Research agency claims ANZ ads ‘elicit shame’ in minds of consumers
A market research agency claims it can measure how people really feel about ads by moving a virtual character with a mouse to represent their reaction.
Forethought Research claims consumer decisions are significantly influenced by unconscious reactions to advertising but that consumer research and neuroscience doesn’t currently measure those responses.
Forethought Research calls its unusual methodology “Prophecy Feelings.” The agency carried out a study which it says shows how people really feel about the television advertisements of some of Australia’s leading banks.
It claimed the study shows that the NAB ‘Honesty’ TVC created positive emotions such as happiness and surprise in survey participants, while the ANZ ‘The Mentalist’ TVC created negative feelings, scoring particularly highly for feelings of anger and shame amongst existing customers. The sample size was 226.
NAB vs ANZ findings from Prophecy Feelings
Forethought Research said it created the methodology because physiological measures like EEG or MRI scans can measure the strength of a response, but cannot measure the separate emotions people feel.
Rachel Edwardes, director of marketing and international at Forethought Research, told Mumbrella: “There are nine emotions which drive consumption. Only a small amount of what we actually feel becomes known to us but unconscious thought affects our decisions. We know, for examples that anger promotes switching behaviour.”
The Prophecy Feelings methodology was the 2012 Winner of the Research Industry Council of Australia’s Innovation in Methodology Award.
EEG or MRI scans ‘Cannot measure the separate emotions people feel.’
And Prophecy Feelings can?! Total rubbish. Forethought cannot measure ‘unconscious thoughts’. The very act of moving the dial requires a conscious decision related to the dial and therefore contaminates any data. No serious neuro-scientist in the world who would validate this methodology as a probe of unconscious processors. Unusual methodology? Useless methodology more like it.
The ANZ ads suck, the NAB ads are pretty good.
Do you need a ‘probe of unconscious processors’ to determine that?
What Forethought is really claiming is that ‘unconscious emotions’ can be measured by a ‘conscious act’; that is, moving a dial. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
Facial recognition methodologies are a more accurate method of measuring unconscious emotional reactions. I don’t understand how moving a girl on a scale is unconscious.
Additionally, there have been studies that have shown that causing negative emotions amongst non-customers of a bank can generate switching behaviour. So not all ads need to be positive depending on your target and category.
This area of research methodologies is all very intriguing!
Unconsciously yet physically move a dial?? – hahaha this is laughable
This is embarrassing for the people at Forethought.
Are we really talking about ‘unconscious’ emotions? I doubt someone in a coma could drag the icon along!
I’d suggest that it is subconscious reactions, not unconscious reactions that this method is seeking to measure (whether or not it is succesful in that is a different question).
This may be measuring claimed and consciously-mediated emotional responses but not “unconscious reactions”. As @Jazz suggests, a far simpler, intuitive and direct approach is to record people’s facial expressions as they watch advertising. Our facial expressions – which are universal – are largely non-conscious, uncensored and clear communicators of our emotional and cognitive states, for example, smiling, frowning, the furrowed brow of confusion. We use an automated and scaleable technology for coding facial expressions while people watch an ad so we can quantitatively measure true, spontaneous emotional reactions.
The measurement of emotions is a relatively new field of exploration and so we are pleased to have been a catalyst for discussion. Across the spectrum from neuroscience methods to qualitative methods there is a relevant application of each method, and Forethought is offering a method in Prophecy Feelings® which measures emotions with minimal cognitive interference.
It’s no surprise that proponents of neuromarketing will challenge us on claims of measuring ‘unconscious thoughts’ – which we do not claim to do – because that is the natural territory for neuroscience. Neuromarketing methods, currently, cannot measure discrete emotions. What neuroscience methods measure well are the indicators of arousal (e.g. blood flow, electrical activity within the CNS).
Our position is that Prophecy Feelings measures emotions without people having to think deeply (i.e. engage higher order cognitive processing) about their response. We measure emotions with minimal cognitive interference…we do not claim to measure the ‘unconscious’. Feelings uses visual, non-verbal metaphor scales to by-pass higher order cognitive processing. Metaphors are mental short-cuts, they summarise vast information into easier to understand chunks. Because emotions can influence our decision making and behavior without our awareness / higher order cognitive processing, it is important that any measure of emotions operates in that domain.
There are some assumptions being made about the usage of Prophecy Feelings, which are not accurate. We encourage the ongoing dialogue on measuring emotions, and our team of PhD qualified Psychologists and Neuroscientists welcome you to contact us with your queries or visit with us to see how the method works.
Quote:
‘Prophecy Feelings measures emotions with minimal cognitive interference’.
So, you acknowledge there’s cognitive interference, yet still claim the findings are accurate? The answer should be – Prophecy Feelings can’t measure emotions without interfering with the respondents cognitive response. isn’t that right Mr.PhD’s?
Drs Ponnampalan and Chapman make two intriguing claims in their support of the Forethought methodology.
Firstly, that neuroscience methods are incapable of measuring emotions beyond ‘arousal’. To make such a claim indicates little or no knowledge of neuroimaging findings published over the last 30 years specifically concerning the role numerous cortical and subcortical regions mediate a wide range of specific emotional states.
In addition, the notion that Forethought methodology can measure ‘emotion experienced during an advertisement’ by having people subsequently move an image on a screen is very dubious. Firstly, the methodology relies on people’s memory of how they ‘felt’, but most seriously, you are asking people to remember how strongly they felt a specific emotion. This is hardly ‘minimal cognitive interference’ and far removed from the state people were in while watching the advertisement.
Finally, the fact that people are not being asked to speak is irrelevant as many of the neural systems involved in speech are also involved the current symbolic communication task.
So these guys can measure subconscious emotional responses with minimal interference? I didn’t realise that sliding a dial that gave you FEEDBACK on the specific emotion counted as a subconscious measurement. I’m assuming the jar of snake oil is close by…
Forethought has been dealing with this topic for several years. We have attended the symposiums, met with the best neuromarketers in the world, tested neuroscience approaches and had dozens of Australia’s best regarded businesses applying this method. In addition, US brand likes like JWT, DDB, Kimberly Clark, Nestle, BUD and so on are applying this method. The method was developed in collaboration of some of the world’s leading academics and followed a journey which took several years. In addition, the applied output has been tested using the most rigorous of all test, the market. And, just before you dismiss the rigours of a commercial market, it may interest the reader to discover that one unmentioned (project still underway) US client has its own FMRI machine and a team of neuroscientists.
Carol seems to know something of this topic however, she might not be aware of the findings from the panel of experts from the ARF Neuromarketing study from 2011. Andrew and Johann were referring to the finding that ‘The experts’ consensus is that reactions to one specific region of the brain cannot be interpreted as indicative of one specific emotion.’
Those sceptics with an open mind should take up the opportunity to contact Andrew and Johann and have their knowledge on this topic extended. Forethought encourages debate and is constantly engaged in discussions about the veracity of our cutting edge techniques before and after they are released. For example, after an extensive development phase, Optus , AustralianSuper and Jetstar partnered in the commercial pre-release testing of this method.
A few off the cuff comments sheltered under the shield of anonymity is not the basis for a serious discussion about this technique. Happy to chat with anyone. Alternatively, the AMI is hosting a webinar in mid-August. Please join the discussion.
Ken Roberts, Forethought 0412 109 993
Correct ‘really?” Sliding a dial is a conscious act and therefore constitutes massive interference. To claim ‘ Minimum interference’ is like claiming someone is just a ‘little pregnant’. But it gets worse.The number of ‘unconscious/subconcious’ emotions Forethought claims they can measure was determined by respondents ‘conscious’ responses! Did someone say snake oil?
Dear Mr.Roberts,
I read your comments with interest. No-one is saying companies aren’t using your methodology, or that some companies were involved in the pre-testing. Nor is anyone suggesting you haven’t attended conferences, spoken to neuroscientists, taken years to develop your methodology, or that there are companies with their own FMRI machines and teams of neuroscientists. But attending conferences, speaking to neuroscientists, taking years to develop your methodology and having it used by clients in a commercial setting does not answer the fundamental question. Has your claim that you can measure subconscious emotions with ‘minimal’ interference been validated in a peer group supervised study and have those findings been published in a legitimate scientific journal? If yes, I’d welcome the opportunity to review the article . So,could you please direct me to it and any other independent research that validates the scientific claims you make of Prophecy Feelings. Does anyone feel that’s an unreasonable request considering the nature of the claims being made?
It’s always a good idea to keep it open ended, that is to say, never reach an absolute conclusion.
If ever we should reach a conclusion, then half the marketing companies would have to close up shop, or be content to follow the one absolute guide line.
I knew a fellow once by the name of Philpot, he kept a cockroach in a matchbox, claimed he could pre-predict and outscore the bureau of meteorology, depending upon which way the cockroach was facing when he opened the matchbox, whilst facing true north in an atmosphere of low luminosity.
First, one must know how people feel about banks in general, this gives a platform from which to work out their feelings about the individual commercials.
Dear ‘Rubbish In Rubbish Out’ – may I first say, what an appropriate pseudonym you have chosen but certainly not for the purposes of describing our work.
If I can just echo your concern; that is, Prophecy Feelings has not been subject to a peer reviewed journal article.
Those with commercial nous will tell you that it is an oxymoron to suggest an invention has been subject to a published journal article. Prophecy Feelings is new to the world. All of the substantive elements of the Prophecy Feelings method have indeed been the subject of academic studies however, no academic study or for that matter, any previously published material anywhere has brought all elements together in a single outcome. This was the very matter that the examiners from the Australian patent office concerned themselves with when IP Australia awarded Prophecy Feelings a patent just last week. What you are stating is our Achilles heel is in fact, our carefully planned commercial advantage.
Please allow me to explain the usual chronology by way of an example. Forethought pioneered the Prophecy Feelings companion method, Prophecy Thoughts in 1997. The Invention that enable Forethought to predict changes in market share was based on a new to the world statistical algorithm invented by Forethought. That algorithm was patented in May 2006 and was the subject of a peer reviewed A+ journal article in February 2011 (Journal of Marketing Science). Prior to the peer reviewed article, Prophecy Thoughts had been applied in hundreds of projects by astute marketers frequently for challenger brands fighting against much larger incumbents. This is what is meant by commercial rigour.
As you can see, in commerce, you must patent first otherwise you prior publish yourself dashing any chance of a commercial monopoly. Confidential commercial applications of an invention do not constitute a prior publication; an academic publication does. Moreover, not publishing does not imply there has not been rigour. Believing so smacks of intellectual snobbery.
Astoundingly, you seemingly dismiss the commercial application by some of the world’s leading companies instead relying on an academic’s work. You do know don’t you that I am a past academic at two of Australia’s “sandstone” universities as well as a 20 year practitioner and I can share with you that companies do not rely on published academic studies to test the veracity of methods that they depend on nor do corporations seek to have their commercial secrets published in academic journals. I did previously mention, several (more than 10) of the world’s leading academics have either aided or reviewed Prophecy Feelings and none have voiced concerns about the approach or the construct validity we have been achieving.
Nevertheless, you will be pleased to know that just two weeks ago the President of one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies gave Forethought conditional permission to publish some of its Prophecy Feelings findings. One of the world’s leading academics in this field has begun work. Incidentally, the condition was that two years lapses before publication.
I did previously conclude with my phone number and an invitation to join us at Forethought for a more fact based conversation. I would be happy to share with you the literature search, the results of the implicit association tests, along with everything else we did as we invested almost 10% (as audited for the Tax Office – according to the AFR last year, Forethought is the fourth largest marketing research company in Australia so this is not an inconsequential investment) of total revenue over several years to develop Prophecy Feelings.
Your objection to a lack of an academically published study does remind me of the theological superstition of a flat Earth. Christopher Columbus did in fact reach the East Indies by sailing west.
I think it is telling that you have not accepted my invitation instead opting to throw stones from a shadowy distance. Again, my number is 0412109993. Keen to hear from you.
I’m not going to enter a debate on the methodology, my question is more around the value of the learning. Ad I read it here and on your website, the learning is which emotion an ad elicits, and which ones you should aim to elicit.
I’d like to understand how this gets applied. Do a bank finds out it should aim for positive emotions. Is that it? How much did they pay for that learning?
You can’t build comms off such a shallow insight.
If those companies are indeed using this technology, then that says more about your ability to sell than anything else…
It’s a dial an individual moves which you believe grades an emotion, …. (With the neat addition of storm clouds and sunshine!!! (everyone loves sunshine don’t they Kenny 🙂 )
ken sounds quite convincing until he saying forethought is the 4th largest MR agency in australia….what nonsense! 14th or 40th maybe…
Ken, it’s ok to attack the competition (who I assume are the neuromarketing companies), but surely you can appreciate how some of the responders to this thread feel when you provide NO evidence to support your claims i.e Prophecy’s ability to measure subconscious emotions (see Carol’s post); and how these measurements can predict marketplace performance.
Putting aside whether or not you believe in the theory, the test for me would be how the insights uncovered could be incorporated into the development of new communications.
My experience was that Prophecy Thoughts failed this test.
On pointing out the fallacy of Drs Ponnampalam and Chapman claim that neuroscience methods are incapable of measuring emotions beyond ‘arousal’, Ken Roberts suggested that what the Doctors meant to say was that ‘..reactions to one specific region of the brain cannot be interpreted as indicative of one specific emotion’ .
If that is what they meant to say, they should have said it, what they did say was quite different, and quite wrong. And as for the later ‘revision’ to what they meant to say, my only reply is ‘so what?’ No serious neuroscience researcher in this area has ever argued that emotions can be represented by brain activity in single regions. It is well recognized that distinct emotional states are most frequently associated with patterns of brain activity involving a number of brain areas.
Finally, Forethought is apparently quick to attack neuroscience methodologies but balks when asked to justify its claims to measuring ‘emotion’ or ‘unconscious processes’. Whether one is a ‘past academic at two of Australia’s sandstone universities’ or an undergraduate at a ‘Besser Brick’ university, dubious claims must be supported by facts, not ‘trust me I’m an academic’.
Dear Mr.Roberts
Thank you for your response. Could you please provide the full reference for the 20111 article you mention above. I’d be interested to read it.
Always deeply suspicious of any company that won’t list it’s senior staff on its web page and directory listing. Would feel undervalued if I worked there too.
As a researcher (and not a neuroscientist, I know my limits…) I’m interested in the development of this scale, from a quantitative perspective.
My would be that you are ascribing a visual depiction of an emotion – a deeply personal state of an individual. I would argue that an image of a person crying would not be everyone’s interpretation of “feeling extremely sad” and would therefore introduce scale response bias into the data.
Do you have any papers relating to the tests of validity and reliability of the scale?
*My concern
As a Director of Insights across 3 major corporates, I can without any hesitation vouch for one fact and one fact alone: This methodology has proven across multiple categories to be the best (not perfect, but best) predictor and explainer of consumer behaviour. Until such time as another company or methodology beats it, this discussion is pointless.
This is an exciting forum! I’m a skeptic when it comes to Forethoughts “Prophecy Feelings”. Moving an avatar according to your interpreted emotion… requires conscious processing.
OK so Forethought claim they are not measuring unconscious emotion just measuring “emotions with minimal cognitive interference”. For us to form an emotion in the first place, requires A LOT of processing, memories are triggered. These memories are linked to MANY regions of the brain whether it be to our visual cortex, temporal cortex or even our frontal lobe… All in all these emotions are influenced by past experience, whether the experience be from 30 seconds ago in that ad…. OR 30 years ago when say for example you got a bad credit rating and not given a loan (going along the bank theme). Anyway. this just brings me to my next point. Your panel of participants…. are they randomised? if so that’s great! BUT, how do you control or calibrate for external variables such as…. say one participant comes in for a research study and was offered a new job that same day… wouldn’t this skew your data whereby that participant would “unconciously” be happy and no matter whats shown on the ad… he/she will still be quite happy? OR what if another participant comes in for a study… and he/she just had a car accident before coming in. wont this skew your data? I’d love to be educated a little more, as I am only intrigued. Please explain Forethought/Ken/Johann etc etc.
@insightbuyer.. Being a director of 3 major corporates is great. You would know the art of selling…. I think forethought have worked their magic on you!! 😀