Upload
dharol
View
299
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Marketers have done a lot of exciting things with Neuroscience methods in recent years, and
Citation preview
Neuromarketing
IS12 Psych! Conference: Marketing to the Mind Dharol Tankersley, PhD Cognitive Neuroscience
Data Analyst, Schipul Technologies
©wimeuverman.nl
I. What is Marketing?
II. What is Neuroscience?
III. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing
IV. What Neuroscience can NOT do for Marketing
I. What is Marketing? A system to discover and satisfy needs of people (HMT)
Ø Identify consumer needs Ø Solution - product/ service
I. W
hat i
s M
arke
ting?
Goal of Marketing
Desire
I. W
hat i
s M
arke
ting?
Goal of Marketing
Purchase
Measure
A system to discover, satisfy and influecne desires of people (HMT)
Traditional Measures of Desire I.
Wha
t is
Mar
ketin
g? What do I desire?
Traditional Measures of Desire
Focus Groups
I. W
hat i
s M
arke
ting?
What do you like?
Focus Groups
Traditional Measures of Desire I.
Wha
t is
Mar
ketin
g? What do you like?
Focus Groups Questionnaires
Traditional Measures of Desire I.
Wha
t is
Mar
ketin
g? Which would you choose?
Focus Groups Questionnaires
Simulated Choice
Traditional Measures of Desire I.
Wha
t is
Mar
ketin
g?
Not Consequential!
Focus Groups Questionnaires
Simulated Choice
Traditional Measures of Desire I.
Wha
t is
Mar
ketin
g? What do you want for dinner
tomorrow?
Market Tests
Traditional Measures of Desire I.
Wha
t is
Mar
ketin
g? What DID you choose?
Fully Consequential!
Focus Groups Questionnaires
Simulated Choice
Traditional Measures of Desire I.
Wha
t is
Mar
ketin
g?
Focus Groups Accuracy
Cos
t
Questionnaires Simulated Choice
Market Tests
Adapted from Ariely & Berns (2010)
Traditional Measures of Desire I.
Wha
t is
Mar
ketin
g?
Focus Groups Accuracy
Cos
t
Questionnaires Simulated Choice
Market Tests
II. What is Neuroscience?
II. What is Neuroscience? A system to measure the biology of desire
Ø Predict consumer behavior
Desire
Purchase
Measure
II. What is Neuroscience? A system to measure the biology of desire
Ø Predict consumer behavior “Hidden Information”
Ø Emotional Ø Non-rational Ø Subconscious
“Hidden” Information II.
W
hat i
s N
euro
scie
nce?
Neuroscience Measures of Desire II.
W
hat i
s N
euro
scie
nce?
Biometrics
GSR
Temperature
Heart Rate
Pupil Dilation
Neuroscience Measures of Desire II.
W
hat i
s N
euro
scie
nce?
Behavioral Physiology
Eye Tracking Facial Coding
Neuroscience Measures of Desire II.
W
hat i
s N
euro
scie
nce?
Brain Imaging
Dharol Tankersley Cognitive Affective and Social Neuroscience January 23, 2007
Subject Charity
Com
pute
r S
ubje
ct
Recipient
Pla
yer
Charitable Reward
Personal Reward
Altruistic Action
Selfish Action
Charity Selection Task Survey
You will play for Easter Seals +
Easter Seals
wins a Dukat!
EEG MEG fMRI
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting NeuroAnatomy of Marketing
(Medial PreFrontal Cortex)
Liking
Disliking Insula Amygdala
Attention/ Arousal Striatum
mPFC
III. What Neuroscience CAN do for Marketing
Ø Success: Case Studies
Ø Summary: Promising Areas
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
What kind of product is being sold?
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
What kind of product is being sold?
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
What kind of product is being sold?
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
What kind of product is being sold?
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
What kind of product is being sold?
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Eye Tracking
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Eye Tracking
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Eye Tracking
Website Optimization Packaging
Ad Placement
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Which design do you prefer?
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Biometrics
1 2
0"200"400"600"800"1000"
0" 5" 10"Sales"Ra
nk"
Emo4onal"Engagement"Rank"
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Ø Heavy detail that expresses attitude Ø Prominent facial features often with large eyes Ø Bold color palette with high contrast
Biometrics
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Emotionally Engaging -> Twice the Click Thru Rate
Biometrics
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Which cover design do you prefer?
1 2 3
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Brain Imaging: EEG
Overall effectiveness Attention
Purchase Intent Novelty Awareness
Emotion Emotion Retention
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
12% Increase in Sales
Brain Imaging: EEG
2
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Which advertisement is the most effective?
Campaign A: Coffee Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf01Ti6bH8U
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Which advertisement is the most effective?
Campaign B: Jumping Out of Window Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR6odVmNTlw
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Which advertisement is the most effective?
Campaign C: Puppet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weVp5FXVyqM
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Which advertisement is the most effective?
Campaign C: Puppet
Campaign B: Jumping Out of Window Ad
Campaign A: Coffee Ad
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Brain Imaging: fMRI
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
10"
A" B" C"
self%report%Expert Predictions
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Brain Imaging: fMRI
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
10"
A" B" C"
self%report%
0"
8"
16"
24"
32"
A" B" C"
actual&
2x
10x
30x
Experts & smokers fail to predict.
Calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW
Expert Predictions
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Case Studies
Brain Imaging: fMRI
0"
8"
16"
24"
32"
A" B" C"
actual&
2x
10x
30x
Frontal Cortex Predicts Advertisement Effectiveness
Calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW
Expert Predictions
!0.1%
!0.05%
0%
0.05%
0.1%
A% B% C%
mpfc%Brain: mPFC Activation
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Promising Areas
Ø Visual – Attention Ø Advertising Ø Packaging
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Promising Areas
Ø Emotion - Engagement Ø Branding Ø Politics
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Promising Areas
Ø Consumption - Experience Ø Beverages Ø Films
DiscussionThemainhypothesisofthisstudywasthatanincreaseintheperceivedpriceofawineshould,throughanincreaseintasteexpectations,increaseactivityinthemOFC.Theresultsde-scribedaboveprovideevidenceconsistentwiththehypothesis.Thehypothesiswasmotivatedbyseveralpreviousstudies,whichhaveshownthatactivityinthemOFCiscorrelatedwithbehav-ioralpleasantnessratingsforodors(10–13),tastes(6,14,and15),andevenmusic(16).This,togetherwithourbehavioralresultsandtheadditionalimagingresultsdescribedbelow,supporttheinterpretationthat,bymodulatingtheactivityinthemOFC,changesinthepriceofawinemightleadtoachangeintheactualEPderivedfromitsconsumption.
Weperformedtwoadditionalanalysestoprovidefurthersupportforthisinterpretation.First,foreachindividualandwine,wecomputedthechangeinreportedEPbetweenthehighandlowpriceconditions.WealsocomputedtheanalogousdifferenceinparameterestimatesfortheBOLDresponsefromthegenerallinearmodelinanareasurroundingthemOFC.Fig.3Bshowsthattheneuralandbehavioralestimateswerepositivelyandhighlycorrelated(r!0.49,P"0.001).Second,weverifiedthattheresultsofthepreviousliteraturealsoheldinourstudybyestimatingadifferentgenerallinearmodelandlookingforbrainregionswhoseactivitywascorrelatedwithreportedEPfromsamplingthediffer-entstimuli(seeSITextfordetails).Theresultsreplicatedthefindingsofpreviousstudies:activityinthemOFCwascorrelatedwithabsolutereportsofpleasantness(Fig.4).
Importantly,wedidnotfindevidenceforaneffectofpricesonareasoftheprimarytasteareassuchastheinsulacortex,theventroposteriormedialnucleusofthethalamus,ortheprabra-chialnucleiofthepons.Anaturalinterpretationisthatthetop-downcognitiveprocessesthatencodetheflavorexpectan-ciesareintegratedwiththebottom-upsensorycomponentsofthewineinthemOFC,thusmodulatingthehedonicexperienceofflavor,butthattheflavorexpectanciesgeneratedbythechangeinpricesdonotimpactmorebasicsensoryrepresenta-
tions.Interestingly,ananalogousmechanismhasbeenproposedforpainplaceboeffects(7).
Ourresultshaveimplicationsforseveraldisciplines.First,theEPsignalplaysacentralroleinneuroeconomics,becauseitservesasateachingsignalthatguidesfuturebehavior.Unfor-tunately,verylittleisknownaboutthefactorsthataffecttheneuralcomputationofthissignal.Anaturalstartinghypothesisistheeconomicview,whichstatesthatEPdependsonlyonthesensorypropertiesoftheitembeingconsumed(i.e.,itsmolec-ularproperties)andthestateoftheconsumer.OurresultssuggestthatthebrainmightcomputeEPinamuchmoresophisticatedmannerthatinvolvesintegratingtheactualsensorypropertiesofthesubstancebeingconsumedwiththeexpecta-tionsabouthowgooditshouldbe.Itisimportanttoemphasizethatitmightbeadaptiveforthebraintodothis.Tomakegooddecisionsinthefuture,thebrainneedstocarryoutgoodmeasurementsofthequalityofcurrentexperiences.Inaworldofnoisymeasurements,theuseofpriorknowledgeaboutthequalityofanexperienceprovidesadditionalvaluableinforma-tion.Arelatedstudy(13)providesadditionalsupportingevi-denceforthispointbyshowingthatgivingacognitivelabeltoanambiguousodor(‘‘cheddarcheese’’or‘‘bodyodor’’)canaffectbothsubjectivepleasantnessreportsandneuralactivityrelatedtoEP.Unlikethecurrentpaper,however,deAraujoetal.(13)donotprovideevidencethatmarketingactions,suchaspricing,canaffectneuralcorrelatesofEP.
Second,ourfindingsalsohaveimplicationsformarketing.Whereasthereisamplebehavioralevidencethatvariousmar-ketingactionsaresuccessfulininfluencingtheEPofindividuals,thattheycanmodulateneuralrepresentationsofthissignalhadnotbeenreportedbefore.Furthermore,theneuralfindingsalsoprovidesomecluesaboutthemechanismsinvolved.Inparticu-lar,itseemsthatpricechangesmodulatetherepresentationsofexperiencedutilitybutnottheencodingofthesensoryproper-tiesoftasteintheprimarygustatorycortex.
Third,ourresultshaveimplicationsforeconomics.EPisanimportantcomponentofexperiencedutility,whichistheecon-omist’stermforsubjectivewellbeing.Weshowthat,contrarytothestandardeconomicview,EPdependsonnonintrinsicprop-ertiesofproducts,suchasthepriceatwhichtheyaresold.Itthenfollowsthatmarketingmanipulationsmightaffectsubjectiveperceptionsofwellbeing.Thisraisesseveraldifficultquestionsforthefield.Shouldtheeffectofpricesonexperiencedutilitybecountedasrealeconomicwellbeingorasamistakemadebyindividuals?Towhatextentaremeasurabledifferencesinpref-erencesbasedonintrinsicdifferencesbetweenproductsandpriceeffectswehaveidentified?Whathappenstotheefficiencyofcompetitivemarketswhenfirmscaninfluenceexperiencedutilitybychangingthepriceofitems?
AnimportanttaskforfutureresearchistodevelopamorecompletecharacterizationoftherangeofmarketingactionsthatcaninfluencetheneuralcomputationofEP.Weconjecturethatanyactionaffectingexpectationsofproductquality,suchasexpertqualityratings;peerreviews;informationaboutcountryoforigin,store,andbrandnames(especiallythoseassociatedwithluxuryproducts);andrepeatedexposuretoadvertisementsmightleadtoeffectssimilartothoseidentifiedhere.
MaterialsandMethodsSubjects.Twentynormal-weightsubjectsparticipatedintheexperiment(11males,ages21–30;meanage,24.5yr).Oneadditionalsubjectparticipatedintheexperimentbutwasexcludedfromtheanalysis,becausehereportedbeingconfusedaboutthetaskduringadebriefingattheendoftheexperi-ment.Allsubjectswereright-handedandhealthy;hadnormalorcorrected-to-normalvisionandnohistoryofalcoholabuse,psychiatricdiagnoses,orneurologicalormetabolicillnesses;andwerenottakinganymedicationsthatinterferewiththeperformanceoffMRI.Allsubjectswerescreenedforliking,andatleastoccasionallydrinking,redwine.Atthebeginningofeachexper-iment,subjectswererequiredtoshowanofficialformofidentificationto
Fig.4.Neuralcorrelatesoflikingratings.(A)ActivityinthemOFCandthemidbraincorrelatedwiththereportedpleasantnessofthesixliquidsatdegus-tationtime.Forillustrationpurposes,thecontrastisshownbothatP"0.001andP"0.005uncorrectedandwithanextendthresholdoffivevoxels.(B)CorrelationofpleasantnessratingsandBOLDresponses(r!0.593,P"0.000).Eachpointdenotesasubject-pricepair.Thehorizontalaxismeasuresthereportedpleasant-ness.Theverticalaxiscomputesthebetasfromthegenerallinearmodelina5-mmsphericalvolumesurroundingtheareadepictedinA.
1052!www.pnas.org"cgi"doi"10.1073"pnas.0706929105Plassmannetal.
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Promising Areas
Ø Virtual Reality Ø Shopping Display Ø Architecture
III.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
AN
do
for M
arke
ting Summary
Ø Visual Attention Ø Advertising Ø Packaging
Ø Emotion Ø Politics Ø Branding
Ø Consumption Ø Beverage Ø Film
Ø Virtual Reality Ø Architecture Ø In-store marketing
IV. What Neuroscience CanNOT do for Marketing
Ø Cautionary Tales
Ø Methodology
Ø Costs
Ø Context
Cautionary Tales IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Facebook Study
Cautionary Tales IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Facebook Study
Emotional Engagement
Facebook Yahoo NYTimes
Cautionary Tales IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Coke vs Pepsi Taste Test
Blind Taste Test Labeled Taste Test
Cautionary Tales IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Coke vs Pepsi Taste Test
Cautionary Tales IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
NewScience Magazine
Cautionary Tales IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Confounds
Cautionary Tales IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Confounds
“These methods do not reveal inner truth. Neuroscience techniques need interpretation in light of other information. Real understanding comes from integrating information rather than focusing on only one perspective.” Barbara O’Connell Vice President, Milward Brown
Preference
Methods: Reverse Inference IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
mPFC Activation
DiscussionThe main hypothesis of this study was that an increase in theperceived price of a wine should, through an increase in tasteexpectations, increase activity in the mOFC. The results de-scribed above provide evidence consistent with the hypothesis.The hypothesis was motivated by several previous studies, whichhave shown that activity in the mOFC is correlated with behav-ioral pleasantness ratings for odors (10–13), tastes (6, 14, and15), and even music (16). This, together with our behavioralresults and the additional imaging results described below,support the interpretation that, by modulating the activity in themOFC, changes in the price of a wine might lead to a change inthe actual EP derived from its consumption.
We performed two additional analyses to provide further supportfor this interpretation. First, for each individual and wine, wecomputed the change in reported EP between the high and lowprice conditions. We also computed the analogous difference inparameter estimates for the BOLD response from the generallinear model in an area surrounding the mOFC. Fig. 3B shows thatthe neural and behavioral estimates were positively and highlycorrelated (r ! 0.49, P " 0.001). Second, we verified that the resultsof the previous literature also held in our study by estimating adifferent general linear model and looking for brain regions whoseactivity was correlated with reported EP from sampling the differ-ent stimuli (see SI Text for details). The results replicated thefindings of previous studies: activity in the mOFC was correlatedwith absolute reports of pleasantness (Fig. 4).
Importantly, we did not find evidence for an effect of priceson areas of the primary taste areas such as the insula cortex, theventroposterior medial nucleus of the thalamus, or the prabra-chial nuclei of the pons. A natural interpretation is that thetop-down cognitive processes that encode the flavor expectan-cies are integrated with the bottom-up sensory components ofthe wine in the mOFC, thus modulating the hedonic experienceof flavor, but that the flavor expectancies generated by thechange in prices do not impact more basic sensory representa-
tions. Interestingly, an analogous mechanism has been proposedfor pain placebo effects (7).
Our results have implications for several disciplines. First, theEP signal plays a central role in neuroeconomics, because itserves as a teaching signal that guides future behavior. Unfor-tunately, very little is known about the factors that affect theneural computation of this signal. A natural starting hypothesisis the economic view, which states that EP depends only on thesensory properties of the item being consumed (i.e., its molec-ular properties) and the state of the consumer. Our resultssuggest that the brain might compute EP in a much moresophisticated manner that involves integrating the actual sensoryproperties of the substance being consumed with the expecta-tions about how good it should be. It is important to emphasizethat it might be adaptive for the brain to do this. To make gooddecisions in the future, the brain needs to carry out goodmeasurements of the quality of current experiences. In a worldof noisy measurements, the use of prior knowledge about thequality of an experience provides additional valuable informa-tion. A related study (13) provides additional supporting evi-dence for this point by showing that giving a cognitive label toan ambiguous odor (‘‘cheddar cheese’’ or ‘‘body odor’’) canaffect both subjective pleasantness reports and neural activityrelated to EP. Unlike the current paper, however, de Araujo etal. (13) do not provide evidence that marketing actions, such aspricing, can affect neural correlates of EP.
Second, our findings also have implications for marketing.Whereas there is ample behavioral evidence that various mar-keting actions are successful in influencing the EP of individuals,that they can modulate neural representations of this signal hadnot been reported before. Furthermore, the neural findings alsoprovide some clues about the mechanisms involved. In particu-lar, it seems that price changes modulate the representations ofexperienced utility but not the encoding of the sensory proper-ties of taste in the primary gustatory cortex.
Third, our results have implications for economics. EP is animportant component of experienced utility, which is the econ-omist’s term for subjective well being. We show that, contrary tothe standard economic view, EP depends on nonintrinsic prop-erties of products, such as the price at which they are sold. It thenfollows that marketing manipulations might affect subjectiveperceptions of well being. This raises several difficult questionsfor the field. Should the effect of prices on experienced utility becounted as real economic well being or as a mistake made byindividuals? To what extent are measurable differences in pref-erences based on intrinsic differences between products andprice effects we have identified? What happens to the efficiencyof competitive markets when firms can influence experiencedutility by changing the price of items?
An important task for future research is to develop a morecomplete characterization of the range of marketing actions thatcan influence the neural computation of EP. We conjecture thatany action affecting expectations of product quality, such asexpert quality ratings; peer reviews; information about countryof origin, store, and brand names (especially those associatedwith luxury products); and repeated exposure to advertisementsmight lead to effects similar to those identified here.
Materials and MethodsSubjects. Twenty normal-weight subjects participated in the experiment (11males, ages 21–30; mean age, 24.5 yr). One additional subject participated inthe experiment but was excluded from the analysis, because he reportedbeing confused about the task during a debriefing at the end of the experi-ment. All subjects were right-handed and healthy; had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no history of alcohol abuse, psychiatric diagnoses, orneurological or metabolic illnesses; and were not taking any medications thatinterfere with the performance of fMRI. All subjects were screened for liking,and at least occasionally drinking, red wine. At the beginning of each exper-iment, subjects were required to show an official form of identification to
Fig. 4. Neural correlates of liking ratings. (A) Activity in the mOFC and themidbrain correlated with the reported pleasantness of the six liquids at degus-tation time. For illustration purposes, the contrast is shown both at P " 0.001 andP"0.005uncorrectedandwithanextendthresholdoffivevoxels. (B)Correlationof pleasantness ratings and BOLD responses (r ! 0.593, P " 0.000). Each pointdenotes a subject-price pair. The horizontal axis measures the reported pleasant-ness. The vertical axis computes the betas from the general linear model in a5-mm spherical volume surrounding the area depicted in A.
1052 ! www.pnas.org"cgi"doi"10.1073"pnas.0706929105 Plassmann et al.
“Liking”
DiscussionThe main hypothesis of this study was that an increase in theperceived price of a wine should, through an increase in tasteexpectations, increase activity in the mOFC. The results de-scribed above provide evidence consistent with the hypothesis.The hypothesis was motivated by several previous studies, whichhave shown that activity in the mOFC is correlated with behav-ioral pleasantness ratings for odors (10–13), tastes (6, 14, and15), and even music (16). This, together with our behavioralresults and the additional imaging results described below,support the interpretation that, by modulating the activity in themOFC, changes in the price of a wine might lead to a change inthe actual EP derived from its consumption.
We performed two additional analyses to provide further supportfor this interpretation. First, for each individual and wine, wecomputed the change in reported EP between the high and lowprice conditions. We also computed the analogous difference inparameter estimates for the BOLD response from the generallinear model in an area surrounding the mOFC. Fig. 3B shows thatthe neural and behavioral estimates were positively and highlycorrelated (r ! 0.49, P " 0.001). Second, we verified that the resultsof the previous literature also held in our study by estimating adifferent general linear model and looking for brain regions whoseactivity was correlated with reported EP from sampling the differ-ent stimuli (see SI Text for details). The results replicated thefindings of previous studies: activity in the mOFC was correlatedwith absolute reports of pleasantness (Fig. 4).
Importantly, we did not find evidence for an effect of priceson areas of the primary taste areas such as the insula cortex, theventroposterior medial nucleus of the thalamus, or the prabra-chial nuclei of the pons. A natural interpretation is that thetop-down cognitive processes that encode the flavor expectan-cies are integrated with the bottom-up sensory components ofthe wine in the mOFC, thus modulating the hedonic experienceof flavor, but that the flavor expectancies generated by thechange in prices do not impact more basic sensory representa-
tions. Interestingly, an analogous mechanism has been proposedfor pain placebo effects (7).
Our results have implications for several disciplines. First, theEP signal plays a central role in neuroeconomics, because itserves as a teaching signal that guides future behavior. Unfor-tunately, very little is known about the factors that affect theneural computation of this signal. A natural starting hypothesisis the economic view, which states that EP depends only on thesensory properties of the item being consumed (i.e., its molec-ular properties) and the state of the consumer. Our resultssuggest that the brain might compute EP in a much moresophisticated manner that involves integrating the actual sensoryproperties of the substance being consumed with the expecta-tions about how good it should be. It is important to emphasizethat it might be adaptive for the brain to do this. To make gooddecisions in the future, the brain needs to carry out goodmeasurements of the quality of current experiences. In a worldof noisy measurements, the use of prior knowledge about thequality of an experience provides additional valuable informa-tion. A related study (13) provides additional supporting evi-dence for this point by showing that giving a cognitive label toan ambiguous odor (‘‘cheddar cheese’’ or ‘‘body odor’’) canaffect both subjective pleasantness reports and neural activityrelated to EP. Unlike the current paper, however, de Araujo etal. (13) do not provide evidence that marketing actions, such aspricing, can affect neural correlates of EP.
Second, our findings also have implications for marketing.Whereas there is ample behavioral evidence that various mar-keting actions are successful in influencing the EP of individuals,that they can modulate neural representations of this signal hadnot been reported before. Furthermore, the neural findings alsoprovide some clues about the mechanisms involved. In particu-lar, it seems that price changes modulate the representations ofexperienced utility but not the encoding of the sensory proper-ties of taste in the primary gustatory cortex.
Third, our results have implications for economics. EP is animportant component of experienced utility, which is the econ-omist’s term for subjective well being. We show that, contrary tothe standard economic view, EP depends on nonintrinsic prop-erties of products, such as the price at which they are sold. It thenfollows that marketing manipulations might affect subjectiveperceptions of well being. This raises several difficult questionsfor the field. Should the effect of prices on experienced utility becounted as real economic well being or as a mistake made byindividuals? To what extent are measurable differences in pref-erences based on intrinsic differences between products andprice effects we have identified? What happens to the efficiencyof competitive markets when firms can influence experiencedutility by changing the price of items?
An important task for future research is to develop a morecomplete characterization of the range of marketing actions thatcan influence the neural computation of EP. We conjecture thatany action affecting expectations of product quality, such asexpert quality ratings; peer reviews; information about countryof origin, store, and brand names (especially those associatedwith luxury products); and repeated exposure to advertisementsmight lead to effects similar to those identified here.
Materials and MethodsSubjects. Twenty normal-weight subjects participated in the experiment (11males, ages 21–30; mean age, 24.5 yr). One additional subject participated inthe experiment but was excluded from the analysis, because he reportedbeing confused about the task during a debriefing at the end of the experi-ment. All subjects were right-handed and healthy; had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no history of alcohol abuse, psychiatric diagnoses, orneurological or metabolic illnesses; and were not taking any medications thatinterfere with the performance of fMRI. All subjects were screened for liking,and at least occasionally drinking, red wine. At the beginning of each exper-iment, subjects were required to show an official form of identification to
Fig. 4. Neural correlates of liking ratings. (A) Activity in the mOFC and themidbrain correlated with the reported pleasantness of the six liquids at degus-tation time. For illustration purposes, the contrast is shown both at P " 0.001 andP"0.005uncorrectedandwithanextendthresholdoffivevoxels. (B)Correlationof pleasantness ratings and BOLD responses (r ! 0.593, P " 0.000). Each pointdenotes a subject-price pair. The horizontal axis measures the reported pleasant-ness. The vertical axis computes the betas from the general linear model in a5-mm spherical volume surrounding the area depicted in A.
1052 ! www.pnas.org"cgi"doi"10.1073"pnas.0706929105 Plassmann et al.
Preference
Methods: Reverse Inference IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
mPFC Activation
DiscussionThe main hypothesis of this study was that an increase in theperceived price of a wine should, through an increase in tasteexpectations, increase activity in the mOFC. The results de-scribed above provide evidence consistent with the hypothesis.The hypothesis was motivated by several previous studies, whichhave shown that activity in the mOFC is correlated with behav-ioral pleasantness ratings for odors (10–13), tastes (6, 14, and15), and even music (16). This, together with our behavioralresults and the additional imaging results described below,support the interpretation that, by modulating the activity in themOFC, changes in the price of a wine might lead to a change inthe actual EP derived from its consumption.
We performed two additional analyses to provide further supportfor this interpretation. First, for each individual and wine, wecomputed the change in reported EP between the high and lowprice conditions. We also computed the analogous difference inparameter estimates for the BOLD response from the generallinear model in an area surrounding the mOFC. Fig. 3B shows thatthe neural and behavioral estimates were positively and highlycorrelated (r ! 0.49, P " 0.001). Second, we verified that the resultsof the previous literature also held in our study by estimating adifferent general linear model and looking for brain regions whoseactivity was correlated with reported EP from sampling the differ-ent stimuli (see SI Text for details). The results replicated thefindings of previous studies: activity in the mOFC was correlatedwith absolute reports of pleasantness (Fig. 4).
Importantly, we did not find evidence for an effect of priceson areas of the primary taste areas such as the insula cortex, theventroposterior medial nucleus of the thalamus, or the prabra-chial nuclei of the pons. A natural interpretation is that thetop-down cognitive processes that encode the flavor expectan-cies are integrated with the bottom-up sensory components ofthe wine in the mOFC, thus modulating the hedonic experienceof flavor, but that the flavor expectancies generated by thechange in prices do not impact more basic sensory representa-
tions. Interestingly, an analogous mechanism has been proposedfor pain placebo effects (7).
Our results have implications for several disciplines. First, theEP signal plays a central role in neuroeconomics, because itserves as a teaching signal that guides future behavior. Unfor-tunately, very little is known about the factors that affect theneural computation of this signal. A natural starting hypothesisis the economic view, which states that EP depends only on thesensory properties of the item being consumed (i.e., its molec-ular properties) and the state of the consumer. Our resultssuggest that the brain might compute EP in a much moresophisticated manner that involves integrating the actual sensoryproperties of the substance being consumed with the expecta-tions about how good it should be. It is important to emphasizethat it might be adaptive for the brain to do this. To make gooddecisions in the future, the brain needs to carry out goodmeasurements of the quality of current experiences. In a worldof noisy measurements, the use of prior knowledge about thequality of an experience provides additional valuable informa-tion. A related study (13) provides additional supporting evi-dence for this point by showing that giving a cognitive label toan ambiguous odor (‘‘cheddar cheese’’ or ‘‘body odor’’) canaffect both subjective pleasantness reports and neural activityrelated to EP. Unlike the current paper, however, de Araujo etal. (13) do not provide evidence that marketing actions, such aspricing, can affect neural correlates of EP.
Second, our findings also have implications for marketing.Whereas there is ample behavioral evidence that various mar-keting actions are successful in influencing the EP of individuals,that they can modulate neural representations of this signal hadnot been reported before. Furthermore, the neural findings alsoprovide some clues about the mechanisms involved. In particu-lar, it seems that price changes modulate the representations ofexperienced utility but not the encoding of the sensory proper-ties of taste in the primary gustatory cortex.
Third, our results have implications for economics. EP is animportant component of experienced utility, which is the econ-omist’s term for subjective well being. We show that, contrary tothe standard economic view, EP depends on nonintrinsic prop-erties of products, such as the price at which they are sold. It thenfollows that marketing manipulations might affect subjectiveperceptions of well being. This raises several difficult questionsfor the field. Should the effect of prices on experienced utility becounted as real economic well being or as a mistake made byindividuals? To what extent are measurable differences in pref-erences based on intrinsic differences between products andprice effects we have identified? What happens to the efficiencyof competitive markets when firms can influence experiencedutility by changing the price of items?
An important task for future research is to develop a morecomplete characterization of the range of marketing actions thatcan influence the neural computation of EP. We conjecture thatany action affecting expectations of product quality, such asexpert quality ratings; peer reviews; information about countryof origin, store, and brand names (especially those associatedwith luxury products); and repeated exposure to advertisementsmight lead to effects similar to those identified here.
Materials and MethodsSubjects. Twenty normal-weight subjects participated in the experiment (11males, ages 21–30; mean age, 24.5 yr). One additional subject participated inthe experiment but was excluded from the analysis, because he reportedbeing confused about the task during a debriefing at the end of the experi-ment. All subjects were right-handed and healthy; had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no history of alcohol abuse, psychiatric diagnoses, orneurological or metabolic illnesses; and were not taking any medications thatinterfere with the performance of fMRI. All subjects were screened for liking,and at least occasionally drinking, red wine. At the beginning of each exper-iment, subjects were required to show an official form of identification to
Fig. 4. Neural correlates of liking ratings. (A) Activity in the mOFC and themidbrain correlated with the reported pleasantness of the six liquids at degus-tation time. For illustration purposes, the contrast is shown both at P " 0.001 andP"0.005uncorrectedandwithanextendthresholdoffivevoxels. (B)Correlationof pleasantness ratings and BOLD responses (r ! 0.593, P " 0.000). Each pointdenotes a subject-price pair. The horizontal axis measures the reported pleasant-ness. The vertical axis computes the betas from the general linear model in a5-mm spherical volume surrounding the area depicted in A.
1052 ! www.pnas.org"cgi"doi"10.1073"pnas.0706929105 Plassmann et al.
My product is “liked”
Methods: Multi-voxel Pattern Analysis IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Beyond Reverse Inference
Like
Dislike
New Product
Costs IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Intern
You are the postdoc. You should know how to make ends meet.
$40 $500 $40 $10,000 $20,000
Data: $17,400 Overhead: $30,0 00
$47,400
Scan Subject Postdoc IT
Costs IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Return On Investment?
Data: $17,400 Overhead: $30,0 00
$47,400
“If I can spend $1000 to do a traditional market study that gets me 85% of what a $50,000 fMRI study does then the return on my neuromarketing investment is not great. Thinking about it another way, how much less or more could I get across 50 traditional studies relative to the value of one neuromarketing study.” -Craig Bennett
Context IV
. W
hat N
euro
scie
nce
Can
NO
T do
for M
arke
ting
Ø Loud
Ø Claustrophobic
Ø Stationary
Ø Repetitive
IV.
Wha
t Neu
rosc
ienc
e C
an N
ot d
o fo
r Mar
ketin
g Summary: Limitations
Ø Cautionary Tales
Ø Costs
Ø Methodological
Ø Context
Data: $17,400 Overhead: $30,000
$47,400 My product is “liked”
Neuromarketing: Conclusions
Promise Caution
Data: $17,400 Overhead: $30,0 00
$47,400
Thanks! DHAROL TANKERSLEY, PhD Analyst
[email protected] www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Dharol/Tankersley