Buyology by Martin Lindstrom

I would agree that Buyology contains some fascinating insights; however, I also agree that the data would be more useful if the research methodology and findings were published in a way that opened them up to more rigorous scholarly review.

As the book reads now, Buyology seems to include numerous necessary but insufficient conditions. For example, before measuring neural activity in the brains of smokers (in response to cigarette logos, cigarette packs and subliminal imagery) smokers were required (as a necessary test condition) to abstain from smoking for two hours prior to the test. Respondents involved in tests to gauge brain activity in relation to anti smoking warning labels, were required not to smoke for a total of four hours (although it is unclear at what point this timeframe kicked in).

In this light, one question that seems to emerge from these conditions is the possible impact on research findings, brought about by the extent to which test subjects may have experienced abstinence based cravings during test time. Moreover, it is commonly understood that cigarette cravings become intensified when smokers are faced with stressful situations (McLernon & Gilbert, 2005; Erblich et al., 2005). On that basis, Lindstrom’s own comparison of an MRI test experience to feeling “as if you are being buried alive in a phone booth” seems well worth noting. Additionally, when referring to test respondent “Marlene” Lindstrom observes that even before the FMRI scan, whilst engaging in the written questionnaire, Marlene was “twirling her pen around in her fingers as though she was about to ignite the thing”. This strongly suggests that cravings in Marlene’s brain may have been active even before the FMRI test had begun.

Following a similar line of thought, perhaps it would also be worth questioning possible affects of the sequence in which the tests were carried out. For example, if subliminal images (thought to cause higher craving responses) were shown after the respondents viewed the branded images; would the affects of time lapsed and image sequencing not be as pertinent to the results as the potential affects induced by the branded and subliminal images themselves? This may be particularly relevant if smokers were not given the opportunity to reduce cravings by smoking in between tests. Indeed, research by Bovbjerg and Erblich (2006) suggests that abstinence-induced cravings to smoke are predicted by CBF increases (abstinence minus satiety) in the right OFC, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, occipital cortex, ACC, ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens, thalamus, amygdala, bilateral hippocampus, left caudate, and right insula. This data suggests that increased activation in the brain’s visuospatial and reward circuitry underlies abstinence-induced cravings to smoke. Note that the nucleus accumbens, the same area that Lindstrom describes as showing a pronounced response in relation to cigarette warning labels, packs and subliminal imagery, is also activated by abstinence-induced cravings.

In addition, the relationship between test images is not sufficiently clear. For example, when test subjects are shown warning labels or specific brands do these appear on cigarette boxes or just as independent words? One reason that this may be important is that the size and shape of a cigarette box, with or without branding, would probably have strong associative value for any smoker. After all, it is the box that is carried around on the person and opened and closed on a regular basis. I would argue that there is therefore strong possibility of ritualised behaviour around the box. This may also be relevant given the unique shape and dimensions of a cigarette box, which is more or less common across most brands. In this light, if warning labels and brands were shown to respondents on boxes, how can we even be sure if it was the box, the brand or the warning label that stimulated activity in the brain’s craving spot?

Another point that seems worth addressing is the question of how test imagery benchmarked? Without a proper indication of benchmarking across tests, method seems reliant on a sort of inverted association testing. In this way Lindstrom may lay himself open to criticism for finding what he brings. On that basis, it seems interesting to note that none of the findings from this new body of research appear to challenge any of Lindstrom’s earlier held ideas. Rather, they appear mainly to substantiate the ideas he laid out in Brand Sense prior to conducting all this research. This of course stands in direct contradiction with the statement he makes on the books jacket cover “How everything we believe about what we buy is wrong”. I guess by “we” he must mean everyone except for Martin?

Finally, there also seems to be insufficient explanation and consideration of the mind-brain-body relationship. For one thing, activating a craving is different to reflecting on it, which is again different to making a decision to act on it. Surely, if that were not the case, nobody would ever quit.

In summary, I would say that although neuroscience may well have much to offer, I think we would do well not to toss the baby out with the bath water. Not “everything” we believe about why we buy is wrong, there are many valuable insights to be gained from other disciplines of study and there are also many other very talented branding practitioners, marketers and academics that are worth paying attention to. I have to admit – the omnipotent undertone of this book got under my nose!

Hi Roger – I seem to remember seeing a section on Lindstrom where you tracked increased interest in neuromarketing in relation to marketing hype around Buyology. I am struggling to find that data now – could you possibly redirect me? Thanks 🙂

Thanks! I think it’s great data because accademics often tend to forget the important role that practitioner literature plays in establishing interest in a field of study…

Dear all,

The whole Lindstrøm idea is flawed. let me give you a few markers (I’ll put this at my blog as well):

1) CLAIM:”Cigarette health warnings stimulate smoking?”
This is based on the claims that the cigarette ads led to stronger activation of the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). This structure has been associated with reward and reward expectancy. Therefore, Lindstrøm suggests that the ads leads smokers to expect pleasure through smoking.

This inference is a logical mistake that is often referred to as “reverse inference” (google it, but see here: http://dlpfc.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/more-on-martin-lindstrom/). Generally, as a neuroscientist, I also know that the NAcc is also involved in the response to fear, aversion and especially the prediction of something aversive. So rather than Lindstrøm’s suggestion, it may be that smokers actually experience DISPLEASURE when seeing the ads… Gives a different spin to that story, right?

2) CLAIM:”the largest neuromarketing study…, scanning the brains of 2.000 subjects.”
I should say that 1.900 of those were scanned using EEG and in particular SST (see next point). There are a few issues with this: for example, why do you need so many subjects for your effects? In general, a group of 20-30 people is often enough to give you good data. But if your effects are really small, you’ll have to boost your statistical power by e.g. including more subjects. I wouldn’t think much of effects that required that many subjects to show anything…

3) SST, or Steady-State Topography is an innovative use of the EEG recording. It is, really. But it’s validity, and what it measures is really VERY limited to the scalp, and VERY limited to a few particular uses. One of it’s users, Richard Silberstein, who did the Lindstrøm recordings) actually has a nice approach, and has a sober and careful view of it’s uses (e.g. that it needs validation and development). So the method is really not useable to extract the gross and general findings that Lindstrøm tends to think he can.

4) where is all this published??? If this is science, why have we not seen anything in scientific journals, let alone ANY peer-reviewed journals??? This is the very hallmark of the Lindstrømian approach: claim a lot, document nothing… Just showing a few flashy images won’t do. I can make them through virtually any fMRI or EEG analysis myself

So people, use your logic and statistics, and ask the critical questions before jumping on the Lindstrøm bandwagon

Best wishes,
Thomas Z. Ramsøy, PhD

Decision Neuroscience Research Group
Copenhagen Business School
Denmark

and
Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance
Copenhagen University Hospital
Denmark