|WikiProject Neuroscience||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|A fact from Neuromarketing appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 September 2005. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Could I suggest that Neuromarketing goes beyond the current definition - "use [of] medical technologies such as fMRI to study the brain's responses to marketing stimuli" - and extends to absolutely any use of neuroscience in marketing. For example, the exploitation of a neural circuit or mechanism to enhance an advert or even a product if that enhancement somehow helps with it's marketing. Please let me know if that makes sense or not. David Haywood Smith (email@example.com) 20:57, 24 May 2006 (GMT)
"It should be noted that Pepsi is sweeter than Coke." Why? What is the relevance of that to neuromarketing? We are not trying to decide which drink people would like to consume a whole can of - if we were, we would be asking people to consume a can of each and tell us which they preferred. I think it is interesting that the nature of the difference between Pepsi and Coke is such that people may prefer a small sample of Pepsi to a small sample of Coke, but yet prefer a can of Coke to a can of Pepsi, but as far as I can tell, this is not the place for that tidbit of information.
Now, I thought about removing that little bit, but I'm too timid - I'm just a newbie here. Should I have? Or have I gone down the wrong path completely? BenBildstein 23:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it should be deleted. It's an example of the field of "neuromarketing" and having an example will grealty assist those who have absolutely no idea of it. Instead I think this article requires more to be added with other differant examples, otherwise if it only applies to the argument of coke v pepsi, then yes it should be removed. --
I would welcome a section on the ethics of neuromarketing. Hooverism 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree to the necessity of a section considering ethics. Anyway, I find the beginning of the article quite euphemistic, since it reads as if the only goal of neuromarketing was to better serve consumers. It reads as if the techniques were used only to find out consumers' most satisfying product combination, but in reality I would rather think they are meant to research on subliminal manipulation methods. -- mattinaetnea (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I also agree there should be a section on the ethics of neuromarketing. I added a link to a campaign regarding this, but it should be part of a broader discussion on the topic of ethics. Bethrobson 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The Natasha singer source is incorrectly listed as:http://www.drdavidlewis.co.uk/assets/NeuroMarket1.pdf. This appears to be a neurosicence article but does not mention the points attributed to it.
Point 9 exists in the actual article (located at :http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14stream.html) but im not sure about the other points. I changed the references to the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npcomp1337 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
More enterprises who invest in neuromarketing
MC Donals, Jonhson&Jonhson, Cocacola, Viacom, BBC...
There is a very good documentary who investigate about this. Ill try to find it. I think was a Frech documentary.