When I picked up a Korean newspaper in a local Korean supermarket and flipped through it the other day, my eyes were drawn to a small article. It was far from what I expected to read from a tabloid gossip paper. The article was on the first ‘neuromarketing’ attempt made by Kia Motors, South Korean car manufacturer. They have applied various neuromarketing techniques in order to come up with the best name for their new car. These techniques would include word association, eye-tracking and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI).

I was surprised that the word neuromarketing was used in such a casual manner (no definition of this word was given) in the Korean press. This also made me ask so many questions: Why did one of the major Korean car makers publicise their neuromarketing? Is what they claim as neuromarketing better than unscientific focus groups? What are the implications of neuromarketing in the ways in which we make everyday life decisions? Does this mean we will be given better choices in the future? Or does this mean manufactures will decide what majority of customers would like? Will we end up not having to decide at all?

Okay, enough of questions for now and let me explain what neuromarketing is all about. Neuromarketing is a new field of science and/or marketing of “reading the consumer mind” [1] or as David Rowan puts it: “the search for the brain’s ‘buy’ button” [2]. Neuromarketing studies consumers’ sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective response to marketing stimuli. In other words, this is a science of understanding 1) how we process feelings that affect our purchasing decisions and 2) how the brain responds to expected financial rewards. Researchers use technologies such as fMRI to measure changes in activity in parts of the brain, electroencephalography (EEG) to measure activity in specific regional spectra of the brain response, and/or sensors to measure changes in one’s physiological state (heart rate, respiratory rate, galvanic skin response) to learn why consumers make the decisions they do, and what part of the brain is telling them to do it [3].

I agree with the principles of the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE) [4] on neuromarketing. The Center declares as following:

"While we don’t think neuromarketing should be prohibited, we continue to consider other options designed to make its use more transparent. For example, one possibility we are considering is requiring disclosure on the product packaging if neuromarketing has been used. We also continue to consider whether different rules ought to exist for products marketed directly to children, or for political use of neuromarketing".

Political economy of brain sciences including neuromarketing deserves much more attention than it gets at the moment. As history proves commercial drive (which is often combined with military purpose) behind scientific enterprises has added ‘interesting’ dimensions to scientific development and brain sciences are not exception. Who does invest in brain sciences and with what purpose? What should we as a society prioritise investing our resources and scientific curiosity into? Shouldn’t we have to have a say in the debates and process of decision making in this new science with both high public relevance and rapidly advancing technologies?

For this reason I welcome that the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) and the European Neuroscience and Society Network (ENSN) just announced a call for papers for an international conference: Neurosociety: What is it with the brain these days? [5] This conference will be centred on the timely issues including 1) the rise and current configuration of the international neuroindustry; 2) The economic and social value of the new brain sciences; 3) The ethical and social implications of biomarkets and neuromarketing.

Maybe the hype around neuromarketing is much larger than its actual power to steer consumer behaviour at the moment but I am certain that we will have to face various issues in the very near future. Taking our cues from fictional media we could look to how the rude hospital receptionist in Little Brittan, trusts the computer over common sense, founding the catchphrase “computer says no” or the power of scanner over eye witnesses in the film Gattaca (1997). At some point we may have to face the dilemma about whether we should trust impressive pictures of our brain with yellow and orange blobs over our instinct of which brand of cereal you prefer. 

References

[1] “Reading the Consumer Mind: The age of neuromarketing has dawned” by Douglas Rushkoff, (c) NyPress.com, Feb. 2004. http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/Rushkoff_Neuromarketing.html
[2] “Neuromarketing: The search for the brain's 'buy' button” by David Rowan (written for the Times Magazine, February 5, 2004, accessible from his blog:  http://www.davidrowan.com/2008/06/neuromarketing-search-for-brains-buy.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing
[4] http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/index.html
[5] For more information about this conference and CFP: http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=10220©ownerid=12545; http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/ENSN

Downloads

	More Attention to Neuromarketing is a Must! pdf