Pregnant Women Beware of This Marketing Trick.(Marketing To Unborn)

There’s some research to suggest that newborns develop preferences for specific stimuli when they’re in the womb. For instance, a study from Queen’s University found that babies are partial to theme songs that their pregnant mothers frequently listened to. Among other reactions, when hearing the theme song, the babies seemed more alert, stopped squirming and exhibited a decreased heart rate. When listening to new tunes, the babies didn’t show any reactions.

An Asian mall chain wanted to increase sales among pregnant women and started performing various stealthy strategies to prime these consumers to buy. They sprayed Johnson & Johnson baby powder in stores that sold clothes; they sprayed a cherry scent in spots that sold food. And in order to stir up positive emotions and memories, they played calming music dating back to when the women were born.

Sales did increase, but something even more fascinating happened: A year after the experiment, mothers sent a litany of letters to the mall telling them that their newborns were soothed when entering the shopping mall. Writes Lindstrom: “If they were fussing and crying, they simmered down at once, an effect that 60 percent of these women claimed they’d experienced nowhere else, not even places where they were exposed to equally pleasant smells and sounds.”

Source : http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/11/07/how-marketers-manipulate-us-to-buy-buy-buy/

Your Views, Amazing Insights & Write Ups. (Please Email & Share Them)

At, Piyush, Amazing Insights & You, I believe that this Blog is just not mine, it is your's to own it. Ideas are no one's monopoly, so if you have written something that you want me to put on this blog then kindly email it to.

"piyushsingh.insight@gmail.com"

I will definitely publish your article on this blog with due acknowledgement, if your amazing insight can quench the thirst of the awesome people who visit this blog regularly.

Kindly scroll down to bottom to find the details and mind & personality tests.

Thank You

Piyush Singh

Piyush, Amazing Insights & You.

http://insightscollection.blogspot.in/

Are You Being Decoyed By Companies ? Realize It ASAP.

In his brilliant book Predictably Irrational, author Dan Ariely shares a great example of the effect of decoy pricing. He ran an experiment using subscription offers to The Economist magazine. Participants were given one of two offers.

Offer A
$59 –Economist.com subscription (16% chose)
$125 – Print subscription (0% chose)
$125 – Print & web subscriptions (84% chose)

Offer B
$59 – Economist.com subscription (68% chose)
$125 – Print & web subscriptions (32% chose)

The results from this experiment are quite stunning. The only difference between the two offers is the inclusion of a third “decoy” choice print subscription in Offer A. No one chose the decoy item, but its mere presence made the print & web subscription option look like a no-brainer. Offer B takes a bit of thinking, whereas Offer A made the decision easy by giving consumers a default option. This experiment is one of many that show that presenting one option as a default option increases the chance it will be chosen.

ADD AN EXPENSIVE OPTION

In the above example, adding an inferior, but similarly priced product (print only subscription) helped increase sales of the more attractive print & web subscription by reinforcing its value. Another decoy pricing strategy is to add an expensive option.

Let’s say for example you sell watches; $100 for the basic and $200 for the premium version. Some people buy the premium option, but most elect for the basic. You could add a decoy super-premium option priced at $500. Shoppers probably aren’t going to buy it, but it will boost sales of the $200 option because it suddenly seems like a great value.

TRADE CUSTOMERS UP

Apple is genius when it comes to decoy pricing. Let’s take a look at pricing for the iPad:

A shopper goes in thinking an iPad will only cost them $499 because 16GB is all they need. But for $100 they can get double the storage amount and $200 more will get them 4x more storage. Many end up with the most expensive 64GB option because it would be silly to purchase one of the other options. Apple’s decoy pricing strategy trades shoppers up by making the most expensive version the “right choice”.

Source : http://marketingstylee.com/2011/08/02/understanding-customer-thinking-part-3-decoy-pricing/

Now They Use Colors To Influence Your Purchase Decision. Do You Also Get Influenced ?

For retailers, shopping is the art of persuasion. Though there are many factors that influence how and what consumers buy. However, a great deal is decided by visual cues, the strongest and most persuasive being color. When marketing new products it is crucial to consider that consumers place visual appearance and color above other factors such as sound, smell and texture. To learn more about color psychology and how it influences purchases, see our latest infographic.

Source :- http://blog.kissmetrics.com/color-psychology/

You Can Save Yourselves From Such Tricks.

Imagine you’ve been getting these terrible migraines. Desperate for the pain to stop, you visit the doctor. He tells you that he has the perfect treatment, a pill that has been proven to eliminate migraines in 95% of patients. You fill the prescription and your migraines disappear. What if you found out the pill your doctor prescribed was simply a sugar pill that has no effect on migraines? Your migraines vanished, but how?

The reason is this—you expected to get better after taking the medication, so you did. This phenomenon is called the placebo effect and it is responsible for helping thousands of sick and ailing people every year. The placebo effect is what happens when a person’s condition improves after he or she takes a medication that has no proven therapeutic effect for that particular condition. The person’s perception and belief that the medication will help is what improves their condition, not the medication itself.

In this post, I am going to dig into this concept of the placebo effect, but with a focus on the role that price plays.

Price & Placebo Effect in Marketing

Price is the de facto placebo effect in marketing. It plays a very important role in influencing how people perceive a product and, in the end, shaping their expectations. This is why designer jeans fit so perfectly, why Nike’s make us run faster and jump higher, and why $5 Starbucks just tastes better.

It turns out that price affects not only perceived quality, but actual quality as well.

Research published in the Journal of Consumer Research explored whether marketing actions (such as pricing), can actually alter the effectiveness of the product.

In a series of experiments, researchers had participants drink SoBe Adrenaline Rush, a drink that claims to improve mental ability. To determine the effect of the drink on people’s performance, the researchers had the subjects perform a series of puzzles (unscramble words).

Participants were exposed to two variables. First was information about the effectiveness of the drink. The high expectancy group was told that drinks such as SoBe Adrenaline Rush create large improvements in thinking. The low expectancy group was told that the drinks provide only slight improvements in mental performance.

Participants were also given information about the cost of the drink. Half of the participants were told the regular price of the drink ($1.89), while the other half was told that the drink was purchased at a discount ($0.89).

The results (below) are surprising; those who got the discounted drink performed worse than those who received the full-price drink.

The takeaway from this study is the role that price can play in the experience customers have with your product. Price shapes expectations. When people pay more for a product, they find greater enjoyment because they Believe and Perceive that it will give them more satisfaction—the placebo effect. With this in mind, maybe you should consider raising your prices, it just might make for happier and more satisfied customers.

Source - http://marketingstylee.com/tag/understanding-customer-thinking/

Have You Ever Done Such Irrational Act In Past ? Why Did You Do That?

This video shows how we follow the crowd even if we are right or we have no rational reason to follow it. This happens with most of the people that, we look for society’s acceptance and do not want to be an exception in the crowd.

Please watch this video and you will find that how a person is changing positions just because other 3 people are doing. It will be a great idea and fun that you try this with others at public places.

This technique is used by many marketing companies to manipulate your subconscious behavior. So next time watch out for such manipulation.

Giving Incentives May Decrease Your/Employees' Motivation. (Personal & Professional Perspective of Over Justification Theory).

The effect where giving a reward to someone for doing something that is intrinsically rewarding undermines the "joy" for doing that thing. Because the person now sees the reward as the motivation, he/she performs the task less frequently. In a study, children were given opportunities to play with some toys. They really enjoyed playing with these toys -- it was fun for them. Then the researchers gave the children rewards for playing with the toys. What happened was the kids no longer enjoyed playing with the toys. It became less about fun and more about "work".

             Can this be a reason of high attrition in sales related jobs, or at jobs where performance is directly rewarded with extrinsic incentives like bonus etc. ?  

                   It may also make us short sighted as we will be just struggling to get a short term extrinsic incentive and not for a long term benefit of the organisation. 

                      In personal life, if we give incentives to our Children, Ourselves or to any Relative  for doing something then the feelings will be different but, if next time similar kind of incentive is not given then definitely the feelings will change. I know it will be tough to accept this, but why not to try this at your home or office and then contradict this statement. 

Complete Research Explanation can be seen on - http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=389

Definition - http://theneuron.wetpaint.com/page/Psych+M.D.+-+Overjustification+Effect

                    

How & Why You Lie To Yourself ? (Cognitive Dissonance)

The ground-breaking social psychological experiment of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) provides a central insight into the stories we tell ourselves about why we think and behave the way we do. The experiment is filled with ingenious deception so the best way to understand it is to imagine you are taking part. So sit back, relax and travel back. The time is 1959 and you are an undergraduate student at Stanford University...

As part of your course you agree to take part in an experiment on 'measures of performance'. You are told the experiment will take two hours. As you are required to act as an experimental subject for a certain number of hours in a year - this will be two more of them out of the way.

Little do you know, the experiment will actually become a classic in social psychology. And what will seem to you like accidents by the experimenters are all part of a carefully controlled deception. For now though, you are innocent.

The set-up

Once in the lab you are told the experiment is about how your expectations affect the actual experience of a task. Apparently there are two groups and in the other group they have been given a particular expectation about the study. To instil the expectation subtly, the participants in the other groups are informally briefed by a student who has apparently just completed the task. In your group, though, you'll do the task with no expectations.

Perhaps you wonder why you're being told all this, but nevertheless it makes it seem a bit more exciting now that you know some of the mechanics behind the experiment.

So you settle down to the first task you are given, and quickly realise it is extremely boring. You are asked to move some spools around in a box for half an hour, then for the next half an hour you move pegs around a board. Frankly, watching paint dry would have been preferable.

At the end of the tasks the experimenter thanks you for taking part, then tells you that many other people find the task pretty interesting. This is a little confusing - the task was very boring. Whatever. You let it pass.

Experimental slip-up

Then the experimenter looks a little embarrassed and starts to explain haltingly that there's been a cock-up. He says they need your help. The participant coming in after you is in the other condition they mentioned before you did the task - the condition in which they have an expectation before carrying out the task. This expectation is that the task is actually really interesting. Unfortunately the person who usually sets up their expectation hasn't turned up.

So, they ask if you wouldn't mind doing it. Not only that but they offer to pay you $1. Because it's 1959 and you're a student this is not completely insignificant for only a few minutes work. And, they tell you that they can use you again in the future. It sounds like easy money so you agree to take part. This is great - what started out as a simple fulfilment of a course component has unearthed a little ready cash for you.

You are quickly introduced to the next participant who is about to do the same task you just completed. As instructed you tell her that the task she's about to do is really interesting. She smiles, thanks you and disappears off into the test room. You feel a pang of regret for getting her hopes up. Then the experimenter returns, thanks you again, and once again tells you that many people enjoy the task and hopes you found it interesting.

Then you are ushered through to another room where you are interviewed about the experiment you've just done. One of the questions asks you about how interesting the task was that you were given to do. This makes you pause for a minute and think.

Now it seems to you that the task wasn't as boring as you first thought. You start to see how even the repetitive movements of the spools and pegs had a certain symmetrical beauty. And it was all in the name of science after all. This was a worthwhile endeavour and you hope the experimenters get some interesting results out of it.

The task still couldn't be classified as great fun, but perhaps it wasn't that bad. You figure that, on reflection, it wasn't as bad as you first thought. You rate it moderately interesting.

After the experiment you go and talk to your friend who was also doing the experiment. Comparing notes you found that your experiences were almost identical except for one vital difference. She was offered way more than you to brief the next student: $20! This is when it first occurs to you that there's been some trickery at work here.

You ask her about the task with the spools and pegs:

"Oh," she replies. "That was sooooo boring, I gave it the lowest rating possible."

"No," you insist. "It wasn't that bad. Actually when you think about it, it was pretty interesting."

She looks at you incredulously.

What the hell is going on?

Cognitive dissonance

What you've just experienced is the power of cognitive dissonance. Social psychologists studying cognitive dissonance are interested in the way we deal with two thoughts that contradict each other - and how we deal with this contradiction.

In this case: you thought the task was boring to start off with then you were paid to tell someone else the task was interesting. But, you're not the kind of person to casually go around lying to people. So how can you resolve your view of yourself as an honest person with lying to the next participant? The amount of money you were paid hardly salves your conscience - it was nice but not that nice.

Your mind resolves this conundrum by deciding that actually the study was pretty interesting after all. You are helped to this conclusion by the experimenter who tells you other people also thought the study was pretty interesting.

Your friend, meanwhile, has no need of these mental machinations. She merely thinks to herself: I've been paid $20 to lie, that's a small fortune for a student like me, and more than justifies my fibbing. The task was boring and still is boring whatever the experimenter tells me.

A beautiful theory

Since this experiment numerous studies of cognitive dissonance have been carried out and the effect is well-established. Its beauty is that it explains so many of our everyday behaviours. Here are some examples provided by Morton Hunt in 'The Story of Psychology':

§  When trying to join a group, the harder they make the barriers to entry, the more you value your membership. To resolve the dissonance between the hoops you were forced to jump through, and the reality of what turns out to be a pretty average club, we convince ourselves the club is, in fact, fantastic.

§  People will interpret the same information in radically different ways to support their own views of the world. When deciding our view on a contentious point, we conveniently forget what jars with our own theory and remember everything that fits.

§  People quickly adjust their values to fit their behaviour, even when it is clearly immoral. Those stealing from their employer will claim that "Everyone does it" so they would be losing out if they didn't, or alternatively that "I'm underpaid so I deserve a little extra on the side."

Once you start to think about it, the list of situations in which people resolve cognitive dissonance through rationalisations becomes ever longer and longer. If you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you can think of many times when you've done it yourself. I know I can.

Being aware of this can help us avoid falling foul of the most dangerous consequences of cognitive dissonance: believing our own lies.

Image credit: Darwin Bell

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/how-and-why-we-lie-to-ourselves.php

Unconsciously, Most Of Your Rational Decisions Are Based On Looks And Not On Rational Factors. Are You A Passive Victim Of Good Looking People/Things? (The Halo Effect)

The 'halo effect' is a classic finding in social psychology. It is the idea that global evaluations about a person (e.g. she is likeable) bleed over into judgements about their specific traits (e.g. she is intelligent). Hollywood stars demonstrate the halo effect perfectly. Because they are often attractive and likeable we naturally assume they are also intelligent, friendly, display good judgement and so on. That is, until we come across (sometimes plentiful) evidence to the contrary.

In the same way politicians use the 'halo effect' to their advantage by trying to appear warm and friendly, while saying little of any substance. People tend to believe their policies are good, because the person appears good. It's that simple.

But you would think we could pick up these sorts of mistaken judgements by simply introspecting and, in a manner of speaking, retrace our thought processes back to the original mistake. In the 1970s, well-known social psychologist Richard Nisbett set out to demonstrate how little access we actually have to our thought processes in general and to the halo effect in particular.

Likeability of lecturers

Nisbett and Wilson wanted to examine the way student participants made judgements about a lecturer (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Students were told the research was investigating teacher evaluations. Specifically, they were told, the experimenters were interested in whether judgements varied depending on the amount of exposure students had to a particular lecturer. This was a total lie.

In fact the students had been divided into two groups who were going to watch two different videos of the same lecturer, who happened to have a strong Belgian accent (this is relevant!). One group watched the lecturer answer a series of questions in an extremely warm and friendly manner. The second group saw exactly the same person answer exactly the questions in a cold and distant manner. Experimenters made sure it was obvious which of the lecturers alter-egos was more likeable. In one he appeared to like teaching and students and in the other he came across as a much more authoritarian figure who didn't like teach at all.

After each group of students watched the videos they were asked to rate the lecturer on physical appearance, mannerisms and even his accent (mannerisms were kept the same across both videos). Consistent with the halo effect, students who saw the 'warm' incarnation of the lecturer rated him more attractive, his mannerisms more likeable and even is accent as more appealing. This was unsurprising as it backed up previous work on the halo effect.

Unconscious judgements

The surprise is that students had no clue whatsoever why they gave one lecturer higher ratings, even after they were given every chance. After the study it was suggested to them that how much they liked the lecturer might have affected their evaluations. Despite this, most said that how much they liked the lecturer from what he said had not affected their evaluation of his individual characteristics at all.

For those who had seen the badass lecturer the results were even worse - students got it the wrong way around. Some thought their ratings of his individual characteristics had actually affected their global evaluation of his likeability.

Even after this, the experimenters were not satisfied. They interviewed students again to ask them whether it was possible their global evaluation of the lecturer had affected their ratings of the lecturer's attributes. Still, the students told them it hadn't. They were convinced they had made their judgement about the lecturer's physical appearance, mannerisms and accent without considering how likeable he was.

Common uses of the halo effect

The halo effect in itself is fascinating and now well-known in the business world. According to 'Reputation Marketing' by John Marconi, books that have 'Harvard Classics' written on the front can demand twice the price of the exact same book without the Harvard endorsement. The same is true in the fashion industry. The addition of a well-known fashion designer's name to a simple pair of jeans can inflate their price tremendously.

But what this experiment demonstrates is that although we can understand the halo effect intellectually, we often have no idea when it is actually happening. This is what makes it such a useful effect for marketers and politicians. We quite naturally make the kinds of adjustments demonstrated in this experiment without even realising it. And then, even when it's pointed out to us, we may well still deny it.

So, the next time you vote for a politician, consider buying a pair of designer jeans or decide whether you like someone, ask yourself whether the halo effect is operating. Are you really evaluating the traits of the person or product you thought you were? Alternatively is some global aspect bleeding over into your specific judgement? This simple check could save you voting for the wrong person, wasting your money or rejecting someone who would be a loyal friend.

Image credit: ericcastro

Source - http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/halo-effect-when-your-own-mind-is.php

TV Ads Forces You To Eat Even If You Are Not Hungry. (Why Do We Do This? ))

Initial studies by Vohs and Schooler, and by Baumeister himself, have found increases in cheating and aggression in experimental participants, after they were told by the experimenters that science had proven that free will was an illusion.  In my prior post I noted that it is quite premature to draw strong conclusions from these few initial studies, as Baumeister and Schooler have, about any such negative social consequences, for several reasons: First, these initial studies only examined antisocial forms of behavior, and so only negative and no positive consequences could have been observed.  Secondly, I noted that we already have the historical precedent of evolutionary science andreligion, in which substantial amounts of evidence in favor of the principle of evolution over the past 150 years has not shaken people's belief insupernatural causes such as the act of Creation -- so we probably don't need to be so afraid of informing the public about studies indicating their lack of free will.

Now, Baumeister has been careful in his recent posts to distinguish determinism from causality, and he and I seem to be converging, via this battle of the blogs, on the notion of relative freedom.  I see the body of social psychological research on unconscious or automatic causation of social judgment (e.g., stereotyping, forming impressions of others), social behavior, and social goal pursuits (such ascooperation, competition, achievement, and affiliation) as showing that the glass of free will is mostly empty, and Roy sees it as mostly full -- or at least fuller than I do.  But I cannot and do not conclude on the basis of that evidence alone that free will does not exist, just as Roy cannot and does not conclude from that evidence that the will is entirely free. 

SHOULD WE TELL THE PUBLIC THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS BEING CONTROLLED?

Given this, I'm not sure what Baumeister, Schooler, and Vohs' position is concerning informing the public about experimental evidence about limitations in the scope of free will, or of situations and domains in which people believe they are exerting free will when in actuality they are not.  This is not the same as telling the public that determinism is an established scientific fact, or that free will is an illusion (in an absolute sense).  Rather, it consists of reporting to the public evidence of external and internal causes of their choices and behavior of which they are not aware and did not consciously intend.  In that spirit I want to alert you to anew study, just published this month in the journal Health Psychology,that illustrates perhaps the most important reason why it is irresponsible for us as scientists not to tell the general public about evidence of limits to the free scope of their will.

As Baumeister emphasized in his Tampa SPSP debate presentation, the belief in free will (as distinguished from free will per se) serves important motivational and subjective functions for the individual.  But it also can cause problems when it leads us to ignore or dismiss the possibility that there may be powerful influences on our behavior that we don't know about -- even for important behaviors such as who and what we vote for, or the kinds and amount of food we eat.  If we believe that we are the absolute captain of our soul, then we don't worry too much about these potential influences -- and thereby leave ourselves wide open and vulnerable to them. 

Television and other forms ofadvertising is expressly directed at getting us to do something that is in the best interests of the advertiser, but not necessarily our own.  We have already recognized this in the case of cigarette (tobacco smoking) advertising and as a consequence it has been banned now for many years.  In the new study, Jennifer Harris and Kelly Brownell of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale and I showed that passive exposure to food advertising on television may contribute to the ongoing obesity epidemic by automatically triggering eating behavior, right then and there while watching TV.  Experiment 1 focused on elementary school children because the Federal Trade Commission has reported that they see an average of 15 TV food ads per day and that fully 98% of these ads promote products high in fat and sugar.  We simulated the natural television viewing situation for our young participants by having them watch a 5 minute cartoon that contained a few 30 second food ads -- or, in the control condition, non-food ads.  While they watched the cartoon a bowl of goldfish crackers was made available to them.  As we had suspected, those children exposed to food ads during the cartoon ate significantly more of the snack food than did the children in the control condition.  Unexpected, at least to me, was the size of this effect: children consumed 45% more of the snack food when exposed to food advertising.

Now, we all know that children are not as able as adults to defend themselves against ads for toys, cereals, clothes, DVDs, etc., so perhaps this finding is not that surprising.  It certainly suggests that there is a direct and automatic effect of food ads on consumption behavior in children right then and there while they are watching television, not only on their preferences for certain brands or products for their parents to buy them.  And the sheer size of the effect strongly suggests that this automatic effect on consumption is indeed a contributor to the public health problem of obesity in children. However, nearly all of the social psychological research on automatic and unconscious causes of human judgment and behavior over the years has been conducted on college-age or older adults, suggesting that adult television viewers might be just as vulnerable to the deleterious effects of food advertising as are children. 

In our Study 2, we showed a group of adults a short television documentary that incidentally included either snack-food ads, nutritious-food ads, or no food ads.  After the program, they took part in what they thought was a separate study in which they taste-tested a range of healthy (e.g., fruits) and unhealthy snack foods.  We found that the adults who had been exposed to the snack food ads ate more of all types of food during the taste test compared to the other conditions.  Thus the automatic effect of snack food ads to increase the amount eaten while watching television holds for adult as well as child viewers, suggesting that TV snack and fast-food ads are a contributor to adult obesity as well. In neither study was the amount eaten related to the participants' reported levels of hunger, and in careful questioning after the experiment was over, no one showed any awareness or appreciation that the amount of food they ate while watching the show was influenced by the ads they saw.  (In studies such as these, participants typically strongly resist such suggestions.)  These are unconscious effects, and so by definition one is not aware of them while they are happening. Because people do not experience these influences on their behavior, they have no chance at correcting or controlling them.  The only way then for the general public to know that there are interested agents out there (e.g., advertisers,government) exerting control over their behavior in these ways is for us as scientists to do these kind of studies and to report the findings publicly and as widely as possible. 

Bottom line:  we should be telling the public the truth about limits to theirfree will as revealed in experimental studies, and not decide for them what is good or bad for them to know. We may think we are doing them a favor by permitting them a positive illusion, but there are also negative consequences to such naivete -- namely, leaving oneself wide open to being controlled by others who are not so naive.

John Bargh and ACME Lab at Yale University conduct research on the unconscious causes of our preferences, motivations, and social behavior.  

Source - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-natural-unconscious/200907/new-study-tv-food-ads-provoke-automatic-eating-in-adults-well-ch?page=2

Temperature of Your Drink Can Decide Your Behaviour Towards Something or Somebody. Marketing People Playing With Your Minds At Stores.

Even Achievers Can't Teach You, How They Succeeded. They Only Make Fake Stories.

This will prove that we are evils. Watch this if you think otherwise. It will convince you that you are one evil. (Milgram Experiment)

Surroundings Can Make Nice People An Absolute Evil .The Stanford Prison Experiment.(An Evil Experiment)

This will prove you have attention problem. Watch the magic attentively.

So we are intentionally blind. Think when you did the same ..

Simplest Way To Understand Your Mind And Get Better Results. Guaranteed Result

Inside the brain of a shopper. Tricks and How to avoid it.

Buy ology ;- Truth and Lies About Why We Buy

Does what you smell determine what you buy?

 

The next time you go shopping or visit a hotel, pull yourself away from the auditory and visual barrage of ambient music and advertisements and take a good whiff of the air around you. You might notice a faint scent -- maybe the stimulating smell of jasmine at a boutique or relaxing lavender at a hotel. The smell will be barely perceptible: something you wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't been paying close attention. But businesses are hoping these almost subliminal scents will draw you into a serene state -- prompting you to relax, buy more and, ideally, remember their brands.

Scent marketing is the latest frontier in an advertising landscape that has nearly exhausted the possibilities of auditory and visual marketing. The retailers, hotels and restaurants that contract with scent companies hope that distinctive, carefully considered smells will help amplify consumer spending, attract customers and create memorable brands. Some businesses even consider scents an integral part of their overall image, along with music, logos and décor. 

Smell intrigues both marketers and scientists because it has the unusual ability to call up powerful memories instantaneously. Smell is perceived by olfactory receptor cells, neurons with knob-shaped tips called dendrites that bind to molecular odorants. When an odorant stimulates a receptor, the cell sends an electrical impulse to the olfactory bulb, where odorant patterns are interpreted as different smells. Because the olfactory bulb is part of the limbic system, the emotional center of the brain, smell is closely connected to the amygdala and hippocampus, structures that influence our behavior, mood and memory.

When you first perceive a scent, you connect it to an event, person or thing. When you smell the scent again, it often triggers memory in the form of a conditioned response. Sometimes this happens on a conscious level: The smell of the ocean might remind you of a particular vacation. But smell can also activate the subconscious and influence your mood. Instead of reminding you of specific details from the vacation, the ocean scent might make you feel content or happy.

Scent companies like ScentAir term this phenomenon the Proustian Effect, after the French author Marcel Proust. His novel "Remembrance of Things Past" was the first to explicitly link smell and memory. He wrote of the emotional power of smell in the form of madeleine cakes and their ability to call up images of childhood.

But because people associate different smells with different memories, scent marketing is an imprecise science: There's no guarantee that a scent has universal appeal. 

Source - http://money.howstuffworks.com/scent-marketing.htm