Lovely in many ways - look forward to hearing David's take on it too. Personally I like the dichotomy between the fact that 'behaviour' has an observable output - yet the actual moment of decision making doesn't. Both are valid in terms of lights going on in the brain - but it really depends on how you use it. 'Neuromarketing' by its very etymology is wrong on many levels. But that doesn't mean that observable data of human response to stimulus might not be useful. In that sense, data is only useful in the context it is deployed within - to create a business out of it for marketeers was wrong-headed, its usefulness may lie elsewhere perhaps in medicine or a range of drivers of mental health - but it never really had a place in marketing. I hope it doesn't disappear - rather that its application can be used where it can be most effective for the species. Behaviour change however - has never been solved by marketers - or theories of causation in primates (OK yes - limbic brain reverberations etc - but never empirical. Nudge and Behavioural Economics is simply about choice making - trade-offs - one choice is easier to act upon based on time and effort - 'hyperbolic discounting' for example - yet can never account for cultural cascades before they materialize in culture. We weren't able to predict it then - and we won't (hopefully) in the future. We can just understand the mechanism a bit more - but not be able to predict the outcome. Can't wait to hear more. Hope your well Best M

Thanks for the props Gavin - hope your well there. Best M

Willem - thanks for your response - love the fact that you relate to Timon and Pumba - made me laugh out loud. I am very much a Hakuna Matata person anyway having lived through many Scars and Hyenas over time - they come - they go - only once did I work for a King - but he left for sunnier climes too! Agree - there are Simbas out there - no doubt and they shall claim their rightful place eventually - but first they have to prove themselves right? Really enjoying following your adventures Willem - looking forward to the next installment. Take care buddy, M

Thank you Claire - love your blog btw - gorgeous!!!

Gagey!!!! Howz tricks dude? And thanks btw - press here is full of nonsense. And badly run agencies mostly. Hope your well. M

Thanks Iain - much appreciated. M

A perfect observation Carol thank you. Hopefully they can and do by finding the useful not just the interesting for consumers. Although they are symbiotic ;) M

Indeed. Although the crowd always did our job for us - we just had no way of measuring it. We do want to be entertained - and sometimes we want to shop. And sometimes just chat. And if brands can be useful and interesting at these intersections then we can have a fair value exchange. Problem is most don't. We design for technology not people. And sometimes to please ourselves and a Cannes jury. If there truly is a link between Cannes success and getting on big and exciting pitches then it has merit. If the winning work sells lots of stuff then it has merit. If the winning work uplifts brand metrics around favorability then it has merit. Otherwise its just us talking to ourselves. And that has merit too. But only in the context it appears.

Good points Chris - and your right about the way they are hiring the digital folk. Be interested to see how this one pans out. Good to see you too - must get that lunch on soon. best M

They are not John. Which is why CEOs don't want us to talk to them about it. If we got better at it then we would add value and not have an issue. Planning needs to lead this and the article should/could have been about skillsets around creative business planning not around advertising and what needs to change. We have lost our way because we got caught up in delivering multi-channel technology strategies with no proper financial rigor. Fun certainly - but not something the CEO is particularly interested in.