EU Referendum Summary

EU Ref Blog Summary

EU Referendum – Summary

Brexit

In the aftermath of the EU referendum much ink has been spilled in an attempt to explain the outcome and why people voted as they did.

In the month leading up to the referendum we conducted a study, in collaboration with the Guardian, that explored the subconscious ‘feelings’ that drove voters’ decision making. By feelings, we mean the information that has been embedded into the subconscious over time that subsequently informs our decision-making.

So what did the data show and how does it relate to the actual result?

Based on the research we conducted in February 2016, before the campaign got into full swing we, like other research companies were surprised by the final outcome suggesting a small majority in favour of the Remain campaign, and I will suggest some of the reasons for this error in a moment. But let me start by looking at what we got right.

  • Among those most in favour of Brexit (for further details see Blog 2) 74% prioritised immigration above all other issues (See blog 3 for further details)
  • At the other end of the scale, our data clearly suggested that feelings about the EU were most positive in Scotland (Remain 61%), London (Remain 95%), and Northern Ireland (Remain 99%)  (See blog 2 for more detail)
  • Our data also clearly showed a significant increase in ‘Leave’ voters according to age with half (49%) of 18 – 24 year olds feeling strongly we should remain in the EU compared with around a quarter (24%) of those aged between 50 and 60. (See blog 2 for more details)


Last but not least, our findings indicated that the feelings of those who were still undecided at the time of testing (Feb 16) were aligned closer to those who were in either of the two ‘out’ groups (Weak
out and Strong out).

We found that a latent mistrust of the EU lurked in many people’s subconscious, but at the time of testing was of insufficient power to override conscious doubts about the future outside of the EU. This might have tipped the balance towards voting leave at the last minute. When decision making becomes overly complex people tend to rely  on their ‘gut’ feelings.

Brexit-pic

Basing our prediction on the data collected in February, we expected that Britain would remain in the EU. Clearly, implicit attitudes change during campaigning and more so than we predicted.

As explained in Blog 1, we can only ever accurately estimate outcomes over which we have no control. It is possible to make increasingly precise weather forecasts, since their publication exerts absolutely no effect on the outcome. The same cannot, of course, be said about public opinion polls whose widespread dissemination can and does significantly influence voter intentions.

A second possible reason is that people who wanted out were more strongly motivated to actually go out and vote. Data shows that only around a third of younger voters actually did so on the day and, of course, no one knows how non-voters would have voted.

Since the methods we employed have never before been used to capture people’s implicit attitudes and motivation towards complex and abstract concepts like EU membership, we probably need even finer tuned tools to do so.

All in all, however, we believe the detailed results are a powerful demonstration of both the accuracy and the potential of this radically new approach to market research.

Written by Insa-Annett Tiaden & Dr David Lewis-Hodgson

 

Subscribe




Share


Why Feelings Hold the Key to the EU Referendum Outcome

EU Ref Blog 5

Why Feelings Hold the Key to the EU Referendum Outcome

Blog 5 – EU Referendum

Ballot PaperIn this blog I summarise the main findings of the research we conducted with The Guardian that looked at  voters’ intentions during the EU Referendum,

What do we mean by ‘feelings’?

Psychologists’ categorise modes of thought in two ways:

Implicit (System 1) thinking is non-conscious and error prone but able to rapidly integrate numerous types of interacting information.
Explicit (System 2) is conscious and more accurate, but only capable of handling a few items of information at a time. ‘Feelings’ arise on the ‘fringes’ of conscious and non-conscious thought and play a crucial role in our decision-making.

The basis for this type of research relies upon the fact that ‘feelings’ offer a mental shortcut that draws upon information and emotion that has been ‘absorbed’ into the subconscious. This information does not exist in isolation, but rather pieces of information are connected with other pieces of information in our memory.

People generally take time to process new information and work out how they ‘feel’ about it. Over time these ‘feelings’ become increasingly automatic, allowing the individual to devote less energy into re-evaluating what is already firmly established and connected in their minds.
Come 23rd June, we believe a significant percentage will be voting to remain or leave not on a deep understanding of the economic and social issues involved but on whether they feel staying or leaving is, in some way, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
This study set out to measure both the direction (i.e. positive or negative) and strength of these feelings.

Here is a summary of what we found.

  • Those strongly in favour of Brexit consistently prioritised Immigration over all other issues, suggesting this is the real issue driving strong negative feelings.
  • Undecided voters have, on average, marginally positive subconscious associations with the EU.
  • The feelings of floating voters are closer to those who say they will vote to leave than those who say they will vote to remain.
    With the exception of UKIP, supporters of each mainstream party are more likely to have positive feelings about the EU with Lib Dem supporters being the most positive.
  • Britons aged 30-49 are most likely to have positive feelings about the EU with men being marginally more positive than women.
  • Feelings about the EU are most positive in Scotland and least positive in the South East and East Midlands.
  • Positivity tends to increase with education; those with a post-graduate degree are, by some distance, most likely to have positive feelings about with the EU.
  • Those employed either full or part time, have more positive feelings than do the unemployed, students, retired or the self-employed.
  • Those with the highest levels of knowledge about the EU are the least likely to have positive feeling.

Based on this research conducted  at the beginning of the campaign we expect there to be a 57% Remain vote. We think that people’s implicit attitudes to Europe may waver but are unlikely to change dramatically but we are very soon about to find out.

If you would like to receive a FREE copy of our report,  just e-mail mail@themindlab.co.uk

 

Read more on this series

Blog 1 – What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

Blog 2 – Who’s In and Who’s Out – Attitudes based on Demographics

Blog 3 – A Matter of Priorities – What Matters to Voters

Blog 4 – How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities



Subscribe



Share




How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities

EU Ref Blog 4

How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities

EU Referendum – Blog 4

Do you consider the following statements ‘Profound’ or ‘Meaningless’?

EU Bullsht

  • ‘Culture illuminates the door of excellence’

  • ‘Death is reborn in the light of observations’

  • ‘Evolution opens descriptions of phenomena’

  • ‘Freedom is the ground of innumerable experience

Statements like these formed the ‘Bullsh*t Susceptibility Scale’ (BSS) in a EU Referendum study we conducted in collaboration with the Guardian. Designed to sound, at least at first reading as deep and wise, they were in fact pretension nonsense. 1000 participants were invited to move a slider to indicate, on a 1 to 7 Likert scale, the extent to which they found them insightful. Their scores were then categorised as Low, Medium, High or Very High.

In a second quiz we tested voters’ knowledge of the EU by posing such questions as:

  • 1. Who is Wolfgang Schäuble?
  • 2. What is the name of the treaty that was responsible for the creation of the EU?
  • 3. What is the Schengen area?

What we wanted to see the extent to which scores on these tests influenced the priorities each of the five voter groups (Strong In; Weak In; Undecided; Strong Out; Weak Out) we identified. (See my earlier blog for a full description of these groups) attached to key social issues. The results are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below.

Table 1 – Bull Susceptibility Scale (BSS)

Blog 4 Table 1

As with charts shown in my previous blogs, the deeper the green, the stronger the priority, the deeper the red, the weaker.
If we consider the NHS, the issue that generated the strongest positive associations we see that a low BSS score significantly increased the time this issue was prioritised compared to those with a high Score (71% vs. 59%). In other words people who are more thoughtful rank it as having greater important than the more susceptible to statements that seem insightful while being anything but.
A similar, although smaller, difference was found on the issue that generated the strongest negative feelings – Europe. Here voters with low or medium BSS scores prioritised it somewhat less frequently (28% & 27%) than those with a High or Very High score (30% % 32%).
Let’s now examine the extent to which knowledge of the EU affects priorities. Once again scores were placed on one of four categories. Low indicates poor knowledge and Very high a strong performance.

Table 2 – Issue Priority vs EU Knowledge
Blog 4 - Table 2

Here we can see that more knowledgeable voters prioritised economy higher (green bars)  significantly more often than did low knowledge voters (51% vs. 39%). Similarly knowledge about the EU made them substantially less negative about Immigration and somewhat less negative about Europe.
When we examined the response time we found that the more knowledgeable voters’ were more reflective and less automatic in their answers. Table 3 shows the amount of time (in milliseconds) taken to answer – the longer the time the more thoughtful the response.

Table 3 – Decision Conviction vs Bull Susceptibility
Blog 4 - Table 3

Noticeable in the above is the fact that more knowledgeable voters take time to consider their options whereas the less knowledgeable ones make more rapid and automatic judgements.
Over the past four blogs I have explored some of the key issues about the EU referendum identified by our research. In my fifth and final blog I will summarise these findings and also provide a link to the Power Point PDF that shows all the results.

 

Read more on this series

Blog 1 – What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

Blog 2 – Who’s In and Who’s Out – Attitudes based on Demographics

Blog 3 – A Matter of Priorities – What Matters to Voters


Subscribe




Share


A Matter of Priorities

 EU Ref Blog 3

A Matter of Priorities

EU Referendum – Blog 3

Image Of Hands On The Background Of The European Flag. Make A ChGiven the acres of newsprint and thousands of hours of broadcasting devoted to the EU Referendum, one might suppose Europe to be high on the list of voters’ priorities. Our research indicates otherwise. While there are undoubtedly some for whom the decision to remain or leave is the highest priority, a majority place it fairly low down on the issues that concern them.

This part of the study, in collaboration with the Guardian, determined implicitly the priority of ten key issues  for our 1,000 participants . These areas of concern, included the NHS, Immigration, Crime, Education, Low Pay and Europe. The results were analysed by the five voter categories I described in my previous EU blog. These are: Strongly In; Weakly In; Undecided; Weakly Out and Strongly Out.

Findings

The Tables below show both the percentage of times an issue was prioritised and the feelings they generated. Red indicates negative and green positive feelings, the darker the colour the stronger the sentiment aroused.

As Table 1 below shows, the NHS was prioritised a greater percentage of times by all except Strongly Out voters for whom it came a close second to Immigration (74% vs. 71%).  The dark green colour indicates the feelings were all highly positive.

Those strongly in favour of leaving the EU unsurprisingly prioritised Immigration 74% of the time (compared to 25% of the time by those strongly in favour of remaining). Interestingly both they, the Weak Out and Undecided groups had positive feelings about this issue – extremely positive in the case of the Strong Out. Both the Strong and Weak In voters had negative feelings about it.

Collage On Event June 23: Brexit Uk Eu Referendum Who Wins The GOne can speculate this is because those favouring Brexit or still Undecided, regard high levels of immigration as helpful when it comes to persuading others to their viewpoint. The same negative and positive feelings can be seen where Crime is concerned. Here half (50%) of those favouring Brexit had positive feeling on this issue while the Strong In voted were much less concerned with it and expressed strongly negative feelings.

Strongly pro-EU voters prioritised Education (51%); Unemployment (45%) and Inequality (42%) more often than any of the other groups. Apart from Immigration (74%) the issues prioritised by strong supporters of Brexit are Crime (50%) and Housing (46%). Europe was prioritised 40% of the time by Strong Out voters but only 20% of the time by voters strongly in favour of remaining in the EU.

 

Blog 2 - Table 1 - Priority

Male Female Differences -Table 2

Blog 2 - Table 2 - Whats your Priority

We looked at both the percentage of times that a key issue was prioritised over others and the strength of feeling as measured by the speed with which a response was provided.

As can be seen a slightly higher percentage of women afford Education a higher priority than men (46% vs. 43%) whereas more men than women prioritise the economy (50% vs. 45%). Women in our sample were also somewhat quicker to make their decisions about what to prioritise. Positive or negative feelings for each of the issues matched in direction although not always in strength as the colours indicate.

Differences by Age – Table 3

In line with other studies, our data shows younger voters view the EU significantly more favourably than do older ones. For the under thirties, both Europe and Immigration are significantly less of a priority than for the over fifties. On Europe a third of 18 to 24 year olds (33%) and a quarter of 25 to 29 year olds (24%) see this as an issues compared to four in ten (41%) of over eighties.

On Immigration the split is even greater, while around a third of the under thirties make this a priority after the age of fifty just over half do.

For voters below 25 Education is slightly more of a priority (53%) than any other group except for those aged eighty and over (50%). With the NHS it is the only issue to arouse positive feelings across all age groups.

Blog 2 - Table 3 - Priority Percentage

In my next blog I will explore the extent to which accurate knowledge and false beliefs about the EU influences voting choices.

End

 

Read more on this series

Blog 1 – What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

Blog 2 – Who’s In and Who’s Out – Attitudes based on Demographics

Blog 4- How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities

Blog 5 – Why Feelings Hold the Key to EU Referendum Outcome


Subscribe



Share


Who’s In and Who’s Out

EU Ref Blog 2

Who’s In and Who’s Out?

EU Referendum – II

bigstock--132594740Before looking at these data in more detail, a few words about the way this study, in collaboration with The Guardian, was conducted.

As I explained in my previous Blog we used our proprietary software to explore the ‘feelings’ of 1,000 respondents regarding many aspects of the EU and Referendum. Such feelings arise on the boundary between the conscious and non-conscious mind and comprise a blend, in varying proportions, of emotions and cognition – for further details see my March 23rd Blog Once More With Feeling.

When it comes to the complexity of the issues surrounding ‘stay’ or ‘go’ a lack of precise information either way suggests that emotions play a greater role than knowledge. Because such ‘feelings’ tend to be resistant to change, findings implicit findings are more accurate and durable across time than explicit results.

We found that almost six out of ten respondents (57%) felt the UK should remain a part of the European Union, while 43% of the sample indicated that they would opt to leave. When we included the option ‘I am unsure’, just over one in six (15%) of respondents used this option. Two in five (37%) felt that Brexit was the best option while just under half (47%) indicated a preference for remaining.

One of the main goals of this study was to see if we could use implicit data to further separate these groups. To this end we identified respondents who held strong positions in either direction. For the purposes of this, ‘strong’ opinions were identified as being above 7 on a Likert scale indicating how sure they were (from 1 – ‘I am not certain at all’ to 10 = ‘I am extremely certain’).
Great Britain Leaves The European UnionOnce we had obtained a sample of such participants we then used their implicit positivity, associated with remaining / leaving the EU alongside their attitudes towards the key political issues to build a classifier that could be used to predict the probability that any particular individual would be inclined to vote either in our out.

According to the probability assigned participants were allocated into one of five groups: Strong out, Weak out, Undecided, Weak in and Strong in. Chart 1 below shows the differences between ‘explicitly’ and Implicitly derived answers:

The Tables below show both the percentage of times an issue was prioritised and the feelings they generated. The colours indicate the strongest and weakest sentiments per group. Green represents where the group most aligned, and red the opposite.

Voter preferences by Gender

Table 1 - Gender
As Table 1 shows, a higher percentage of men than women think the UK should remain in the EU, although both sexes were almost equally likely to feel Undecided or vote to leave.

Strong In males felt more strongly and positively about staying than did Strong Out men. Those in the Weak In, Undecided and Weak Out should negative feelings on the issue with the Undecided being most negative of all.

Voter preferences by Age

Table 2 - Age

As other surveys have found, our research confirmed the strong preference to remain among 18 to 24 years old voters with almost half (49%) feeling we should stay in the EU and only 3% feeling strongly that it would be better to leave.  Strong positive feelings were generated among those favouring remain while equally powerful negative associated were found in the Brexiters. Indeed it was only in this age range that equally powerful feelings, for and against, were found. Those most likely to strongly feel like leaving were aged between 50 and 59 (31%) although after the age of forty around one in five held this opinion. Those over eighty were least likely to be undecided (6%) but were far more likely to vote to leave (56%) than remain (39%).

Remain or Leave Preferences by Region

Table 3 - Region
Summary:

The Scots feel most strongly we should remain (41%) in the EU while those in Yorkshire and the Humber being least likely to want to stay in (22%). After Scotland, Londoners (37%) and the Northern Irish (33%) have the highest proportion feeling we should remain. People in the South West feel we should Vote Leave (29%), followed closely by East Midlanders (25%). All regions that are Strongly In have positive feelings about the EU, compared with only two regions (Scotland and Northern Ireland) in the Strong Out group.

  • Those who feel strongly we should either stay in or leave are most likely to be male, while women are more likely to be undecided.
  • Younger participants were more likely to think Britain should say in the EU, while older participants were more likely to want to leave.
  • Finally, people in Scotland and London were most likely to be in the ‘strong in’ group, while those in the South West and the East Midlands were most likely to strongly feel that Britain should leave.

But how important is Europe for a majority of voters? As I will explain in my next EU blog, our research has shown that it is far less of a priority than most in the Westminster Village would have us believe.

Read more on this series

Blog 1 – What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

Blog 3 – A Matter of Priorities – What Matters to Voters

Blog 4- How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities


Subscribe



Share


What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

EU Ref Blog 1

What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

 

bigstock--130949024The traditional way of finding out how people will vote in the coming EU referendum is, of course, to ask them. Which is exactly what polling organisations have being doing regularly over the past months.

While their polls – that assign respondents to one of three groups: Vote to remain, vote to leave and undecided – offer a snapshot of voting intentions, such explicit questioning gives no sense of the strength of support for each position. Those marginally in favour of leaving or remaining, who could potentially change their mind, are combined with voters already firmly convinced one way or the other.

In the present study, conducted in collaboration with the Guardian, we adopt a radically different approach. By using a specially developed form of implicit rather than explicit testing, we are able to access both subconscious ‘feelings’ and the strength with which these views are held. This type of research relies upon the fact that for most of our decision-making, we employ mental shortcuts that call upon information that has been ‘absorbed’ into the subconscious. This information does not exist in isolation. Each piece of information is connected with every other in memory.

When presented with new information people generally take time to process the information and form a rationalised response. Over a period attitudes become more automatic as the individual devotes less energy into re-evaluating opinions already firmly established and connected in their minds. If we record the speed of response we obtain an insight into how embedded these opinions are. The more multi-faceted and complicated a decision becomes the more likely voters are to go with their gut feelings.

In this referendum, apart from a minority on either side who are passionate and committed, most voters seem confused and uncertain. A recent letter to the Metro undoubtedly expressed the feelings of many:

“I am educated enough to recognise that I have no hope of understanding and evaluating all the factors affecting this decision demanded of us in the EU referendum,” the writer admitted, adding “I seriously doubt if anyone can.”

In such situations, implicit testing provides a far more powerful and reliable tool of determining voter sentiment.

The present study, conducted in collaboration with the Guardian involved a thousand respondents and combined our new and unique form implicit testing with a number of explicit questionnaires in order to find answers to the following:

  • How positive do voters feel about the United Kingdom and the European Union?
  • How strongly do they associate the UK with leaving or remaining in the EU?
  • How do they prioritise the key political issues?

Over the next two weeks we will be publishing five further blogs each focusing on different findings from the study.
It is important to realise that one can only accurately predict what one cannot control. Weather forecasts are becoming increasingly accurate because their publication has no effect on the weather. The same cannot be said about polling data. This fact that, for example, a widely publicised poll that showed a significant increase or decrease in those supporting a particular position, would be very likely to influence voter decision making in the future.
This was what happened during the Scottish independence referendum after a well-publicised poll indicated an increased vote for the leave section. The government immediately made further promises and concessions, which, together with a surge of support for those in favour of the Union caused supporters of Independence to lose the vote.
In the next blog I will be describing what our research has revealed about the key characteristics of ‘Leavers’ and ‘Remainers’ together with the priority they assign to the referendum itself. Given the massive amount of discussion and media attention our finding may well surprise and shock you.

 

Dr David Lewis

Read more on this series

Blog 2 – Who’s In and Who’s Out – Attitudes based on Demographics

Blog 3 – A Matter of Priorities – What Matters to Voters

Blog 4- How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities

Blog 5 – Why Feelings Hold the Key to EU Referendum Outcome


Subscribe




Share


Once More with Feeling

 

Charimans Blog Once more with Feeling

Dr David Lewis –David Lewis - Mindlab International Chairman The Chairman’s Blog

The 19th century polymath Dr Thomas Young, who was expert in medicine, mathematics, geometry, vision, light, mechanics, languages, music and Egyptology, has been described as the ‘last man to know everything.’

Today, few can claim such a breadth and depth of knowledge. Indeed, outside our specialist fields, most of us know rather little about almost everything. This does not, of course, prevent us holding robust opinions on virtually any topic. Such views are typically based neither exclusively on from knowledge, which we generally lack, nor on emotions. Rather they arise from our ‘feelings’ of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’.  Take for example the following current issues:

Gay marriage.
Genetically modified food.
Abortion.
Legalising cannabis.
Curbing immigration.
Leaving the EU.

On all these you are likely to ‘feel’ they are either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

On the Fringe

‘Feelings’ arise on the boundary between our conscious and unconscious mind, in what the 19th century American psychologist William James called the ‘‘fringe’. To gain an insight read the following just once:

“A newspaper is better than a magazine. The seashore is better than the street. At first it is easier to run than to walk. You may need to try several times. It takes some skill but it is easy to learn. Even young children can enjoy it. Once successful, complications are minimal. Birds seldom get too close. Rain, however, soaks in very fast. Too many people doing the same thing can also cause problems. One needs lots of room. If there are no complications it can be very peaceful. A rock will serve as an anchor. If it breaks loose, however, you will not get a second chance.”

On reading this for the first time, most people report a vague and disagreeable ‘feeling of wrongness’.

While all the words make sense and every sentence is grammatically correct, the overall effect is of confusion and incomprehension.

Now re-read the paragraph keeping in mind the word ‘kite’.

Suddenly, despite their being no change in the sensory content, it all makes sense. You will enjoy a Eureka moment as feelings of ‘wrongness’ change in an instant to feelings of ‘rightness’.

Where Feelings Arise

Over the past two years I have been researching the fringe between conscious and non-conscious thought. I term this fringe, and I first described it at a Neuromarketing Science & Business Association conference in Amsterdam in August 2015, the periliminal region.

 

Iceberg

The research currently being undertaking by Mindlab International is into scientifically analyzing periliminal ‘feelings’ in order for advertisers, marketers and retailers to be better able to identify and control them.

Networks in the Brain

Because every memory we have is linked to every other memory, retrieving one brings to mind many others. The word ‘canary,’ for example, is closely linked to such attributes as ‘is yellow’; ‘has wings’; ‘sings’ and ‘can fly’. When people are tested in the laboratory, these responses are given almost instantly. Less closely associated memories, for example ‘is an animal’ or ‘is warm blooded’ usually take slightly longer to come to mind.

Known, in the case of words, as our ‘semantic network’, this aspect of cognition has been extensively studied down the years. Less often appreciated is the fact that every type of sensory input creates networks and that all the networks are interconnected. This means, for example, that a particular aroma will trigger visual, emotional and possibly muscle memories.

There are occasions when these links can lead us into error. If you’d like to demonstrate this – it makes a faintly amusing party trick – ask someone to answer the following questions as quickly as possible:

What is a common abbreviation for Coca-Cola?
Which four-letter word describes an amusing story told by a comedian?
What sound does a frog make on a lily pad?
What’s the white of an egg called?
If they answer fast enough the chances are their responses will be:

Coke – joke – croak – yolk!

Perhaps that’s how you responded to the questions.

What has happened here was that, searching for a pattern among the seemingly disconnected questions, your brain hit on the idea of looking for rhymes. This caused “yolk” to seem the obviously correct response, whereas a moment’s thought would have shown this was wrong. The answer should, of course, have been “albumin”.

Although, within a specific demographic, there will be many commonly shared association, every person also makes sense of the world in a different way. Memory networks are personal to each individual. This means that even seemingly trivial aspects of an advertisement, marketing strategy or retail display can cause a flood of positive or negative associations, both conscious and non-conscious, that directly affect the consumers’ ‘feelings’ about that message. These are formed extremely rapidly and, once established, prove hard to change.

‘Feelings of Rightness’ – The Key to Success

For a product, brand, proposal or, indeed a person, to be successful they must generate ‘feelings of rightness’.

The success of Republican Presidential contender Donald Trump provides a case in point. Not all those who support him agree with many of his statements, indeed some disagree strongly.

At the same time, he is able to generate a ‘feeling of rightness’ strong enough for them to set their objections aside.

‘Feeling’ will nearly always trump reason!

When a campaign, a product or a negotiation fails to hit the mark, this is typically due to its effects on neither the consumer’s conscious nor their unconscious mind, but to a ‘feeling of wrongness’. Equally, success is the result of generating a ‘feeling of rightness’.

The ability to predict which ‘feeling’ is most likely to arise will enable companies and individuals to avoid ‘feelings of wrongness’ so reducing the chances of failure and increasing the likelihood of success.

It is with developing technology capable of predicting these ‘feelings’ that our research is concerned.


Subscribe



Share




An Interview with Ed Burke – Scent Marketing

Chairmans Blog Base Banner
From Chairman Dr David Lewis

Dr Lewis talks to Ed Burke, Director of Communications at ScentAir

In this blog, the second one in which I discuss key retailing and marketing topics with leaders in their field, I’d like to introduce you to Ed Burke Marketing Director of ScentAir, the global leader in scent marketing.

ScentAir was founded in the mid-1990’s by David Martin, an astrophysicist with a background in rocket science. After working for one of the big US firms, he became Disney Imaginer charged with delivering scents for Disney and spent several years developing scents, for everything from rides to shops, before leaving to set up in business for himself. His goal was to develop products and solutions that would help any kind of business deliver scent as part of their customer experience. Today, ScentAir operates in 109 countries, serves more than 50,000 customers world wide and produces some five billion enduring ‘aroma impressions’ each year.

They create the aromas you will encounter in most of the world’s major hotel brands as well as boutique groups and other chains. They also work closely with the casino industry. Whether you’re in Macau or Las Vegas or any other gaming centre in the world, when you walk into a casino you’re going to be surrounded by an aroma from ScentAir.
In his Charlotte, North Carolina, office Ed tells me how they design a bespoke scent to match the mood a client wants to achieve.

“There is an element of science and an element of art,” he explains, citing as an example one of their many success stories, their work with fashion retailer Hugo Boss. “We asked questions like: Why does a customer choose HB? Why would they walk in through the door versus another brand? What does it represent to them? What are the elements of the store and the clothing and the experience which deliver that promise?”
The answers they came up with were that the brand was typified by, “luxury, style, discerning quality and exclusivity”.

With this in mind they began to narrow down fragrances, rejecting anything bright and citrusy as not being sufficiently sexy and anything too floral as too much like perfume.
“We looked at a lot of rich woods and some spices and some notes along those lines, and we finally came up with Pamboti Wood from Africa. It is a very rich, clean, almost decadent fragrance, unique, luxurious and very interesting.”

“What about enhancing the shopping experience?” I ask him.
“In malls we can have one entrance smelling one way and then another area smelling another way. Let’s say you wanted four or five different areas within the mall with different scents, but then you also wanted each retailer to have their own scent. We have a number of different delivery systems that could help accomplish all of that. We can be very precise. We can scent an area as small as a tiny dental office all the way up to the grandest spaces, the largest malls. To see the overall reaction and impression when people walk into spaces and they just feel good and comfortable.

Observing that when your scent is a part of the experience is a very, very cool experience.”
From a neuromarketing viewpoint, one interesting aspect of Scentair’s work is the fact that customers can be powerfully influenced by an the aroma without ever being aware of the fact. In a casino, for example, the right aroma not only makes gambling more exciting and pleasurable but also causes patrons to part with more money!
“We’re taking all these subtle cues into our brain and it’s obviously working overtime to analyse and then emote a response or whatever it is to each of those stimuli. That’s how we perceive environments in general. So much is going on beneath the surface of what we’re actively consciously perceiving. It’s a discussion we have with a lot of our customers where it would be wonderful if every single client or consumer walked into a business and said to themselves: ‘I like being in here and I like being in here because it smells great.’

At the end of the day we think we’re doing our job if customers are really feeling comfortable. Then you’re going to be driving the things you want to drive, if it’s loyalty or repeat visits or longer dwell times or whatever the goal may be.”

End

This is an edited version of a longer interview that can be found at www.the-brainsell.com

Subscribe

 

 

Share


An interview with Professor Geraint Rees


Chairmans Blog Rees Banner

 

Dr David Lewis –David Lewis - Mindlab International Chairman The Chairman’s Blog

 

An Interview with Professor Geraint Rees

As professionals we should constantly be learning about, and frequently learning from, the knowledge and experience of others in the field. For the next few of my blogs I will be presenting edited interviews with some of the leading players in the field of neuroscience, marketing, and retailing. In the first of these Professor Geraint Rees, Director of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, discusses the two main technologies used by neuromarketing companies – EEG and fMRI. How, in his opinion, had these advanced over the last decade?  



Professor Geraint Rees: “EEG is a stable, mature technology that has been around – [he pauses to think] – well since a very long time. There have not been many technical developments within EEG in the last 10 years. I would have thought that the main developments have been in the way data can be analysed and, in particular, putting the data into frameworks where it can be combined with data from other imaging techniques – such as functional MRI. The software packages now used to analyse functional imaging data, like SPM, or Statistical Parametric Mapping can also be used now to analyse EEG or MEG (1) data. That facilitates data fusion, that is, looking at how a mental process in the human brain operates, combining data from two different techniques. That was quite fashionable, five years ago. With functional MRI, in the last decade, I think it’s a technology that’s rapidly matured. Twenty years ago, it was brand new –it was the new-new thing and it was super hot. And that meant a lot of exploratory studies got done, a lot of things got found out very rapidly. At the same time, there was a lot more heterogeneity in how people analysed their data, and how people reached the conclusions they were going to reach. Perhaps the second phase of that has been, as with any technology, not only has the hardware matured, but also the way in which the data analysed has converged internationally into widely agreed standards, that are – not universally – but near-universally applied. So the field feels a lot more mature in terms of that respect. The hardware has continued to evolve, but I would describe it as incremental, rather than revolutionary. The revolution was inventing B.O.L.D (2) contrast functional MRI in the first place. Since then, there have been repeated advances in terms of the field strength of magnets at which data can be acquired and that, in turn, either increases your sensitivity to detect more subtle effects in the brain, or you keep the same sensitivity, but can get higher spatial resolution. So you can see more bits of the brain and in more detail.



That’s probably the biggest drive, together also with something called parallel imaging, where you can acquire more data, faster, that again allows the same improvement, so the end user is seeing data that are either more sensitive to small changes in the brain, or are more spatially fine-grained, compared to previously. Those have been the main technological developments.

Professor Rees



In EEG, the intrinsic problem is you can never fully determine the pattern of sources in the brain that produce a pattern of EEG waves. For a mathematical reason that is unfixable. This problem is not solvable, or not uniquely solvable. That doesn’t mean that one can’t guess at what pattern of sources, or patterns of activity in the brain made the particular pattern of activity at the scalp that you observe. It just means it’s not uniquely determined, which means you can’t ever be precisely certain. A second, intrinsic, barrier to the nature of the EEG signal is that it’s relatively insensitive to deep brain structures. So the nuclei that live in the middle of our brains that, for example, are affected in Parkinson’s (disease) are not easily accessible to any technique that records the scalp EEG – [which is] much more sensitive to stuff on the surface of the brain. And those are intrinsic and are probably not going to be overcome anytime soon. With functional MRI, the mostly widely used form of functional MRI, B.O.L.D. or Blood-Oxygen Level Dependant, is contingent on the level of deoxyhaemoglobin in the blood. The intrinsic limitation there, whatever the special scale at which blood flow is regulated, is the ultimate spatial resolution on functional MRI, because you are not going to get below that – or you’re going to get below that with difficulty, and inferences, and assumptions. We’ve known for a long time, since experiments in the 19th century, that blood flow changes in the brain are very closely localised to where neural activity changes, to within a millimetre or two. Now a millimetre or two is great – right? I mean, absolutely fantastic for the kind of science I do. But on the other hand, to some people, a millimetre or two is hundreds of thousands of nerve cells, and so that’s a huge distance. It reflects the fact that the brain has these multiple levels of organisation at different spatial scales.



For a technique at one spatial scale to talk, or inform another spatial scale is not always possible, or is more challenging if there are intrinsic limits like this… there have been repeated attempts to get round that; some people have tried to devise MR sequences that, for example, are sensitive to electrical currents. But these generally have not entered wide usage, and are generally speaking, highly technical and not as powerful. Why B.O.L.D contrast fMRI has become the de facto standard is not because it’s the best signal, but it’s because it’s the signal that’s easiest to produce and is jolly reliable. As these things go. So there’s an intrinsic limit of course that many people appreciate, because it’s a blood flow response, which is also temporal. So the timing of the blood flow response lags neural activity by several seconds. But…we don’t know for sure, because people haven’t done a kind of mapping experiment to map out that latency across the whole brain. The reason they haven’t done that is because you’d need to be able to precisely activate every single portion of the brain and you don’t know precisely what to do to do that, to actually make the measurements in the first place. There’s no particular reason to expect wild differences because, of course, given that brains have grown, like the rest of us, from very small numbers of cells, in the embryo. That said, there are some regions of the brain, like, say the cerebellum, where the architecture of the nerve cells is quite different. So you might expect or anticipate or hypothesise that the blood flow response is different. Usually that isn’t a problem for experimenting, because you’re comparing an experimental manipulation in that brain region – you’re not normally comparing what’s happening in one brain region, to another.



You’re looking at what’s happening in a brain region, under two different circumstances. So there are ways round that particular problem – it’s recognised in the field, basically. Within marketing, generally, with honourable exceptions, there’s often a surprising lack of knowledge about whether it works. So for example, I went to a conference where one company gave a very interesting presentation about how difficult they found it, working out whether advertising made any difference to sales. They went to the trouble of essentially randomising half the customers in one town, to receive adverts for one store, or not. Then working with that store to actually determine whether that made a difference in sales. So a really good experiment – well controlled. The challenge they had, was they did observe an effect, a positive effect, but it was so small, and the variability in what people spent at this store, because it was a general – I presume – department store, was so big, that the effect size they were measuring, even with tens of thousands of customers, they found it very difficult to actually say this is definitively a statistically significant difference in marketing. But that said…that difference, multiplied by the number of consumers, was a big difference to their bottom line. So very relevant. That’s not Neuro marketing – they were just doing classic marketing. But I had a lot of sympathy for the challenge they faced in determining whether a large-scale intervention has a very small effect on a very heterogeneous population. It’s not easy. Of course, recording EEG in the wild is always going to be worse than recording EEG in controlled laboratory conditions. Not so much because of the uncontrolled nature of the environment, but because of the electrical interference of everything around us that is electrical…as long as the signal is reflecting the EEG signals, fine. It’s then just a pragmatic issue of, is the signal enough to provide something useful that can correlate, or provide insight, into some behaviour? If it is, it doesn’t matter that it’s not the best in the world.



I was reading a Psych-science paper showing that fMRI responses in a focus group predicted the effectiveness of a marketing campaign. I thought that was a good paper – and it was really interesting. Because that was conceptually doing a really interesting thing, which was saying you can do a high quality laboratory based fMRI study, and a focus group, and it generalises to a large-scale phone survey. Again, from the conceptual issues, that is interesting because that says you don’t have to collect lots of data, badly, from lots of people, and draw a conclusion from noisy data. You can actually do this, but under these kind of circumstances. So if you could understand, for example, the circumstances under which that generalisation works, then that becomes a very useful tool. In the same way that presumably focus groups are useful tools in marketing generally, because the focus group can be generalised to the population.” End





[1] Magnetoencephalography (MEG) a technique for mapping brain activity by recording the magnetic fields produced by naturally occurring electrical currents.

[2] BOLD – Blood Oxygen Level Dependent. A technique for mapping brain activity by measuring changes in blood flow to different regions. The full version of this interview, conducted by Mindlab’s Tom Dixon, can be found at www.the-brainsell.com 


Subscribe



Share