Nielsen, long known for its dominant position in television ratings, last week added another prominent neuromarketing firm, Innerscope Research, to its stable. This is significant not just from the standpoint of the companies involved, but for what it says about the not-so-nascent field of consumer neuroscience.
Clearly concerned about the viability of survey-based media ratings as a business model, Nielsen began diversifying its approach years ago. In 2008, the firm bought a minority interest in NeuroFocus, a Berkeley-based firm that was one of the most prominent players in the neuromarketing space. NeuroFocus used EEG brain wave measurement as its primary method for gauging viewer response to ads, packaging, and products.
In 2011, Nielsen bought the remaining portion of NeuroFocus and, later, changed the units branding to Nielsen.
With the acquisition of Innerscope Research, Nielsen has further bolstered its position and signaled its commitment to neuromarketing. The combined unit is called Nielsen Consumer Neuroscience.
The acquisition of Innerscope also increases the credibility of the overall Nielsen effort. Innerscope has been one of the few neuromarketing firms encouraging academic studies using its technology as well as publishing results of specific projects.
Despite its strong market position prior to being acquired, NeuroFocus had been considered by some in the industry to be more style than substance. The firm published little data to allow independent review of their approach, and as a result some questioned the efficacy of their fairly simple EEG headset.
Due to the relative novelty of consumer neuroscience, best practices have yet to be established for various technologies. Neuromarketing firms have employed EEG systems ranging from a couple of dry contacts to a full cap with wet contacts. At the time of their acquisition, NeuroFocus's approach was in the middle.
While more contacts definitely provide more detailed data, it doesn't automatically follow that more contacts allow better data about consumer reactions. It's possible that there is a "good enough" number that works as well, or almost as well, as more complex configurations. Indeed, a few years ago Dr. Carl Marci, then CEO and co-founder of Innerscope Research, commented that Innerscope had evaluated EEG and felt that it didn't add much to the firm's far less intrusive biometric-only approach.
Neuromarketing techniques are evolving, though, and, post-acquisition, Marci is now the Chief Neuroscientist at Nielsen.
I spoke with both Marci and Joe Willke, President of Nielsen Consumer Neuroscience, about both the combination of firms and the neuromarketing industry as a whole. A few key takeaways from this conversation were:
Serious Commitment. While acquiring Innerscope Research and making the well-respected Marci chief neuroscientist certainly shows commitment, the most surprising statistic came from unit head Joe Willke.
According to Willke, the total number of neuroscientists that are part of Nielsen's program will be 18 after the acquisition. The combined group, he said, has authored over 250 peer-reviewed articles.
This commitment to science, as far as I can determine, dwarfs that of other industry players. It also refutes the "style over substance" perception from years past.
It will be interesting to see if Marci's leadership increases the transparency of Nielsen's work with more papers and publications.
Global Reach. According to Willke, Nielsen has five labs in the United States plus labs in the UK, Germany, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Japan, China, and India. This, too, dwarfs the reach of other neuromarketing service providers.
New Services. One key advantage that Innerscope brings to Nielsen is the ability to get out of the lab and take neuromarketing tests to a variety of environments.
Innerscope's primary approach to data collection has been via a wearable belt rather like a fitness monitor. This enables consumer reactions to be tested in natural settings like stores, theaters, and so on.
Not only does an inconspicuous, wearable device offer mobility, it also makes it easier for the subject to forget the monitoring and react naturally to stimuli in the environment.
Multiple Technologies. Marci commented that for neuromarketing studies today, "one tool is not sufficient." That underscored a trend I've been observing in the industry as a whole: firms are becoming less defined as providers of one technology and more as a solution provider that uses the best approach or combinations of approaches to answer the client's question.
When I spoke to Elissa Moses of Ipsos Neuro in March, she said they were using facial coding, three kinds of eye tracking, implicit testing, biometrics, and, experimentally, EEG.
I think this will become the norm for two reasons. First, in some cases multiple technologies used simultaneously may provide better predictive power than an one alone.
Second, different technologies may be better at answering specific kinds of questions. Implicit testing, for example, might uncover non-conscious attitudes toward a brand economically, while an EEG-biometric combination might predict which version of a 30-second commercial was more effective.
Declining Cost. According to Willke, the cost of a neuromarketing study isn't far off from traditional methods like focus groups. At Nielsen, a simple study of, say, two versions of a commercial, might run $30,000.
That price might be off-putting to small business, but is within the range of many consumer marketing budgets.
These costs could decline further with web-based panels using facial coding, implicit testing, or simple biometrics. Instead of visiting a lab in person, panelists would be contacted and reactions gauged using their computer or other device. Over-the-web studies are already used by some firms, and are under study at Nielsen, Willke said.
Is Neuromarketing Becoming a Must-Have Tool?
Just last month, the Copernicus unit of ad giant Dentsu Aegis acquired Forbes Consulting, a firm that uses a proprietary implicit testing method to gauge the non-conscious attitudes of consumers.
Not long ago, as I described in Neuromarketing: Pseudoscience No More, the first major academic study of multiple neuromarketing techniques was published by Temple University scientists.
To me, this confluence of news items is a clear indicator that neuromarketing, or, if you prefer, consumer neuroscience, is moving from the experimental phase into becoming a standard tool used by marketers worldwide.
Roger Dooley is the author of Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince Consumers with Neuromarketing (Wiley, 2011). Find Roger on Twitter as @rogerdooley and at his website, Neuromarketing.
