challenge
OK, readers, I need some input. Here’s my plan. Every neuromarketing firm says it has data showing the effectiveness of its methods. I really believe that some actually do know what they are doing. But, there’s little or no peer-reviewed research proving that one can reliably determine the effectiveness of advertising or the appeal of a product using EEG, biometrics, facial coding, etc.

So, in the interest of moving things along in the nascent neuromarketing industry, I’m planning to offer a guest article slot to any neuromarketing firm that wants to lay out work that they believe reliably shows the effectiveness of their technique in a way that would satisfy a skeptic. And, I’ll keep comments open so that you, the reader, can be part of the “peer review” process. Here’s my plan:

1) Article(s) must show statistically significant and actionable information obtained by neuromarketing techniques. A case study along the lines of, “we analyzed four commercials, picked the best one, and sales went through the roof!” won’t cut it. This kind of anecdotal data is intriguing and suggestive, but doesn’t prove anything by itself. I don’t plan to edit the articles, but in reviewing them for publication I’ll temporarily don my neuro-skeptic hat.

2) Each guest article should be fairly short, say, under 1,000 words. Shorter is fine. The style should be geared to the lay reader, since most Neuromarketing readers aren’t PhDs. (We do have a few of those, too, and maybe some will engage in the discussion!)

3) Media (charts, videos, etc.) can be included in the article if the content adds to the understanding of the lay reader. Additional resources (more charts, supporting data, etc.) can be introduced by links in the article. These additional resources will be placed on our server to ensure the links stay valid and to prevent any questions about supporting data changing over time.

4) Comments will stay open and be moderated only for breaches of civility, promotional content, etc. (The usual stuff!) The author of the article must agree to stay engaged with commenters for at least a week or two following publication to create a full and free discussion.

So, what do you think? Am I missing any key ingredients? Will anyone take me up on this? Do you think any skeptics will be converted if we get some solid submissions/discussion? Do I need a brain scan for even suggesting this? Leave a comment with your thoughts.

email