The 2007 Marketing Maayaajaalam awards for various categories in marketing and advertising have been announced. By me, of course!
…and the winners are…
Marketer of the Year
Maruthi Suzuki (For ramping up its image, literally, and growing into competing with the big boys viz., GM, Ford and Honda. First, from the small Alto to a redefined Zen growing into the superb Swift and now culminating into the sexy SX 4. The Maruthi men are back!)
Best Brand Launch of the Year
Sivaji (For spectacular hype, superlative build-up, smart distribution, slick presentation and superb packaging…. a tired and hackneyed story notwithstanding)
Best TV ad of the Year
The HDFC Prudential Campaign (If not for anything, at least for consistently building on a singular creative idea – Hold your head high up with pride)
Worst TV ad of the Year
Bingo (The guys at O&M who made those ads claim they attempted humour. In that case the Bingo ads win hands down in the ‘Sick Jokes’ category)
Best Baseline of the Year
Sivaji – The Boss (For capturing the essence of the film and its hero in two words. That the baseline proved yet again who the evergreen boss of commercial success in the Indian film industry is, is another matter)
Expected Success in 2008
Krd Rys (With increasing nuclear families, working wives and growing preference for healthy food, a smart idea from Hatsun Agro Foods)
Expected Failure in 2008
Dettol Herbal (Can Dettol and its inimitable hospital smell ever be herbal? Who are the geniuses in Reckitt Benckiser kidding?
I don’t expect you to agree with this list. Feel free to feedback. That’s the point of this blog!
And oh yes, here is wishing you a SUCCESSFUL 2008!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Neuromarketing: What lies ahead?
The early experiments in this field have already started to worry anti-marketing activists, some of whom are already mobilizing against the nascent field of neuromarketing. Gary Ruskin of Commercial Alert, a non-profit organization that argues for strict regulations on advertising, says "a year ago almost nobody had heard of neuromarketing except for Forbes readers." Now, he says, it's everywhere.
Over the past year he has waged a campaign against the practice, lobbying Congress and the American Psychological Association (APA) and threatening lawsuits against BrightHouse and other practitioners. He says it could eventually lead to complete corporate manipulation of consumers -- or citizens, with governments using brain scans to create more effective propaganda.
Could brain imaging show marketers how to effectively control our minds?
BrightHouse’s Reiman says no. “There is no possibility that in my lifetime we’ll be able to peer into brains and make them buy more. But businesses that do not use neuroscience are experimenting with failure. These studies will help to position companies as more consumer friendly.”
Chris Frith, Professor of Neuropsychology at the Institute of Neurology in London, prefers to look beyond the hype. “People have the idea that because you are using big, expensive equipment it is more real than asking what people think. They think they have got an easy way to get the information the want – a short cut. But it is very important to consider the subjective measures. If we see from scans that someone is happy, but they say that they aren’t, who do we believe?”
Montague agrees that ultimately behaviour is what matters. “Brain imaging isn’t more accurate than other techniques. You will never get rid of psychology and behavioural studies – that’s your ultimate end. But you do want more insight and imaging can provide it.”
Montague predicts that fMRI will become a tool for testing packaging, advertising and other promotional material. “If I am an auto manufacturer and want to change the curvature of the wheel well of my car model, how will my target 35 year old male respond? I will supplement my research with fMRI. And if I was buying something, I am ok with them using brain imaging to make me happier.”
Reiman prefers to dwell on the fundamental nature of neuromarketing research to date. “We can’t understand thoughts, but we can interview the brain and we expect what we will find will change the way companies work.”
Hopefully, for the better!
Over the past year he has waged a campaign against the practice, lobbying Congress and the American Psychological Association (APA) and threatening lawsuits against BrightHouse and other practitioners. He says it could eventually lead to complete corporate manipulation of consumers -- or citizens, with governments using brain scans to create more effective propaganda.
Could brain imaging show marketers how to effectively control our minds?
BrightHouse’s Reiman says no. “There is no possibility that in my lifetime we’ll be able to peer into brains and make them buy more. But businesses that do not use neuroscience are experimenting with failure. These studies will help to position companies as more consumer friendly.”
Chris Frith, Professor of Neuropsychology at the Institute of Neurology in London, prefers to look beyond the hype. “People have the idea that because you are using big, expensive equipment it is more real than asking what people think. They think they have got an easy way to get the information the want – a short cut. But it is very important to consider the subjective measures. If we see from scans that someone is happy, but they say that they aren’t, who do we believe?”
Montague agrees that ultimately behaviour is what matters. “Brain imaging isn’t more accurate than other techniques. You will never get rid of psychology and behavioural studies – that’s your ultimate end. But you do want more insight and imaging can provide it.”
Montague predicts that fMRI will become a tool for testing packaging, advertising and other promotional material. “If I am an auto manufacturer and want to change the curvature of the wheel well of my car model, how will my target 35 year old male respond? I will supplement my research with fMRI. And if I was buying something, I am ok with them using brain imaging to make me happier.”
Reiman prefers to dwell on the fundamental nature of neuromarketing research to date. “We can’t understand thoughts, but we can interview the brain and we expect what we will find will change the way companies work.”
Hopefully, for the better!
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Nuromarketing - Experimental first steps
Some companies are commissioning their own fMRI studies à la Montague's test.
In a study of men's reactions to cars, Daimler-Chrysler has found that sportier models activate the brain's reward centres -- the same areas that light up in response to alcohol and drugs -- as well as activating the area in the brain that recognizes faces, which may explain people's tendency to anthropomorphize - attribute form or personality to inanimate products like cars or other such lifestyle products.
Steven Quartz, a scientist at Stanford University, is currently conducting similar research on movie trailers.
Political advertising is also getting in on the game. Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles have found that Republicans and Democrats react differently to campaign ads showing images of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Those ads cause the part of the brain associated with fear to light up more vividly in Democrats than in Republicans.
While neuroscientist Montague's Pepsi Challenge suggests that branding appears to make a difference in consumer preference, BrightHouse's research promises to show exactly how much emotional impact that branding can have.
Marketers have long known that some brands have a seemingly magic appeal; they can elicit strong devotion, with buyers saying they identify with the brand as an extension of their personalities. The BrightHouse research is expected to show exactly which products those are.
"This is really just the first step," says Meaux, who points out that no one has discovered a ‘buy button’ in the brain.
But with more and more marketers peeping into the minds of their consumers, could that be far off?
(To be concluded)
In a study of men's reactions to cars, Daimler-Chrysler has found that sportier models activate the brain's reward centres -- the same areas that light up in response to alcohol and drugs -- as well as activating the area in the brain that recognizes faces, which may explain people's tendency to anthropomorphize - attribute form or personality to inanimate products like cars or other such lifestyle products.
Steven Quartz, a scientist at Stanford University, is currently conducting similar research on movie trailers.
Political advertising is also getting in on the game. Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles have found that Republicans and Democrats react differently to campaign ads showing images of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Those ads cause the part of the brain associated with fear to light up more vividly in Democrats than in Republicans.
While neuroscientist Montague's Pepsi Challenge suggests that branding appears to make a difference in consumer preference, BrightHouse's research promises to show exactly how much emotional impact that branding can have.
Marketers have long known that some brands have a seemingly magic appeal; they can elicit strong devotion, with buyers saying they identify with the brand as an extension of their personalities. The BrightHouse research is expected to show exactly which products those are.
"This is really just the first step," says Meaux, who points out that no one has discovered a ‘buy button’ in the brain.
But with more and more marketers peeping into the minds of their consumers, could that be far off?
(To be concluded)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)