January 31st, 2004

Advertisers Probe Brains, Raise Fears

By David Wahlberg
Atlanta Journal Constitution

When Peter Graser underwent an MRI scan at Emory University, doctors weren’t
looking for disease.

Instead, brain researchers flashed images --- Madonna, broccoli, sushi, a Ford
truck, a golden retriever, Bill Clinton, Coca-Cola --- before the 37-year-old
Marietta resident’s eyes as he lay inside the coffin-like tube of the magnetic
resonance imaging machine.

The scientists discovered a biological clue to what drives consumers: Whenever
Graser and a dozen other study volunteers saw a picture they particularly liked,
their brains showed increased activity in the medial prefrontal cortex --- an
area associated with preference, or sense of self.

On this Super Bowl Sunday, when advertising swells to a fever pitch, the researchers’
conclusion is especially appropos: What really makes us loyal purchasers is
a brand that reflects our self-image, not a product’s taste, size, color or

The study, funded through the Atlanta consulting firm BrightHouse by an undisclosed
Fortune 500 client, has stirred up controversy about the emerging --- and some
say Orwellian --- field of "neuromarketing." Scientific tools such
as MRI scanners, which allow researchers to peer into the brain and better understand
depression, addiction, autism and schizophrenia, should not be used by Coca-Cola,
McDonald’s or Ford to entice people to buy more of their soda, french fries
or sport utility vehicles, critics say.

"It’s wrong to use medical technology for marketing and not for healing,"
said Gary Ruskin, executive director of Commercial Alert, a Portland, Ore.-based
nonprofit organization that has worked to bar advertising from schools and other
public areas. "We have epidemics of obesity, diabetes, alcoholism, gambling
and smoking --- all tied to marketing. Any increase in the effectiveness of
advertising can be devastating to the public."

Justine Meaux, research director of BrightHouse Neurostrategies Group, a division
of BrightHouse, said neuromarketing helps companies understand customers’ true
desires better than the standard marketing approach, focus groups.

"A lot of what motivates our behavior occurs below the level of conscious
awareness," said Meaux, a neuroscientist. "We give [companies] insight
into how to develop relationships with consumers."

Meaux winces at the allegation by some that BrightHouse is searching for a
"buy button" in the brain.

"The brain is not that simple," she said. "It’s not like consumers
are going to run out like automatons and buy your product no matter what they
think or feel."

Unease about advertising

Neuromarketing is a commercial offshoot of the burgeoning field of medical
research known as cognitive neuroscience. Researchers are using souped-up MRI
scanners and other brain-imaging machines to uncover biological explanations
for mental illness --- and to elucidate why we hate, envy, love or cooperate.

BrightHouse and Emory are among a few neuromarketing pioneers. The Mind of
the Market Laboratory at Harvard Business School also has conducted similar

Read Montague, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, has applied
MRI technology to the "Pepsi Challenge." In his lab, the brains of
test subjects who prefer Pepsi lit up in the region where people process feelings
of reward, such as taste. But Coca-Cola lovers displayed activity of a higher
order --- in the medial prefrontal cortex, the same sector revealed in the Emory

Pepsi wins many taste tests, but Coke sells better because people are subconsciously
influenced by Coke’s full-of-life image, Montague said. "Nobody had ever
measured the neurocorrelate of it," he said.

He said he is organizing a national neuromarketing conference at Baylor this
spring, to allow companies considering the technique to hash out economic and
ethical issues.

Many Americans have felt uneasy about the power of advertising since the post-World
War II explosion of consumerism. Fears of subliminal messages and corporate
manipulation took root following Vance Packard’s 1957 book, "The Hidden
Persuaders." The anxieties continue to echo through cultural references
such as Steven Spielberg’s 2002 movie "Minority Report."

Most ethicists have only recently heard of neuromarketing, said Jonathan Moreno,
president of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities and director
of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Virginia.

"It kind of distorts the marketplace relationship," Moreno said.
"There’s supposed to be a level playing field between a buyer and a seller.
But [with neuromarketing], there isn’t an opportunity for the consumer to create
a screen against the information. It violates the notion that it’s possible
for the buyer to beware."

Coercive technology?

Richard Glen Boire, legal counsel for the Center for Cognitive Liberty and
Ethics in Davis, Calif., said marketers have tried to tease out subconscious
attractions to products for decades.

Neuromarketing "seems like it’s really getting close to coercive use of
technology," Boire said. "But so far we don’t see it crossing that
line. People have enough self-responsibility to say, ‘I’m not going to buy it.’

The leaders of BrightHouse, located in a former soap factory on Atlanta’s west
side, say neuromarketing empowers consumers. By stressing brand affiliation
over product design, the technique encourages companies to develop positive
images and act accordingly, instead of hawking endless streams of "new
and improved" products, they maintain.

Clinton Kilts, an Emory behavioral scientist who is scientific director of
BrightHouse Neurostrategies, said people choose Ben & Jerry’s ice cream
largely for reasons other than taste. The Vermont company is community conscious,
its owners reject the power structure by wearing flannel shirts, and flavor
names such as "Cherry Garcia" appeal to baby boomers who identify
with such bands as the Grateful Dead, he said.

The more people’s brains illuminate a longing for good corporate citizenship,
Kilts said, the more companies will respond.

"We want to give consumers the power to influence companies," he
said. "I, like everyone else, have become fed up with the saturation of

Joey Reiman, chief executive of BrightHouse, said he’s really after the consumer’s
heart, not the brain.

"We’re trying to understand what makes people resonate," Reiman said.
"Do I fly an airline that gets me there faster, or do I fly an airline
that actually lifts me up? Do I wear pants that fit or that fit into my life?"

Ruskin, of Commercial Alert, doesn’t buy the pitch that neuromarketing will
help people. "I think they’re spinning faster than a drill bit," he
said. "It’s plain old market research taken to a new and potentially more
damaging level."

BrightHouse won’t name the Fortune 500 client that paid about $250,000 for
services including the neuromarketing study at Emory, conducted by Kilts and
Meaux. But BrightHouse’s only current Fortune 500 clients are Coca-Cola, Delta
Air Lines, Georgia-Pacific and MetLife.

Emory officials weigh in

BrightHouse isn’t conducting any neuromarketing studies at Emory now but plans
to do more. Kilts said Emory administrators have asked him to prepare a conflict-of-interest
management plan before pursuing more studies using one of Emory’s two research-designated
MRI machines. The request came after Commercial Alert sent a letter to Emory
complaining about the research.

Dr. Robert Rich, executive associate dean of Emory’s School of Medicine, defended
the BrightHouse study, saying the researchers presented their findings at a
scientific meeting and expect to publish them in a peer-reviewed journal.

"It’s obvious that if you understand how people make decisions, there
would be commercial uses for it," Rich said. "I see nothing nefarious
in that."

Graser, the study volunteer, said he isn’t worried that his half-hour entombed
inside the MRI scanner could arm marketers with dangerous insights into his

"Big government and big companies have been trying to manipulate us since
the start of time," he said. "What’s different about this?"


Add your own Comment