Mustafa Ahsan’s blog post on Neuromarketing forced me to consider a completely different approach to marketing that has added new depth to my understanding. It is both fascinating and terrifying that technology has advanced enough to be used to manipulate the human mind. Mastering Neuromarketing technology is of course a marketer’s dream, but may have serious ethical and social long-term consequences.

In our marketing lecture we discussed the extreme difficulty marketers face when trying to reach their consumers and fight for their attention. A.K. Pradeep, CEO of NeuroFocus asserts that, “If pitches are to succeed, they need to reach the subconscious level of the brain, the place where consumers develop initial interest in products, inclinations to buy them and brand loyalty”. Measuring brain waves and thus concluding the stimuli for subconscious activity achieves this.

Google, Disney, CBS and even some political campaigns have utilized Neuromarketing in order to tap into the public’s brain. Consumer advocates are rightly calling Neuromarketing, ““brandwashing” – an amalgam of branding and brainwashing”. The probing of our subconscious brain patterns may be used to influence consumer behavior without our consent.

With the continual research and development Neuromarketing may be used as a tool to influence our decisions about much larger, more pertinent issues as Dr Pradeep explains, “If I persuaded you to choose Toothpaste A or Toothpaste B, you haven’t really lost much, but if I persuaded you to choose President A or President B, the consequences could be much more profound”.

However, the technique has yet to prove that brain-pattern responses to marketing associate with purchasing behavior. Although with the consistently rapid growth of technology it may not be long until marketers are able to hear “the whispers of the brain”.

Citation:

Ahsan, Mustafa. “Neuromarketing.” (2012): n. pag. Web. 6 Oct. 2012. https://blogs.ubc.ca/mustafaahsan/.

Singer, Natasha. “Making Ads That Whisper to the Brain.” The New York Times. N.p., 13 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14stream.html?_r=0.

One of the most dominant airlines in low-cost air travel today with its unique and, often times daring, cost-cutting and marketing strategies is explored in Kevin Lu‘s blog post. Since I can be considered part of Ryanair’s target market, this particular blog posting caught my attention as an interested potential consumer of Ryanair services.

Ryanair has accomplished something very unique in that its point of difference is in fact its low-cost tickets and corresponding absolutely minimal air services. During lecture discussions on marketing strategies and stakeholder theory the importance of creating a strong and attractive business image and valuing all stakeholders within the business was emphasized.

However, Ryanair seems to have no problem portraying an image of cheap service and poor quality flight-experience as well as undervaluing the significance of healthy stakeholder relations. This is suggested in Kevin’s post as he mentions ethical implications of charging consumers for access to restrooms on board. Not only does this portray Ryanair in a light that may not be attractive to consumers but also suppose that Ryanair does not value their connection with consumers (against stakeholder theory).

What is even more astounding is that consumers targeted by Ryanair seem to be largely unmoved by the airline’s questionable ethical conduct or poor quality service, as ticket sales are still on the rise. For Ryanair marketing image and stakeholder theory may not be as important as long as the consumers’ pockets are not completely emptied by the end of the flight. One would be wrong to assume the ‘head honcho’ of low cost air-travel would lose market share as it continuously pushes the boundaries of ethical business conduct.

Sources:

Lu, Kevin. “How Cheap Is Too Cheap?” (2012): n. pag. Web. 6 Oct. 2012. https://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinlu/2012/09/13/how-cheap-is-too-cheap/.

http://www.ryanair.com/doc/investor/2012/q4_2012_doc.pdf

Penn State Nittany Lions has been known throughout the US for their strength and talent in the football world. The team has maintained healthy relationships with sponsors and a strong image as a competitive and professional football team until now. The University of Pennsylvania’s sex abuse scandal has devastated the football team’s reputation and media image, severely damaged its sponsor relations and incurred heavy financial losses.

Penn State’s reputation has caused leading sponsors, fans and partners to rethink their involvement with the once prestigious football team. In 2011 it was recorded that, “Nittany Lions generated $73 million in revenue and earned a profit of $53 million for the university” and thus functions similarly to a businesses. It is vital for any business to maintain healthy relationships with individual stakeholders – in this case particularly the sponsors (financiers). Penn State’s sex abuse scandal has left irreparable damage to sponsor relationships causing, “State Farm Insurance [to pull] direct sponsorship of Penn State football for the 2012 season… and General Motors [to consider] doing the same”.

The undeniable link between marketing and finance presents itself within Penn State’s dilemma as their now ruined image from a marketing perspective has seriously compromised its financial status. Penn State now has to pay “$60 million fine, is banned from postseason play including bowl games for four years and will vacate its 112 wins from 1998-2011”. The scandal has not only affected the football team in the ways aforementioned but also its partners. Media partner Learfield Sports has committed to remain loyal to Penn State, even though Learfields association with Penn State may put their reputation in jeopardy.

The once, “third most valuable college football program with $100 million” according to Forbes is now facing a feature that is not as promising. This demonstrates that no matter how established or elitist a business/organization is, preserving healthy stakeholder connections and good reputation/image is extremely important. The link between marketing and finance, especially in this case, cannot be ignored.

Citation:

Channick, Robert, and Kathy Bergen. “State Farm May Not Be Only Sponsor to Step Away from Penn State Football.” Chicago Tribune. N.p., 25 July 2012. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. <http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-25/business/ct-biz-0725-state-farm-20120725_1_penn-state-state-farm-ncaa-sanctions>.