Likability, Advertising and Neuromarketing
It has always seemed like a considerable exaggeration to expect advertising campaigns to make people fall in love with brands, products or services.
Even with admired, inspiring companies like Apple, Coca-Cola, Google or Microsoft, or products like Nespresso or the iPhone, talking about consumers’ “love” for a brand or product may be a stretch.
In my view, getting an advertisement to make someone simply “like” a brand, product or service is already a considerable challenge — even more so for categories like toilet paper, toothpaste, banks, insurance or cell phone plans.
That’s why the “like and dislike” evaluation — likability — is a more realistic, plausible and logical way to think about how advertising wins over its target audience.
Different studies address this in the advertising market, including some from the ARF (Advertising Research Foundation), which highlight the predictive potential of likability, while others are less conclusive, or even skeptical.
How It’s Traditionally Measured
Conventional research measures “like and dislike” mainly through two classic questions: “Did you like the ad you watched?” and “Would you like to watch it again?”
It’s worth noting that, whether the approach is qualitative or quantitative, both of these likability findings rely on people’s stated, rationalized responses.
Far from claiming that results from this format are invalid, the point worth discussing is how accurate or adequate this kind of evaluation really is for assessing an ad.
One risk of this “traditional” criterion is that respondents’ answers can be skewed by social desirability bias — the tendency to give a “politically correct” answer. The format also doesn’t allow for a more refined metric, since it tends to polarize between two extremes (“like” and “dislike”), making it harder to pinpoint the adjustments needed or draw finer comparisons with competitors.
What Neuromarketing Adds
When we look at the alternatives for measuring that same “like and dislike” using neuromarketing tools, the options multiply considerably.
It’s worth highlighting, first, the wide range of measurement techniques available — techniques fully capable of meeting these expectations, generally with stronger results.
These range from facial expression analysis to skin conductance (galvanic skin response), pupil dilation, and EEG (electroencephalography), among others.
Each technique delivers more precise results and, above all, is far more sensitive to participants’ reactions, with scales and measurement frequencies that allow for a more accurate read on impact.
Unlike conventional research, the data collection pattern in these techniques allows advertising to be evaluated second by second, making it easier to pinpoint exactly where intervention or correction is needed.
In addition, pairing the analysis with eye tracking reveals the extent to which every element of the commercial was — or wasn’t — actually perceived by participants. This is a valuable finding, since it shows which elements are driving likability and which still need more emphasis, whether in the message, the brand itself, or the context.
Why These Results Are More Reliable
The main strength here is the high reliability of the results, simply because they’re entirely spontaneous biometric measurements — not filtered through interpretation or rationalization.
The numerical format of these results is another key advantage: it’s accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of technical background.
Unlike conventional research — where a “likability” diagnosis might be read as a straight “approval” or “death sentence” — neuromarketing makes it possible to improve and refine a solution instead.
A New Way of Working Together
Once the initial hesitation around this newer approach fades, and the usual distrust between the agency (creative side) and the research firm (analysis side) is overcome, a new kind of working relationship becomes possible.
That partnership — using these research techniques far more intensively, not just on the finished campaign but from its inception — allows each step to be tested from day one.
It’s worth being clear: this kind of collaboration between the advertising agency and the research firm would never mean interfering with the creative process itself. Research specialists simply don’t have that expertise — but working closely together is very likely to result in more effective campaigns.
—
*Reference: Faris Yakob, “Being Well Liked” [confirm full title, publisher/year, and link to the original source if available].*