Let's start talking about "behavioral sciences applied to marketing

[RafiRiFat336205]

The popular belief (an urban legend that is difficult to dispel) that marketing is used to create needs where they do not exist and for companies to deceive consumers, is like a negative mantra that we have been hearing repeatedly for a long time. Anyone who does not know what the real keys to this discipline are, and its ethical code, easily falls into the temptation of blaming marketing, for better or for worse, when a company or public person makes a profit or stands out from the rest of its competitors... "it has good marketing", "they have made it a tailor-made marketing", "all it has is marketing"... These phrases confuse marketing with some of its tools such as communication, advertising or public relations. They condemn it by attributing to the whole the responsibility of some of its parts. However, marketing is holistic, it is a business strategy, it is a global vision of the business and the way in which it must establish honest and lasting relationships with its market.

Something similar has happened with neuromarketing, despite all india whatsapp number the young nature of this new discipline, since it was not until 2002 when A. Smidts named it this way to define the application of neurophysiological measurement techniques to research methods of the impact of marketing tools on consumers. However, since the end of the last century, various researchers such as G. Zaltman, P. Ekman, A. Damasio, R. Thaler, D. Kahnemam, R. Montague, etc. were concerned with delving deeper into the emotional or rational response of people to certain stimuli and their implication in decision-making. The complexity of uniting a medical science (neurophysiology) with a social science (marketing) gave rise to all kinds of experiments, many of which paved the way for fantasy, causing the appearance of "smoke sellers", while others followed the rigor of the scientific method and the scrutiny of severe reviews of the results.

As in all sectors, what could "smell like a quick deal" fed the market's anxiety, creating a small bubble with the appearance of dozens of companies that claimed to have the secret to making consumers choose a brand or buy a particular product. Their argument was that the magic of neuroscientific techniques allowed them to guess how to press the "buy button" and predict the impact on sales with total precision; but a study published in the Journal of Advertising Research showed that none of the results obtained by various providers of "neurological research applied to marketing" were consistent for the same experiment. What is not science is quackery.

At the other extreme, there are companies that have based their business model on serious research, on the use of appropriate clinical measurement tools adapted to natural or laboratory environments (controlled and noise-free), on the combination of these with conventional survey systems, on the development of efficient algorithms for the extraction of useful data depending on the method used, on the support of advances in cognitive psychology and behavioural economics studies, in order to try to get closer to the real reasons why humans make economic, purchasing or brand affiliation decisions. These companies are the ones that have survived the bursting of that bubble and are helping their clients to understand how target consumers react to their commercial or communication proposals.