Limits of Neuromarketing

Empirical evidence is a good thing, and when looking at how people respond to advertising, it’s something that the marketing discipline will always benefit from. However, there is a fine line between evidence that is applicable to marketing and evidence that is not.

Among more recent trends is neuromarketing, the idea that brain mapping in real time can determine how consumers behave in response to a brand, product, or campaign. While promising, this field of research is still in its early stages, and should be approached critically.

Traditional market research such as surveys and interviews have many pitfalls, all of which are well documented, but the move toward neuromarketing seems increasingly based on the assumption that brainwaves are infallible and always give accurate insights into peoples' emotional states.

This is not the case.

Firstly, the outputs or readings of brainwaves are always dependent on the type of imaging used. Broadly speaking, brain scanning can either be electrical (in which the electrical signals generated by neurons are measured) or functional (in which chemical changes such as oxygen and glucose levels are measured).

Secondly, each brain imaging technique differs in the limits of spatial and temporal resolution. Spatial resolution determines where in the brain an event is occurring, whereas temporal resolution determines when it is occurring.

The two most widely used brain-imagining techniques in neuromarketing are electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), both of which have their own advantages and disadvantages.

EEG, for example, measures brain signals via electrodes attached to a scalp cap. It is the most common method of imaging because of its comparatively low cost and ability to measure activity across the entire neo cortex. It also measures signals in real-time, meaning it has excellent temporal resolution.

Market research teams can use EEG to see how quickly consumers notice and respond to advertising, even when subliminal. Electrical patterns or spikes determine a fairly accurate level of neural excitation (arousal).

What EEG cannot do, however, is determine where in the brain such activity is taking place, or which brand elements in particular evoke the most positive responses or ‘engagements’. This is because EEG has very poor spatial resolution.

EEG measures activity across all four lobes of the neo cortex, regions of the brain involved in everything from consciousness and language processing to tactile sensation and object recognition.

In fact, emotional response is the most difficult thing for EEG to measure, as emotion is primarily localised to the amygdala, a deep brain structure that EEG cannot reach, which is why claims such as this ­–

– are class-A bullshit. Neural excitation ≠ emotional response.

The other disadvantage of EEG, and by extension all forms of brain imaging, is that they do not necessarily reflect real world scenarios. I have been involved in a few university EEG studies, and believe me, it is difficult to behave and think naturally with a dozen wires glued to your head.

On the flip side is fMRI, which detects changes in oxygen consumption in specific regions of the brain. The harder the brain works, the more oxygen it consumes, which means researchers can record which parts of the brain are being used most in response to advertising.

While this method has the best spatial resolution of all imaging techniques, it has poor temporal resolution, and can only measure responses 5-10 seconds after a stimulus has been presented.

It is also an incredibly expensive and time-consuming process, even more so than a regular MRI, which means that fMRI neuromarketing studies tend to suffer from small samples, which again, are not necessarily reflective of real-world situations.

This is not to say that neuromarketing is bogus, but that it is a young discipline that still suffers from many limitations, and thus should be approached with caution. Researchers claiming to offer definitive, infallible results from neuromarketing are either embellishing or straight up lying.

There are strict limitations on what each method of brain imagining can do, and improper usage of one type to measure responses it cannot actually measure is about as useful as no research at all.

That being said, neuromarketing is evolving almost as quickly as neuroscience itself, which means it may be a powerful force in the future.

a.ce