6.

3 Interview with Carl Marci

Carl Marci welcome to this interview for the Coursera online course in
[INAUDIBLE] and consumer neuroscience. >> Thank you for having me. >>
[INAUDIBLE] Can you just tell me briefly where, where are you in the world at
this moment, moment in time? >> So I'm happy to be talking to you though
my home in Boston, Massachusetts. And it's about seven in the morning here.
So good, good morning to your audience. >> Wonderful. I appreciate that. Carl,
you're involved in in Innerscope the company called Innerscope. But what I
want to, before we talk about the Innerscope, I'd like to talk about your
background. So it's [INAUDIBLE] your path to get, getting into this this area of
new marketing in neuroscience. So what, what's your background? >> Sure, so
I, I've got sort of, I take a little bit of a different background. I went to medical
school here in Boston at Harvard. And when I finished, I did a year of internal
medicine before starting my residency in adult psychiatry. And as I was going
through that process. I got introduced to psychotherapy as a modality for, for
healing. And I was fascinated that there was a, way in which doctors interacted
with patients where there was no medication. There was no laying out of
hands, and no surgical intervention. But yet, the outcomes were, were
actually pretty impressive. >> Hm. >> So I wondered what was it about the
relationship and, and that was, that was healing, that had healing power. >>
Mm-hm, mm-hm. >> And I realized that, that wasn't something you could ask
people questions about you know, so how do you find your doctor? And, and
it's a very complicated space so at the same time you won't be surprised
neuroscience was taking off. Our, our knowledge of the brain was ex,
exploding. And I started getting involved with some of the early neuroimaging
studies with our group, which was very active in the area. And I started to look
for technologies that I could bring into a, a doctor's office but, yet, still had
some relationship to the brain. >> Mm-hm, mm-hm. >> And so I was
introduced to my mentors who did some of the early work in post-traumatic
stress disorder. These were the guys who when, when American soldiers came
back from Vietnam with shell-shock. Before they even called it PTSD. They
would wire them up with SCID response and heart rate. And show them
pictures and sometimes videos of, of bombs going off. And, and just watch
their autonomic nervous system go through the roof. And this was the sort of
first physiologic indicator of mental illness that, that's ever really been
documented and that work was in the 70s. And now it's evolved where they're
looking at brain scanning and the physiologic response. And getting a very
comprehensive view of, of what's happening in area of the brain like the
hippocampus and the ameculous. So, so I started wiring up doctors and
patients. Using psycho-physiologic tool that we now call biometrics, and and,
and modelling empathy. So how does, how does one brain understand another
brain? >> Right, right. >> and, and using these peripheral measures to, to
make sense of that. >> so, so [INAUDIBLE]. I mean so that was within in the
medical domain. So well what introduced you to the main of marketing
understanding consumers, I guess beyond that as well. That's oh, so, so how
did you make that leap in general? >> Right. So someone who was aware of
the work I was doing. Sent me an email about some work at the MIT Media Lab.
And they said, hey, you might be interested in this. And the email was from
Professor Roz Picard who had been looking at a wearable devices, so she had
a graduate student who created a glove. That had a GSR sensor in it, and and
a light abating diode. And so the more arosed you got, the brighter the light
got. And I was like that's really cool. [LAUGH] So you know MIT is all of ten
minutes away from, from, Mass General where I was working. So so I went over
and introduced myself, and, and we were fast friends. You know her lab
initially was involved in what's called Affective Computing. So giving
computers knowledge of emotion. And she was using some of the same
physiologic sensors, heart rate, and skin conductance, that, that I was
collecting in, in patients. and, and had a real interest in, in the brain and and
signal processing, which is really important. So if you think about what MIT
Media Lab does is it tries to take all of available technologies and, and bring
them to bear. On questions around media and, and, and marketing in very
broad definition. >> Mm-hm. >> And so we started to experiment and, and
collaborate and started a course that is now in its 14th year. >> Ooh. >> And
it's called Media Ventures. >> Uh-huh, uh-huh. >> And and what the course is
about is really sort of how do you take these technologies and, and apply them
to, to real challenges in the world. Now, again, very, very broad view of that.
And in the first year of the course, there was a, a, a Sloan business student by
the name of Brian Levine. Who asked me if I had ever thought about applying
the technology I was using in, in patient/doctor relationships to audiences. >>
Mm-hm. >> And I said, you know, that, that's kind of an interesting idea what
did you have in mind? And so, that ultimately led a couple years later to the
starting of Innerscope in 2006. >> Mm-hm. So can you tell me a bit more about
Innerscope and what Innerscope is, what you do, and also where you, where
you were based? >> Sure. So we have a, an office in Boston which is our, our
main headquarters. And then we have an office in in New York City, right in
Manhattan. Where we can service mostly our, our media client. And so one of
the first studies we ever did was, with NBC Universal. >> Mm-hm. >> And they
were very interested in this phenomenon of fast-forwarding. So when, when
people pick up a remote control or use a, a digital video record and fast-
forward through a commercial. There were data suggesting that that left a, an
imprint, a brand impression, even though it was going very fast. And the
industry assumed you were skipping commercials but, but they wondered
whether or not some of it was getting through. And, and so the, the, the study
that really put Innerscope on the map was biometrically monitoring people.
While they watch an NBC program live without the ability to fast forward. And
then taking that same show with the same commercials, and giving people
remote controls to, to fast forward. >> Mm-hm. >> And, and we did eye
tracking, and we did the physiologic measures or biometrics, heart rates,
getting skin conductance. We user respiration in motion and we combine those
into a measure of of engagement. And then we use the eye tracking to see
what visual attention is occurring. And then we also ask people recall
questions immediately after and then the next day and, and if you think about
that combination. It's still at the heart of what Interscope does now almost
nine years later. we, we describe ourselves as an integrated neuroscience
firm. we, we bring as many tools to bear as are needed for the business
question and, and we integrate at, at two levels. The first is integrating
different types of, of, of non-conscious measures. >> Mm-hm. >> So whether
the die-checking and, and biometrics or, we've done that kind of Mariah
studies. We've used implicit research whatever whatever, again, the available
tool that makes sense to use will bring it to bear. >> Hm. >> The second piece
of integration, though, is integrating with traditional measures. Whether that's
quant quantitative surveys or qualitative focus groups. >> Hm. >> And those
are two very different things. and, and we've learned a lot about both over the
years ,. I, I really like using a broad toolbox. And I, and I think our clients
appreciate that, because we're, we're not out there saying there's only one tool
that works. We're saying that they all have a role, and it really depends on
what you're trying to learn to dictate which technology you use. >> Hm, hm.
So, it sounds very much like the MIT thinking here. The Media Lab thinking is,
you, you know, you take all the tools available, and actually try. Now you apply
that to the commercial setting as well right >> I think that's a very fair sense. I
mean, again, we take a very broad view of the world. You know, when we
started out in 2006. obviously, media and marketing is very different from
healthcare, but it turns out to be an enormous space. And the questions are,
are huge right? We're really talking about fundamentally how people make
decisions and, and how they engage in all kinds of content. Whether that's
entertainment advertising or products or product packaging, or, or retail
space. You know, so these are really big questions that I, I think we're finally
starting to, to, to make some sense of. >> Right. You know, a lot of things are
you know the, the visitors of, of this online course. This is, to them, it's the
first time. And they're probably heard or read a lot of about it. They've
probably seen some videos about it. But this is probably the first time they
also get people from the industry to actually speak. About, you know,
retrospectively, about, you know how, how was it in the rough old days? Or
so. You know, you've been around for a long time also. So, you know, 2006 is,
relatively speaking you know, a not, a long time ago, when it comes to
neuromarketing. So how will you, how would you say that the, the past has
been, until today. When it comes to the de-commercialization of, of
neuroscience in marketing, for example, and how do, how, how is the standing
today? >> Sure well, you know, they, they, things have changed a lot. I, I think
in the early days at, at least in the U.S. there were a number of firms that had
venture capital behind them. >> Hm. >> so, so when you have millions of
dollars behind companies. You get a lot of marketing of technology. You also
get a lot of pressure to produce results quickly and I think again at least in the
U.S. there was a a bit of a hype cycle. I think there was some, some over
promising and, and under delivering. which, which I think hurt the field at
some level on the one hand. On the other hand it created a lot of awareness.
You know well we estimated between 50 and $80 million of venture capital
were, were at work between 2006 and roughly 2008. That's a lot of that's a lot
of marketing muscle. so, so I think that helped build a lot of awareness. Now
as we come out of that hype cycle and, and the dust starts to settle our, our
clients, you won't be surprised. Want results that they can trust and, and they
want to see a return of their investment. And I think the, the dust is starting to
settle and I think our clients are also now more educated. But you can imagine
in, in 2006, you're a, a director or vice president of marketing at some CPT
company. And some, some guy knocks on your door and says, hey, we can
read people's minds. >> Hm. >> Right? You know, what are you going to say,
like, great, come on in, right? [LAUGH] How do you do that? Well, we, we put
some wires on people and, you know, we use all this technology. It's fantastic.
wha, what are they going to ask? You know how are they going to assess that
technology? They wouldn't even know where to begin. So, one of the things
that I got involved in with a number of other leaders in the field with SMR a
few years ago. Was to create 36 questions that all marketers should ask or be
willing to ask and address. when, when looking at consumer of science
technologies. And, and so that, you know, that didn't exist prior to, you know,
the late, the late naughts. now, I, I think we, we have the advertising research
foundation, SMR Greenbook you know real industry bodies. Who are taking an
active role in helping their clients understand the different technologies bring
in experts such as yourself. To help educate people, and, and I think the field
is, is finally started to, to mature. The other thing I, I see at least in our clients
is that we're, we're going beyond one or two champions. And we're starting to
see whole organizations embrace the reality that the, the brain matters. That
non-conscious matters, that emotions matter. And that asking people
questions is, is very limited in, in terms of how we can understand consumer
sentiment and behavior. And as the world changes and evolves it really does
make sense to, to broaden the toolbox. >> Mm-hm. So when it comes to, you
know, the toolbox itself, you know, one of the things that we, we tend to think
about a lot, but not really take into it. It's, it's the kind of, the, the in which
technology is changing. You know eh, not in linear rate, but as at the
exponential rate. So you know, it's going faster and faster. Things are
becoming, I would say, more and more reliable in life. They're cheaper. We
have, you know, new stuff coming in every single week almost, I would say. A
new tool, a new innovation, something that is yeah, completely crazy. Does
that change? Right now, has that changed until this point, the field of
marketing? And the neuromarketing in, in particular? And how would you see
that, that changing in the future? I mean, we're seeing, you know, we're still
talking about UG and fRMI, methods like that. We're still talking about GSR.
Which are a, a lot, you know, rel, relatively speaking, these technologies such
the old undermine. >> Yeah. >> So, so, do you think that will change or will
that be remain for a long time some of this, standard, standard toolbox? >> I
think it's a great question. I, I think two things. I think that some of the
methods, fRMI, EEG and biometrics, eye tracking are, are really sort of here to
stay. But they will, they will find their role. And that role will be fairly well
defined. I think the future as, as you just suggested is faster cheaper smaller.
and, and so what we're seeing is smaller sensor arrays, smaller hardware kits.
More portability in, in various technologies. obviously, price points come
down with, with volume and, and efficiencies. And then with the computer
power, which is absolutely stunning. Automation comes in and, and can do
massive throughput and turn around time. So, you know, a typical Innerscope
study is going to be produced between a 100 and 600 million data points. I
mean, yeah, we're talking about massive data sets that, that that we have to, to
process and turn around. I'll, I'll give you one example. So you know,
Innerscope does not build hardware. we, we we take signals from multiple
sources and, and we build algorithms. That aggregate different types of
signals across a population. So if you think about the shift from the, you know,
the academic work I was doing. And what most academics do is, is really
focused on individuals. And then aggregates small populations. Media
marketers are looking at very large populations. and, and so the, the, you
know, the algorithms and signal processing for that are very, very different.
Than than some of the traditional methods. But if you just look at the hardware.
We are on our fourth generation of, of biometric technology. So the first
generation was a box with wires coming out of it. The second generation was
a vest that, that people wore. and, and one of the questions we had is, wow,
are, are people going to take their shirt off? Put a t-shirt on and put a vest on,
and, and put all these wirings on, it, it turns out for $50, people will do just
about anything. [LAUGH] the third generation was a belt again you still had to
lift up your shirt and put it on. But it was much less in, invasive than the vest
and now we're down to, to wrist devices. now, there's always going to be
tradeoffs as things get smaller and cheaper you, you do have to worry about
signal quality. So one of the things that we worked very hard is, is to maintain
you know, medical grade laboratory grade signal quality. As we move into real
world environments. Right, so for us the, the step was outside of the lab
moving into what we refer to as our senses kiosk. So this is a, an interesting
platform. And I think it illustrates some of the points we're talking about. So
this is a, this is a device that sits in malls and movie theaters across the US in,
in six cities. It allows us to collect biometrics, so GSR, medical grade heart
rate. We've got a Tobii eye tracker. again, a small one that moved from this big
device into small, that's built into the monitor. and, and that allows us to
obviously get eye tracking in, in some people response. And then we using a,
a web camera. We're able to capture people's faces. and, and, use Automated
Facial Coding. And then there's a keyboard so people can, can answer
questions. so, that's, that's pretty, pretty powerful package. Taking high
quality sensors out of the lab. Bringing them a little closer to where
consumers are. In, in malls and movie theaters in multiple cities. and, and
that's been very popular for, for us because our clients like the geographic
distribution. They like the fact that our recruiting costs are lower. That
consumers are, are closer to decision points. and, and they like that, that
combination of, of channels. So, I think that evolution is a step, and then the
future is going to be wearables, right? You know, we're all going to be walking
around with some kind of armband or, or watch or you know, glasses. That will
collect all, all kinds of interesting signals. That may look a lot like what we're
collecting today or, or might be proxies. And the challenge is going to be
trading of quality, for quantity. >> Right, right, so, so when you do all these
different channels. So, you know, I was going to say, one thing that you're also
eluded to here, is that before we. You know, earlier on, in the first generation,
second generation, we tended to focus very much on one channel or two
channels. That was, that was tough enough, right? >> Yeah. >> But now you,
you're building whole, you know, you're aggregating a lot of data from many
different channels. Can, can you lift a little bit for, you know, how do you
actually do that? What, what, how, what are your solutions for, you know,
integrating all of these, you know, stimuli? All of these these different
channels? How does that actually happen? >> Sure. Well, so let's start with
with some of the biometric channels. Right? So when we started in 2006 it
honestly we, we had multiple channels. And, and I felt strongly that if we're
going to use the peripheral nervous system, right? The body's manifestation
of motion we probably wanted as many sensors as possible to get a, a, a, a
good glimpse of what was going on. And the first devices that had integrated
circuitry and, and could do multichannel measure and were wearable, were
just starting to come out. And I was like wow, this is, this is pretty cool. And
then we had to scratch our head a little bit about it well how are we going to
combine these, right? because I, I, I think just taking the average across the
population probably wasn't going to cut it. And so we came up through a
series of iterations with, with two ways of single processing these channels.
One of them is very sort of right out of the academic teckbook, textbooks.
Which is essentially looking at a, a, a trough to peak, right. How big of a
response are people having in any given moment? Obviously adjusting for
any lags in the different measures. Which you have to be thoughtful about.
Normalizing to a baseline. Normalizing within individuals, because not all
individuals have the same response. And then these are basics, you know,
sort of signal crossing techniques. The second path really, actually was
inspired by some of the patient-doctor work I was doing. So in the early, late
80s, early 90s people started to talk about, you know, mirror neurons. and, and
how you know, empathy circuits, and how possibly some of the physiology
and, and neurobiology. Was getting in, in sync with one another. And one of
the things I was seeing in, in my patient-doctor data were the, these moments
of what I called concordance, right? So, so literally the, the physiology would
line up during these incredibly intimate moments of, of empathy and emotional
exchange. And I, you know, went around to world experts who were thinking
about mirror neurons, and, and we did some fMRI studies. And I said, you
know, I, I actually think, you know, people are having these incredible
moments of meaning. and, and shared physiology that's happening. I said,
what if that's happening when, when people watch great entertainment, and go
on a common journey. So, we, we created now not just two people interacting,
but across an audience a measure of what we call synchoning. >> Mm. Mm
hm. >> And so, by combining synchrony and intensity, that gives us what we
call engagement. And I'll tell you a little story. we, we were sort of working on
this combination. I was feeling pretty good about it. But had no idea what to
call it. And then we went to an, an, an ARF, advertising research foundation
meeting. And the chief research officer at the time was a guy named Joe
Plummer. And, and he was all fired up about engagement. He's like, we gotta
move away from counting eyeballs and, and measure how people engage with,
with content. And I said, you know? I think we're measuring engagement.
[LAUGH] And, and so, that, that's essentially what we call it. So, engagement
is, is attention to something that emotionally moves you. >> Mm-hm. >> And,
and you kind of need those, those two components. And the steps and the
algorithms that I just described are the bases of one of our patents >> Mm-
hm. All right and so when it comes to difference in now we talk. About I'd like
to take you a step back to the to the mall solution. Can you tell me a bit more
about [INAUDIBLE] you know when people talk about neuromarketing. A lot of
you know we have one side we have academic, commercial alliance, so people
are doing consumer neuroscience studies. The other side would have the
more commercial applications of these technologies. And I would say, you
know, even starting to think about moving stuff out of the lab is still pretty
edgy. All right. So, so how, you know, to, to what extent has it, could it be
possible to do this two years ago? Or would you say it, we're actually at the
edge right now that allows you to these with a platform. And, and how, you
know, what have been the consideration for moving stuff into the mall
solution. Which is, I think it's incredible. >> Yeah, I, I think I think there's sort
of two factors. One is, is price. >> Mm. >> You know, it's very expensive, some
of this technology so having it in six locations. where, where there's not just
one kiosk. There's actually two. You know, now you need 12 kits, you know,
that, that starts to get a little bit pricey. So having that price point come down
to the point where, you know, that makes economic sense it is clearly one of
them. >> Mm. >> But I think the second one goes back to quality. >> You know,
the second thing is about the quality, and, and I think that we. One, one thing
that could be interesting. You know I, I'm also trying to, to pick a bit on, you
know, pick, pick on the bit, kind of with the actual platform, you know? You
know? because, you know, we need the academic research. We've been using
Mat Lab, ePrime. We've been using a lot of different things. You know, what
kind of solution you are using for people are very curious. So how do you
actually do this? I mean,. Sure. >> I was, you know, I was just, I was just
running the recording, so do we sync it? You know, so just giving people a bit
of hands on. I'm not sure that's okay with you, but it's. >> Well, no, look, I
mean, I, I can talk a lot about, you know, some of the early days. Challenges
we had synchronizing signals and [CROSSTALK] yeah, I mean, I think, I think
what, what eye motions has done is, is. They spend $10 million building a
synchroniser right? >> [LAUGH] >> You know that's more than we spent on
ours I'll tell you. So >> True, that's true. But if you can just take off my second.
>> Yeah, yeah so the second thing I'll talk about quality. And then if you want
to ask a little bit about you know just the nuts and bolts I can tell some stories.
>> And then also have, actually, I want to jump to, before we kind of round it
off a bit [INAUDIBLE]. But before that, I want to ask you about the the whole
debate. About you know what's the, you know, reversing friends and the whole
thing. >> Right, and that- >> Because I know you're [CROSSTALK]. >> We gotta
talk about that, yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. [CROSSTALK]. >> Yeah, as long as, as
long as we stop by about five minutes to 8, I should be okay. >> Oh, sure.
Sure. >> About ten more minutes or so? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Great.
>> [CROSSTALK]. >> All right, so, you ready? >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. You know,
so the second thing that, that we think about when, when we're in new
environments is, is quality. >> Mm. >> and, and, you know, you could go
online right now and buy a, a $10 heart rate monitor. $10 skin conductor
monitor or, or a $200 eye tracker. But you know, you really gotta be, be careful
about quality. And even EZ devices that we heard I think at the other
conference, right? For $500, you can have you know, essentially a $50,000
EEG system. I mean, come on. You know, so, so there's always going to be
trade offs with quality and, and finding that, that sort of line. Where the form
factor, which is how the sensor's going on the body. The comfort level and the
cost balance against quality I, I think is a real trick. and, and, and I think it
leads us to a discussion about validation very quickly. >> Mm, going to I,
actually the just the science when it comes to synchronization, but also
technology in general. I think one of the that things we always hear when it
comes to neuromarketing is validity. You know, can we really interpret? Yeah,
can we, are we over-stretching it, are we over-interpreting results? You know,
the whole thing about reverse inference for example. So I, I know you've been
vocal about this and kind of responding back again. And as you know, in
common academics, we know that there are ways to do this and ways not to
do it, I guess. So what are your take on the criticism that we so often hear you
know, you can't really do that. >> Sure, you know. So I think, I think a couple
things. One when, when you're innovating. And you're pushing the envelope,
you do have to take some risks. And you do have to some leaps. and, and we,
we being Innerscope have tried to be as, as careful as possible. About those
leaps to, to, to use the scientific approach. Which is you know to create a
hypotheses to try and test those hypotheses as much as we can. To look for
external data sources that we can combine and, and, and correlate with and,
and try to, to predict. and, and I think that's really important but I don't think
that every company in this space takes that as, as seriously as, as it should.
So let me give you a couple examples of what we've done. and, and I would
love to do more. and, and we look for collaborations and, and what I think the
biggest challenge is getting good data sets and, and clean outcome measures.
But when we can get them we see really nice results, right. So we have found a
correlations between levels of emotional engagement in, you know, using
biometrics. As I've described with a number of outcomes. We've published
data from our Super Bowl study in 2008. Where we were able to correlate with
the number of views and comments up to nine months later. on, on, on the
website called MySpace which was the first website to host all 50 national
Superbowl ads. That were aired during the big game. So that was encouraging.
We've also seen correlations with our measure in, in viewership using set top
box data. So we did some, some studies with Tebow. Where they had, were
able to share data from their panel of over 100,000 viewers in the home. And
we, we, we layered on the biometric response to the same programming. And
we saw some, some very nice co-relations there. >> Mm-hm. >> and, and when
we can get sales data which is very hard to get. we've, we've seen a similar co-
relations. The one that we can talk about publically is a weekend box office
receipts. So we used movie trailers from U.S. film releases. Sometimes it's our
masking material. So we had data on them. Weekend box office revenues are
publicly available. and, and when you adjust for the number of screens,
meaning the number of movie houses the film is released into. You can, you
can create an outcome measure. And again we've used our, our the levels of
biometric response to the movie trailers. And seen correlations with with
weekend box office shoots, and those, those are just three examples. >> Mm.-
hm. >> Now I'm a scientist by training I'm, I'm, I'm a skeptic at heart. I, I will tell
you I don't believe any of our data, but I can't ignore all of it. >> Hm. >> You
know, so, so, from a science perspective you know, I'm, I'm pretty cautious.
That said when, when you now turn to our clients all of which you've heard of
because these are major, major brands. I, I think you have a very different
outcome measure, and there it's, it's not necessarily, you know, a, a scientific
measure. It's, it's a business measure, right? And so, when, when I've been on
panels and talked about this, I said, look. You've got to realize. That the
currency in academia are published papers. >> Mm. >> Right? You know, I
was an academic, I knew the pressure to publish. and, and what does that
mean? That means you are creating publicly available all your results, or as
much as your results as possible. So that someone schooled in the art could
reproduce your study. >> Mm. >> Right? Well the currency in business,
[LAUGH] is a little different. You know, it's more monetary. and, and so, you
know, I think the indicator of and alternate validation for the field. Is clients
coming back, time and time again, and, and asking for more research. And,
and we have we have clients who have been with us for, for all six years. In
fact, we were discussing earlier. I was just at NBC Universal in New York
yesterday and talking to the same people who, who did that original study in
2007. So, you know, that tells me that, that there's some value being
generated. I wish I could share everything we've done with, with the world. but,
but, you know, the business environment is very competitive. and, and, and
sharing is not something that they're into. And I think that's a, that's a
challenge because, you know, neuroscience is based on science. >> Hm, right.
>> which, which is building on knowledge. but, but business is based on, you
know, secrets and proprietary measures. So it, it, it hurts the field, and, and it
doesn't advance as quickly. But that doesn't mean we can't, you know, share
when we can. And I think, you know, folks like at Temple University. Who have
this decision neuroscience conference every year. Where they try to bring
academics and, and, and folks in consumer neuroscience together to share
and, and debate and discuss. Sometimes lively discussions. I, I think is very
healthy. You know, I think it's good for us, because it keeps us rigorous, and I
think it's good for academics to realize. You know, you gotta broaden your,
your, your stimuli to beyond just xs and os and these simple things. And, and,
and, and look for things that are more generalizable. My criticism of, of the
academic work is it doesn't generalize to the real world. >> Yeah. >> You
know, you go so far down a narrow path and you isolate variables so much.
That's great. You've got this finding, but is that ever going to be produced in
the real world. >> Right, right. Yeah, I think that's the. >> [COUGH] Sorry. >> I
think that's the, I think that's the other thing to this, this I think you mentioned
this earlier as well. Is, is, you know, basically is, is a news story is much more
pragmatic. So they're, they're dealing more with, you know, can I use it. Does it
really predict anything. So one thing is of course, the scientific validity and the
reliability of the measures. But that's part of the pragmatic package and kind
of orientation for these people as well, right. So and, you know, I guess that is
part of the other side of, of industry as well. They, they need to have stuff that
works, right. >> And they need to be able to evaluate it, right. I think that one
of the big challenges and what's so great about a course like this is, is, is
trying to create materials. That someone who, who doesn't have a Ph.D or or a
medical degree. could, could listen to or watch and, and learn, you know, your
textbooks. And more textbooks are coming out to, to just get a, a basic
framework. >> Mm. >> for, for how all this works, it's, it's a, it's a real
challenge. I mean. You know how, how long did you and I study this stuff? to,
to get us to this point. You know we're talking about a really long time. and,
and very technical equipment, very complicated neurobiology and, and
physiology that takes years to master. so, so I, I, I think just being able to
evaluate these different methods. It's tough. I'll, I'll get, I'll tell you one quick
story. >> Mm. >> This is going back a little while, but we were in a bake off say
2008 with with two other companies. With one of the major beverage
companies, and literally after we all spent a day presenting. The client said
well, you know, two of the companies use EEG, and only one uses biometrics,
so therefore, EEG must be better. And I say, wow. I said, I said there's a certain
logic to that, I agree. [LAUGH] But, but you know, I, I, but I was also
sympathetic. I was like, you know what? If that's. You know if you don't have a
framework for thinking about this stuff that's one way to do it. >> Right, right.
[LAUGH] I was actually like you know talking about exactly this and kind of of
to round off a bit here. When we see you know this, this there's been an
incredible interest in, in this course, just a testament to you know the interest
in overall to this. I mean we see well over 40,000 people sign up for this
course. It's just I think this blown us both humble weigh all of us here. And I
know there's a lot of interest from people who are just scratching the surface
here they're really interested in this. They might be, at the virtual starting to
invest their time and money and going into this line, maybe. So even from kind
of an educational point of view, so what would your, your recommendation be
for people who are interested in this field. Who want to pursue a career other
than in academia or in industry, but overall, what would you say is, is a good
background? So you have a medical background, I have the, the, the sort of
psychological background. Is that the only way, or are there ways to do this
differently? >> Well, I, I think it's, I think it's a great question. And I, I, you
know, sure, I, I had a medical background, but I didn't know anything about
media and marketing. And it's taken me nine years to learn the, the ways of the
industry. So I, I think, I think it's really a, a challenge. Until there are better
course materials in you know, in the academic institutions. And, and I think it's
going to be in the business schools, and in the marketing departments. In
collaboration with the medical schools and the experimental psychology
departments. You know, the, the universities aren't that integrated. But we are
starting to see some of that integration happening. So you're, you're question
is today, what do you do? Right? You know, I, I think there's a couple paths.
You know, I do think that, the, the, the better your, your grounding in, in, in
science and, and the methods. the, the better you're going to be at any of this.
So if, if you can, if you can handle a masters or a PhD in, in one of the fields
you know now neuroscience coursework is, is everywhere right? You know
you can get an undergraduate degree in neuroscience right? So you can get
some of the basics pretty easily. Then I think you have to pivot and
compliment with, with some marketing science. And a basic understand of
how, how marketing works and, and, and what and how people think about
that. And then I think you can also complement it with going to conferences.
and, and, and interning. I mean we had we had 500 applicants for four spots
for our summer internship last year. And I was just, I was blown away. I was
like, we don't advertise for our internship so. I don't even know how these
people found us, but that's the, the power of the internet, right? >> Right, right.
>> I mean I'm so amazed that the, the turn out you, you've gotten for this
course. I didn't know 40,000 people even knew what consumer neuroscience
was. >> [LAUGH] >> [LAUGH] >> That's true. I didn't either. [LAUGH] >>
[LAUGH]. Oh, absolutely. So, so, Carl, my final question is, is so now we see, I,
I call this more like a broader, in broader terms I call this applied
neuroscience. >> Sure. >> You know, we apply it to, to marketing and We can
apply it to different industries. We see it being applied to management, to
leadership, to innovation and creativity. Is there, is there any limits to this? Or
is it, how do you see this you know. What is the reasonable limits for applying
neuroscience in, in your perspective? >> Well I, I think first of all we should
have a quick definition right. I mean, I think that contributor science or pioneer
sciences is the application of our knowledge in neuroscience to marketing and
media questions. And I think people have to remember that, that neuroscience,
is the study of the, the entire nervous system, and not just the brain. Right?
You know, and that the brain in the jar isn't that interesting. Right, we need our
bodies, we need, we need our conscience awareness, we need all these
things. To create a more comprehensive view of people. I don't think there are
limits. I think, I think like any tool,. It depends on whose hands they're in right?
The classic story of the knife in the hands of a surgeon is very different than
the knife in the hands of a criminal >> Right. And so obviously, we have to be
thoughtful about the ethics. You know, all our participants sign a consent
form. You know, they're very aware of what they're doing and the risks of them
health-wise are 0 to infinitedecimal. You know, but that doesn't mean that
over time, you know, we're not going to see some some applications that are
kind of scary. I'll give you one quick example. I mean, you may be aware of
what, what Facebook did manipulating the newsfeed using some basic
priming psychology. >> Mm-hm. >> You know, if they, if they made some of
the newsfeed a little more negative, and, and other people's a little more
positive. You know could they influence what posts people made and, and
from a science perspective it was brilliant. I mean the, the, the study's been
done, you can actually influence people's psychology by changing their news
feed. But holy cow from a, from an society moral ethical perspective it's scary,
right? So I think, I think leadership is going to be important. I think we're all
going to have to you know, continue to be mindful about this stuff on the one
hand. But on the other hand, if, if there was a force on the planet that
influenced what you wear, what you eat, and how you voted. Wouldn't you
want to understand that? And I think that's what we're all interested in doing.
>> Right. Right. Well Carl Marci, I really appreciate you took your time to, to be
interviewed here. So thank you for your time. >> It was a great pleasure.