the mechanisms that drove preference for various types of food," he said.
 
What are those drivers of food preference, in McGlone's opinion? His answer sounded familiar. "I am afraid we find high fat, high sugar, high salt foods very appealing," he said.
 
"Salt, sugar and fat are the three pillars of the processed food industry," Michael Moss said. "And while the industry hates the world 'addiction' more than any other word, the fact of the matter is, their research has shown them that when they hit the very perfect amounts of each of those ingredients … they will have us buy more, eat more."
 
When Moss began working on his investigation into the science of food processing, he was sceptical of concept of food addiction. "Until I spent some time with the top scientists in the U.S. who say that yes, for some people, the most highly loaded salty, sugary, fatty foods are every bit as addictive as some narcotics," he said.
 
Francis McGlone made a similar point in a television program for the BBC, when he put a British chef into a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine, (an fMRI), fed him chili, and took images of his brain, which showed how the burn from the chili peppers triggered the release of endorphins. "The consequence of that low level of pain is that it floods the brain with its own natural opiates, so you can see another way of kicking up a pleasure system," McGlone said.
 
But many ingredients in processed food have nothing to do with taste. They're there to reproduce a certain texture, to control the moisture level, to keep the various ingredients from separating and spoiling during the months that they will sit on the shelves.
 
Food companies seek the perfect spot of just enough  sugar to create what they call the bliss point, says author Michael Moss. Food companies seek the perfect spot of just enough sugar to create what they call the bliss point, says author Michael Moss. (Naum Kazhdan via Pulitzer Prize Board/Associated Press/New York Times)
 
"Absolutely, that's essential to the processed food industry, that their food be able to remain in a warehouse, in shipping, and then in the grocery story for weeks or months at a time," Moss said.
To mask the bitterness or sourness that the formulations can cause, the food industry uses flavour enhancers, invisible ingredients that trick the brain into tasting something that isn’t there, and not tasting something that is there.
 
"Ingredients like that are kind of bundled under what may seem like relatively innocuous labels like 'natural flavours' or even 'artificial flavours,' when truly they are much more surprising when consumers really understand what it is," Bruce Bradley, the former food industry executive, said. "There's tremendous amounts of money spent behind creating tastes and smells that feel real but in reality are completely artificial."
'These products are designed to keep you coming back to eat more and more and more. They're trying to increase their share of your stomach.'— Bruce Bradley
Because without flavour enhancement, no one would eat it. "It would taste horrible, you'd want to spit it out," Bradley said.
 
Michael Moss was treated to a special taste test, while researching his book. "Kellogg invited me into their R&D department, and prepared for me special versions of their iconic products, without any salt in them at all. And I have to tell you, it was a God-awful experience tasting those things. Normally, I can eat Cheez-Its [crackers] all day long, but the Cheez-Its without the salt? I couldn't even swallow them. They stuck to the roof of my mouth. The real impressive moment was when I turned to the cereal, which, without salt, tasted like metal. One of the miracle things that salt adds to processed foods, it will cover up some of the off notes that are inherent to the food processing systems that they rely on."
 
Bruce Bradley says all of that processing takes food to a different place. "We're not talking about food actually being real anymore. It's synthetic, completely contrived and created, and there's so many problems about that because our bodies are tricked and when our bodies are tricked repeatedly dramatic things can happen, like weight gain" or endocrine disruption, diabetes and hypertension, he said.
 
What about the scientists who created these products? Moss says some of them are having second thoughts about their popular creations. "A number of the people I talked to invented these icons really in a more innocent era, when our dependence on processed foods was much less than it is now. And over time, they've come to regret how their inventions have come to be so heavily depended on by us. So yes, any number of these scientists are now looking for ways to help their companies improve the health profile of their products."
 
Appreciating the power of salt, fat and sugar in snack foods could help people from overdoing it.Appreciating the power of salt, fat and sugar in snack foods could help people from overdoing it. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)
 
Bruce Bradley says he believes food companies are trying to make some changes. " think there's an element of it that’s sincere. I've certainly worked on several products where there was a sincere effort to reduce the amount of sodium or sugar in that product," he said.
 
But he says there is only so much tinkering that can happen with the three basic building blocks of processed food. "To make these highly processed foods taste great, they require salt and sugar and fat, and so while there may be some very good intentions … it's just not in the cards to get a product that tastes really great."
 
Chris Lukehurst believes the food industry is making a mistake trying to formulate lower salt, sugar and fat versions of their popular brands while still hoping to match the original taste. Instead he says the food engineers should tinker with the crunch, the mouth feel and other sensory aspects to make consumers like the new versions better, for different reasons.
 
"What we would argue is don't try to make it taste the same, make it work better for the consumer. So when they're tasting this product, they may well notice a taste difference, but the emotional delivery they’re getting out of it is at least better than it was before," he said. "Let's find what emotions are lacking when you take the fat out. How can we make those emotions up in different ways?"
 
Today's grocery shelves are filled with the promise of healthier snack foods. Cookies now sport a bright green label, claiming to be a "sensible solution." Chips boast about "the goodness of whole grains," and crackers proudly declare that they've been "baked," not fried.

Pressure on food industry

Bruce Bradley believes the food industry has simply identified a new market opportunity. "These companies are extremely profit-focused, as are all publicly held companies out there. It is a quarter to quarter profit drill," he said. "If the food industry can find a way to market it and make money off of it, I’m sure they will. But if, in the long term, it is decreasing the amount of food that they can sell, I don’t see that as being an avenue that they will go down."
 
"There's huge and growing pressure on the food companies now, from consumers who are concerned about what they're putting in their mouths," Michael Moss said. "There's equal pressure coming from Wall Street, which is concerned about sales, and there's starting to be increasing attention paid by government regulators. I think you have all three of those converging on the food giants right now, and of course, what will happen remains to be seen."
 
Meanwhile, Moss has his own food cravings to fight. "I'm a huge fan of potato chips and I can overdo it like the next person," he said. "But what's really helped me is getting inside the companies and understanding how they formulate and perfect their product. I can see where they're coming at me and appreciate the power of the salt, the fat and the sugar in potato chips. And I think that helps me control my indulgence."
 
For Pat Guillet, back in her kitchen, determinedly chopping celery, there is little hope for relief. "If I had one spoonful of ice cream, I would want the whole tub," she said. "And there were times I ate the whole tub. And I would sit there and say 'I've gotta stop, I've gotta stop,' really feeling completely unable to act on what my brain is telling me."
 
That's why she is bracing for a lifelong battle with the sugar demons that lurk in the processed food aisle. "These foods are so addictive, so appealing, they give you a high and you feel better," she said. "And the thing many food addicts say is, long after the food causes us joy, long after it causes us misery, we still couldn’t stop. It becomes hard-wired and it's very hard to overcome."
 
This is the first of two special features by health reporter Kelly Crowe on how industry designs food so that we crave them.

Marketers exploiting secrets of the living brain (Kelly Crowe)

 
 
The same primitive impulses that helped early man survive against the evolutionary odds are drawing shopper Denam Drew to a pair of tan suede shoes. At least that's the theory behind neuromarketing, an emerging field that uses the tools of neuroscience to understand the secrets of the consumer brain.
 
Drew is holding the shoe in his hand while researcher Adam Spadaro stands behind him watching his brain waves light up a computer screen in colourful flares of red, yellow and green. All of this is possible because Drew is wearing an electroencephalogram (EEG) cap with electrodes placed all over his head, recording the electrical impulses on the surface of his brain. He's also wearing eye tracking goggles to reveal exactly what he's looking at when the computer records a flash of emotion.
"The goggles use the pupils as a reference point to track where your eyes are looking and wherever the eyes go, that's a measure of the attention of the brain and that's key information for marketers," Spadaro says. He's completing a PhD in cognitive psychology at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario, but at the same time he's using his scientific knowledge to help get one of Canada's first neuromarketing companies off the ground.
 
"It would be really useful for a brand to know if this product is or is not capturing a consumer's attention," Spadaro says, struggling to balance his laptop computer in the middle of the shoe store and, at the same time, monitor the flashing images of Drew's brain on the screen.
 
"It's really giving you a lot of insight into his emotional response, much more so than if you were just to ask him how he’s feeling. Sometimes you can get a truer response to his emotion. That offers a lot of insight that neuroscience has been taking advantage of for several decades now and marketers are now beginning to take advantage of it."
 
Neuromarketer Diana Lucaci adjusts eye tracking goggles on shopper Denam Drew. Lucaci uses new technologies to measure consumers' engagement, attention and memory. ()Neuromarketer Diana Lucaci adjusts eye tracking goggles on shopper Denam Drew. Lucaci uses new technologies to measure consumers' engagement, attention and memory. () (CBC)
 
Diana Lucaci is also here at this Toronto shopping centre to supervise the research. She is the founder of True Impact Marketing, which she says is the first and only neuromarketing research company in Canada that uses both EEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to try to read consumers' minds. Her company owns the EEG cap and eye tracking goggles, but when she wants to use an fMRI machine, she has to buy time from hospitals and universities.
 
"The three key metrics we measure are engagement, attention, and memory," she says. "We're able to measure levels of positive and negative emotion as well. A company would want to know if its brand elicits a particular emotional response, if it's positive or negative at a particular point in time," she says. "That is invaluable information for marketers because it takes a lot of guess-work out. You're not launching a campaign and crossing your fingers hoping you know what your customers feel and what they want."
 
"My formal education is in neuroscience from the University of Toronto," she says, "following that, I've worked progressively in roles in marketing and communications."
 
"As a marketer, I always wanted better tools before we went to market with a campaign. When you know that a campaign requires millions of dollars and putting it together takes months and months, and the only data you have is a survey, and often you don’t even have that, so you just cross your fingers and hope that people pay attention."
 
Traditional market research has always tried to analyze how consumers think and feel about a product or a brand, using focus groups and surveys. The problem is, sometimes consumers don't tell the truth. "In focus groups, what often happens is that you get people skewing their answer to what they think the marketer wants to hear or what will make them sound better in front of the other participants," Lucaci says.
 
But what if advertisers could bypass the thinking brain and see what's going on at a more primitive emotional level? The theory is that consumer motivation starts there, with a series of brain chemical triggers rooted in primal neural circuits that evolved to help humans make decisions that would help or hinder survival. Assuming consumer choice is not purely rational, but rather is strongly biased by emotion, neuromarketers believe that if they can read pleasure or disinterest at this unconscious level, they can better predict what consumers will buy or avoid.

How the brain makes consumer choices

One of the few studies to examine the brain activity of consumer choice attempted to answer an old marketing question: why do some people say they like Coke better than Pepsi?
 
Dr. Reid Montague, at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, scanned the brains of test subjects while they tasted Coke and Pepsi. During the blind taste test, the brain imaging showed that the ventromedial prefrontal cortex was active. "This area of the brain is strongly implicated in signaling basic appetitive aspects of reward," Montague wrote. So when the test subjects didn't know the brand name of the particular sweet, black liquid they were tasting, their brains processed the choice based on taste.
 
What if advertisers could bypass the thinking brain and see what's going on at a more primitive emotional level?What if advertisers could bypass the thinking brain and see what's going on at a more primitive emotional level?
 
When Montague asked the subjects which one they liked better, they were equally split between Coke and Pepsi. But when Montague repeated the taste test, this time showing the test subjects a Coke can and telling them they were tasting Coke, suddenly new brain areas got involved: the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the hippocampus and the midbrain, areas that have been associated with memory and based on emotion.
 
"There is a dramatic effect of the Coke label on subjects' behavioural preference," Montague wrote in his paper. Once they knew they were drinking coke, the test subjects said they preferred Coke in the labelled cups significantly more than unlabelled Coke and more than Pepsi.
 
"We hypothesize that cultural information biases preference decisions," he concluded.
 
Lucaci cites this study as proof that consumer choice is not based on a rational judgment of which product is superior. "So what that tells us is that people regardless of their brain telling them, 'this tastes better,' people have a positive brand association with a product that overpowers the emotion of taste," Lucaci says.

Neuromarketing raises ethical questions

What does Montague think about the emerging field of neuromarketing, after this research?
 
"Neuromarketing could be a legitimate pursuit especially in areas where one wants to determine how much someone values a product," he said in an email. "In neuroimaging, this is a rapidly developing area — the study of valuation (not neuromarketing per se) — and there are many possible uses. For example, it may be possible to produce neural focus-group approaches to certain aspects of branding, desirability, and so on. Such approaches could in principle be cheaper and more reliable than other focus group methods."
 
"However, I do not see this kind of approach supplanting anything. A person's purchase behaviour will always be paramount and the brain science will continue to develop."
 
But are there any ethical issues that should be considered? Could neuromarketing data be used to manipulate consumer behaviour?
 
People need to be aware of neuromarketing and its ethical implications, said Ruth Lanius.People need to be aware of neuromarketing and its ethical implications, said Ruth Lanius. (CBC)
 
"Of course you can influence the brain," said Ruth Lanius, a neuroscientist at Western University in London, Ontario, in an interview. "I think it's interesting, how can we influence the brain at an implicit level, to get you more interested in something."
 
"It's something that definitely has ethical implications that need to be reviewed and discussed, and that people need to be made aware of," she told me.
 
In an interview, Queen's University behavioural neuroscientist Richard Beninger was asked if he believed the developments in neuroscience could be used to unconsciously influence human behaviour.
 
"I'm interested to understand how the brain works, that's what’s driven me for decades," he told me. "I find it difficult to say well I’m going to stop doing neuroscience because what we’re going to find is going to be so powerful, we're going to be able to change the course of mankind. As one small scientist with one small lab, it's hard to think that I’m going to have some big impact like you're talking about. But perhaps I have to start thinking about these things."
 
"We're learning more all the time and with knowledge, comes power, and with knowledge comes the potential to abuse the knowledge," he said.
 
Back in the shoe store, watching Drew scanning the shelves wearing eye tracking goggles, Lucaci dismisses these concerns.
 
"It's not any more dangerous than running a survey and asking people what they think and pressing a button to pick what product they like," she said. "This time, though, we’re seeing the reaction without having to ask them anything. It’s a lot cleaner in that regard."
 
"It's literally impossible to design a super ad that will make people want to buy something they don't want to buy. The brain simply doesn't work like that," she says.
 
How did Drew feel about people watching his brain while he looked at shoes?
 
“It's a little weird but it’s not too invasive. I don't have too crazy reactions to shoes," he said, walking through the mall with his head wired up in an EEG cap and still wearing the eye tracking goggles.
 
All of this is just the beginning of neuromarketing in Canada. So far Lucaci's company has only one client, and she won't reveal the name until later next year when she intends to publish a case study. But the industry is growing. The first Neuromarketing World Forum was held last April in Amsterdam. And the Neuromarketing Science and Business Association says there are now more than 75 companies doing neuromarketing research all over the world.
 
This is the first in a four part series called Inside Your Brain on CBC's The National, World at Six, and CBC.ca exploring how modern neuroscience is changing the way we think about the way we think. In part two, Kelly Crowe discovers how an ancient system in our living brains can explain our cravings for food, sex and relationships.

Programming Your Brain


The private sector knows how your brain works - and uses that to their advantage.  Political Parties are increasingly getting in on the game, too

If you knew you were being manipulated, wouldn't you want to know how to do something about it?  Wouldn't you want to protect your kids from being manipulated by teaching them how to defend against such violations of the self?
 

Child Brain Development – Hardware, Software, and Data

 
These days, a hot topic for parents: teen brain development. Books have been written about it. Nearly every magazine that a parent might read, including National Geographic, has had an article about it. I have written extensively about it.
 
But in all this writing – even in my own – something basic has remained vague. I’m referring to the phrase, “brain development,” and what is meant by it. If parents are to take all the advice and warnings seriously, they need be clear about what’s going on.
 
Because there are three types of brain development, and they happen in three different stages of human life. Only one of these stages relates to the teen brain. To make these distinctions, I’ll use the digital computer as an analogy – hardware, software and data.
 
STAGE #1 – BABY – Building the HARDWARE. The first stage happens while the baby is still in the mother’s womb. For nine months, the growing embryo slowly matures into a human child. Starting with a single cell, after nine months the baby’s brain has segmented itself into the many brain areas and has over 100 billion brain cells. Neither the baby nor the mother gets involved in this construction, except to maintain a healthy, undisturbed environment in the womb – and to be patient.
 At birth, none of these brain cells are wired together yet. The baby has the basic hardware, but neither the software nor the data.
 
STAGE #2 - CHILD – Programming basic SOFTWARE. In phases throughout early life, the child programs the many areas of his brain. Unlike computer software, which is an off-the-shelf package purchased and downloaded to the computer’s hardware, the child has to build the program himself. He has to wire his own brain. This happens when the child interacts with his world and exercises the basic functions. This activity causes the brain cells to connect into circuits. Not every child gets involved in the same activities, so not every child ends up with the same basic wiring and foundation capacity. The more an area is exercised, the more extensively it is wired. The last area to be wired is the prefrontal cortex, which is in charge of judgment and decision-making, i.e., intellect.
 
STAGE #3 - ADULT – Downloading add-ons and DATA. Once a brain area has its basic programming, a young person is then able to build on these networks by learning skills, knowledge and information. For example, once a child programs his brain for throwing, he can learn to throw a baseball or a football. Once he learns to swing a stick, he can learn to swing a baseball bat, a tennis racquet, or a golf club. He can learn facts and concepts about the sport, which would aid in performance. This capacity for learning – acquiring add-ons and data and using the basic software – continues throughout adult life.
 
In my writing I frequently refer to the prefrontal cortex (PFC), the area that is wired for basic functioning during adolescence. I sometimes call this the “smart” part of the brain because it’s involved in executive functions such as analysis, evaluation, decision-making, attention control, and foreseeing consequences. Because no other species has anything close to these capabilities, the PFC is the area that makes us uniquely human. We couldn’t be wise without an extensively developed PFC.
 
A baby has PFC hardware, but not the the software or the data. So throughout early childhood use of the PFC is minimal until adolescence, when a second massive wave of wiring happens in the PFC.
Then the child has a chance to construct the wiring for using these executive functions – for being “smart.” After adolescence is over, it’s about learning – inputting add-ons and data to be processed by the basic software.
 
This is why I emphasize the development of “adolescent brain” (the software of the PFC) as a critical turning point in a person’s life. It’s the time when a young person can do the thinking that will cause the PFC to wire itself. The PFC hardware has a chance to get some “smart” software.
 
But remember, not everyone ends up with the same software. Some young people work hard and end up with extensive wiring. Adults can provide learning opportunities and encouragement, but no one can do the thinking for him. An extensive network of wiring in the PFC is like having the most robust kind of intellectual software, a massive foundation that will accept an endlessly rich array of add-ons and data. In other words, a superior mind.
 
And of course, a minimally wired PFC will not.
 

Sunday, 31 March 2013

Show Me Your Calves: Slaves to Fashion



 
 
 
There is a whole science around manipulating people's drives to get them to behave in a certain way; cast their vote for or against, buy a product, ignore the man behind the curtain.  It used to just be an art - marketing, manipulation, a slight of hand. 
 
Now, with the crystallization of NLP, neuromarketing and such, it's a science.  Other people are learning how to make you think their desires are your original inception. 
 
But who pulls the puppet-masters' strings?  When they feel they're smart and everyone else is dumb, their confidence blinds them to their own motivations.

There's only one way to illuminate the shadow-world of the semi-conscious mind.  The answer's a variation on a theme we've come across time and again -

Recognize that we are imperfect, accept that we're part of something larger than ourselves and come to terms with the fundamental premise that no man nor woman is an island - together, we're a system.

Sounding a little too pseudo-religious for your liking?  You can interpret it that way, if you like - really, though, it's just science.

What's Better for Business: Logic or Emotion? Answers From Neuroscience (Forbes)

 
The scary part?  I keep finding articles that provide support for theories I came up with independently.  That's not a ego-boost, but an alarm; the question that will always gnaw at me is, "am I unconsciously seeking validation for my own opinions?"
 
 
 
 
 
Part 1 of a series on neuroscience and innovation
Humans are animals. While we like to think we’re captains of our destiny, we’re far more driven by instinct than we know. In many ways, we’re just glorified apes, even in business.
Neuroscience business expert Janet Crawford
 
For over a century, the overriding philosophy in business has been that rational decision-making is better business. Irrational decisions, on the other hand, were to be avoided. We’ve probably all seen bad executive decisions made based on miscalculated fears, misperceived threats, or misdirected loyalties.
 
Today, science is teaching us that the bifurcation between logic and emotion is not so clear cut. There is business value lurking in what appears to be irrational. Think of the intense devotion of startup teams in Silicon Valley. Think of the culture that surrounds iconic companies like Harley-Davidson. Think of the passion of Apple fans camping out overnight to be first in line to buy a new product.
 
Given what science is revealing about the human brain, what are the implications for business? Janet Crawford is one of the world’s pioneers in applying neuroscience to business. Her firm, Cascadance, leverages biological design to improve individual and team performance. I’ve had the honor of working with her in creating Rainforest Architects, a workshop to train leaders on how to spark their innovation ecosystem by applying techniques from Silicon Valley.
 
Below is part 1 of an extended conversation with Janet. Over the course of this discussion, we dig into human nature, explore how biology affects innovation, and give you practical tips to increase the innovation in your ecosystem.
 
Q: Why does human nature matter in business?
 
Janet: Business is best when the people providing goods and services feel passion and commitment to what they are producing and their customers feel they’ve received value. The operative word here is “feel.” When we use the term “rational” in business, we usually mean dispassionately data driven and informed by explicit measureable criteria.
 
Q: Why do we care so much about rationality in the first place?
 
Janet: Our love affair with the rational world goes back 600 years to the Scientific Revolution, which set in motion not only an epic blossoming of human innovation, but also a series of beliefs about human nature that in large part are being dismantled by recent neuroscience discoveries.
The brain
The Brain runs the world in ways we can't easily detect
 
Q: But what’s wrong with rationality as a goal in business?
 
Janet: The problem is that most of what we view as being rationally determined isn’t. Viewed from the lens of brain science, emotions are elegant shortcuts that allow us to sort through reams of implicitly stored (i.e. outside consciousness) neural patterns and generate feelings that guide us toward or away from a course of action. Without emotion, we are biologically incapable of making decisions. Logic is often the last step in the process. The conscious intellectual brain steps in to produce a rational backstory to justify impulses generated in the murky corners of the unconscious mind.
 
Q: Can you give an example of that interplay between logic and emotion?
 
Janet: How many times have you left a data-soaked, death by PowerPoint meeting unable to identify anything faulty with the “facts,” yet left with a feeling that something wasn’t quite right? Your unconscious mind might indeed be letting you know there’s a pattern that doesn’t fit. Equally, it could be that the presentation was sound, but that it overwhelmed the limited capacity of your rational mind, while failing to satisfy your biological need to feel emotions like trust, acceptance, and excitement.
 
Q: Why are humans designed so “imperfectly” in this way?
 
Janet: We come preloaded with deep programming, generated from a long tribal evolutionary history on the plains of Africa. Our DNA tells us to distrust strangers and those who are “different” from us. We see this behavior even in infants nine months and younger. We resemble our primate cousins when it comes to status-seeking behaviors. Power displays like puffing out our chests causes surges of testosterone, translating into increased confidence in both subject and viewer. Soothing touch works on our oxytocin systems, enhancing measures of trust. These are but a few examples of a vast repertoire of unconscious behavioral influences. The point is people act on these feelings of trust, distrust, confidence, etc. and will find ways to make the data confirm their felt experience.
 
Q: But aren’t our rational selves still in control at least most of the time?
 
Janet: Most neuroscientists would agree that well over 90% of our behavior is generated outside of consciousness. We are more slaves to our biology than we realize. Our rational minds represent a very small layer floating atop a vast well of unconscious drivers. Business leaders who understand biological programming and can leverage it possess an enormous advantage.
 
Q: Can you give an example of how biology affects the innovation process?
 
Janet: Sure. There are two main areas where biology affects innovation. First, human neurology is built to resist change. After all, if we’re alive, most of what we’ve done to get here has worked! In order to conserve the status quo, the brain generates feelings of discomfort when we try new things or attempt to change. This is counterbalanced by other systems, driven by dopamine, that reward exploration and discovery.
 
Q: How does that counterbalance work in the brain?
 
Janet: It’s a balancing act. When we experience too much stress and threat, the tendency is to retreat into habitual known responses. When we feel sufficiently (but not overly) secure, we venture into new territory. The prefrontal cortex, the area resting just behind your forehead, is key to innovative thought. As Dr. Amy Arnsten of Yale University puts it, “it’s the Goldilocks of the brain….it wants everything just right.”
 
Q: What’s the second way that biology affects innovation?
 
Janet: Second, at a fundamental brain level, innovation is the intersection of previously unrelated neural patterns. We are pattern-making creatures. From the time we’re born, our brains are busily encoding any useful and repeating relationship between objects and events to which we’re exposed. Since the brain possesses very little capacity for conscious attention, it uses these patterns to automate our responses to the environment as much as possible.
 
Q: So our brains create patterns to make sense of things. That’s an efficient way to deal with our environments, right?
 
Janet: The great news is that this works marvelously most of the time. The downside is that we sometimes automate patterns that may have limited utility or which are outmoded hand-me-downs from another generation or set of circumstances. Also, our neural patterns are constricted by our unique circumstances and by what we’ve paid attention to. There’s way more data in the environment than ever makes it onto our neural maps.
 
Q: So how do new patterns get formed in our brains?
 
Janet: In order to create new intersections, it’s crucial that we cross-pollinate by engaging with diverse people, activities and experience to provide the raw materials for serendipitous insight. Just like in venture capital, most of these intersections will go nowhere. The more diversity in the system, however, the more “weeds” will flourish and the greater the likelihood that some of them will be useful!
Taming the Lion
"From a sheer physical perspective, we humans are a wimpy lot."
 
Q: Are humans designed to innovate?
 
Janet: Humans are marvelously unique among the animal kingdom in that we’re the only species designed to imagine a future that doesn’t exist today and to coordinate action with other human beings to make our visions reality. No other species manipulates the environment to make life easier in quite the way that we do. It’s what has allowed our species to dominate the planet and grow to 7 billion strong. It’s also what drives us to build businesses and engage in commerce.
 
Q: Are human beings, therefore, the perfect animal?
 
Janet: From a sheer physical perspective, we humans are a wimpy lot. Most other mammals are stronger and faster. An isolated human on the African Savannah will likely become dinner on fairly short order. But, we possess two amazing superpowers – imagination and the ability to collaborate and pass down learning through language.
 
Q: How did you first realize that our biological selves and our rational selves were not the same?
Janet: I grew up on a military research base in the middle of the Mojave Desert. My father was a well-respected rocket scientist and I spent my childhood surrounded by gifted scientific minds. Even from the perspective of a child, it seemed obvious that highly rational thinkers often behaved in ways that were anything but. Later, as a manager of scientists and engineers, my experience was confirmed anew.
 
Q: What was your first insight into the power of neuroscience to explain human behavior in business?
 
Janet: In the mid 1990’s, I was introduced to the concept of an “amygdala hijack.” The amygdalae are two small almond-shaped structures in the brain that among other things, monitor environmental and social threats and allow us to respond reflexively when perceived levels get too high. They figuratively hijack our volitional choice by redirecting behavioral control to more primitive responses such as fight, flight and freeze. This small bit of neuroscience went a long way to explain the defensive posturing, shutting down and avoidance I’d seen in the business world.
 
Q: What other ideas have inspired you in this work?
 
Janet: Around the same time, I read two pivotal books, Descartes’ Error and A General Theory of Love. These books changed the way I thought about human nature and illuminated my understanding of why people act in, as MIT Professor Dan Ariely aptly puts it, “predictably irrational” ways. I was hooked. Since then I’ve become a student of the behavioral sciences, reading research, attending social and cognitive neuroscience conferences and connecting with researchers.
 
Q: Do you consider yourself a scientist or a business expert?
 
Janet: I consider myself to be both. My company, Cascadance, works with cutting edge business leaders to build leadership practices and cultures that leverage the best of our biology. My original training was as an environmental scientist. I worked in that field for over a decade, both as a practitioner and a leader, transitioning into business consulting and executive coaching in the mid 1990′s. My background in environmental science has not only given me a wonderful systems perspective on human behavior, but also gave me the strong grounding in science necessary to read original neuroscience research and ask critical questions. As in any concentrated field of study, many neuroscientists are unable to see the larger implications of their work. I see myself as a bridge and translator between the research and its enormously useful real world applications.
Paques01
"It’s in play where we often gain access to our vast unconscious warehouse of neural information."
 
Q: What are some simple steps people can take to be more innovative, based on biological thinking?
 
Janet’s suggestions:
 
1. Take care of your biological instrument – The areas of the brain involved in innovation are particularly sensitive to sleep deprivation, poor diet, lack of social connection and stress in general.
 
2. Expose yourself – to new and different ideas, disciplines, cultures and environments. The tendency in business is to hunker down, focus, and try to get as much done as possible in as short a time as we can. If we can’t think of a reason that something needs to happen, we deem it a luxury or waste of time. Great innovations happen when there’s a large pool of seemingly unrelated content to pull from. We have to set time aside to cross pollinate even if we can’t see the immediate application.
 
3. Be inclusive and create safety – People outside the system bring fresh neural patterns. People within the system often think and see in much the same way. Unless there are practices that allow diverse elements in your ecosystem to intersect, and unless you’ve created the safety to prompt people to speak up, vast amounts of insight will remain undiscovered.
 
4. Create forums where people can play and prototype – All mammals play, and it’s in play where we often gain access to our vast unconscious warehouse of neural information.
Victor W. Hwang is a venture capitalist and entrepreneur in Silicon Valley with T2 Venture Capital. He is co-creator of Rainforest Architects, a workshop for leaders seeking to create their own innovation ecosystem based on techniques from Silicon Valley. The next program is on April 22-24, 2013.

Sunday, 3 March 2013

Protest Canada: Conservative Wins Lead to People on the Streets (UPDATED)




I am by no means a political expert, nor am I anywhere as steeped in political trends as legitimate political pundits - so don't just take my word; please share your thoughts as well.

Caveat established, here goes - I completely agree that conservative politics is winning in Canada.  The people pushing the fear and security buttons, whatever their political brand, are tacking right and easily putting their message on bumper-stickers and in the hearts and minds of voters.  I think there's a good reason for this, but not the one political operatives think; it's not strictly that Conservatives are superior to progressives in campaign terms.  It's that the methodology being favoured by political teams from across the spectrum favours reactive (Conservative) responses.

Powerful leaders.  Repetition.  Emotion-trigger messaging.  Attack ads.  Repetition.  Sound bites.  Did I say repetition?  All these things appeal to the rapid-response, rote-learning part of our brain, inciting reactionary behaviour.  By using these tools, progressives are essentially sending support to the Conservative brand.  Or, alternatively, they are becoming increasingly conservative in their own methodology, aping the opponents they would fight against (which is why knowing yourself is so vital to long-term success).

There are consequences to this approach.  To keep messaging, repetition and fear consistent, you have to instill a certain kind of culture within political Parties.  This means message discipline, carrot-and-stick motivation and, of course, everyone's gotta hold the line no matter what their conscious tells them.  Those unwilling or unable to play the Game of Thrones gets kicked to the curb, left without a partisan roof to stand under.  Coordination and power are increasingly reduced to fewer hands, with rank-and-file Members of a Party becoming spokespeople and pawns, not players.  As no one Leader can keep all the balls in the air at once and when you don't trust your rank-and-file not to mess up on the circled-wagon presentation, power then finds its way into the hands of back-room people who are accountable to individuals, not constituencies.

Politics is less about policy and more about marketing - and using, to an increasing degree, the same kinds of tools as sole-purpose marketeers.  These tools don't come cheap; brand-management never does, whether it's an ad campaign for a movie or a peacock's tail. 

Think about that for a second - how many Social Conservatives are so dead-set against publicly-delivered services that they'll spend thousands supporting partisan campaigns?  Same holds true for left-leaning folk who spend big bucks telling government to spend more on social services - dollars that could, technically, go to front-line charities.  Across the board, how many constituency groups spend big on advertising in competition with Parties or legislation they don't like?  If all of this money were spent on service delivery, how many of the problems we're paying to complain about could we address, reduce, perhaps even solve?

Other side of this coin - when it becomes about picking winners and losers instead of strengthening the whole, the politicians do the same thing - they look for winning coalitions and design policy for political wins with voter blocks likey to support them.  This means partisanship trumps policy, a no-no so far as proper political ethics goes.  In a hyper-competitive environment, though, you have no choice - you need the points to win, but the process by which those points are gained leaves a Party vulnerable, driving bad behaviour underground.  Only there is no underground anymore, as robocalls, "political truths" and Project Apple are teaching us.

Simple, repetitive, reactionary, fear-based messaging can't work for progressives because progress, by its very nature, is about adaptation, foresight and optimism.  You can't out-conservative a conservative and hope for a progressive outcome - to think otherwise is Einstein's definition of insanity.
Besides, there's another consequence to the conservative approach of bread-and-circus messaging and don't-look-behind-the-curtain governance; when you tell people that their interests are under threat and they don't have faith that anyone is representing them, they take to the streets to raise their own voice under their own brand.
 
Ontario's teacher protests are one example of this.  Idle No More is another.  So is Occupy.  Tightly controlled internal politics might produce greater partisan wins, but on a shrinking electoral platform.  Voters are losing faith in the power of their votes and instead are relying on the power of protests.  Right-wing pundits in the media can call protesters whiners, the overly-privileged or whatever they want, but the fact remains - the more governments tighten their grip, the more citizens fall through their fingers.  We're also getting an increase in civic engagement groups that are attracting high-profile support.  The people of influence who want a chance to be heard for who they are, not what Party they represent, are headed to venues like Why Should I Care where the people, not the pundits, are aggregating.  It's a political gravity thing. 

So, what's the solution to this political pickle facing progressives?  It's actually not that hard - instead of using modern tools to out-Tory the Tories, use those same tools in a progressive way; to foster dialogue, to promote rational optimism and to make policy cool and fun.  Instead of using political karate against your opponents, try judo instead.  If you want people to believe you're about moving forward in a together-like fashion, prove it through example.

Kathleen Wynne has quickly demonstrated talent at this modern-day progressive approach.  She will be under the constant temptation to hit back in the mode of her competition, but to do so is a trap.  True progressives won't give in to belittling their opposition, whether it's across the aisle, in a stakeholder group or a member of their own Party.  They will own leadership by demonstrating leadership, which is about inspiring everyone to follow, not throwing your weak under the bus.  Doing so only makes it easier for your opponents to roll over your whole brand.

Lead by example.  If you put winning ahead of accomplishing, that's the example you set.  That's what you'll get from the populace; not social democracy, but individual competition and resulting civil strife.  The former approach manifests itself at the ballot box; the former on the streets.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion, informed neither by decades of slugging it out in the confines of political trenches nor a mountain of data about voting trends (or protest trends).  I don't learn by using the same tools that have worked for generations.  I learn by using the same interactions that have worked forever - I listen, I observe, I ask and then I ponder.  All the inconsequentials the really successful people are simply too busy to bother with.  Unlike them, I make no headlines - however, the issues I care about do seem to be cropping up in a growing number of places.

Now it's your turn to share what you think.  Does simplistic, reactionary political marketing support conservative wins and lead to popular protests, not popular votes?  If not, why not? 

Your ideas will always be welcome here, though respectful commentary is encouraged.  After all, that's why this blog exists in the first place - to establish a commons where communication (not messaging) can happen, understanding be reached and shared solutions be developed.  It's what we do, as it were.

Perhaps there's an example in this for politics, too.

UPDATE 23/11/13: Pictures are worth 1,000 words.  Actions, of course, are priceless.