Jennifer doesn't think neuromarketing is that big of a deal. There seem to be plenty of people who support her too. I think this is one of those ideas that people don't yet understand how powerful it is. Here was my response on her site.
As you can expect, I disagree. First of all I think it is becoming more and more difficult to get accurate marketing data. Too many people aren't honest. They tell you what they think you want to hear, or what they think they *should* tell you. For instance, my dad got to do the Nielson thing a few months ago. You know what he did? He didn't really put down what he watched. He just wrote down the things he thought others should watch in hopes he would help them stay on tv. So he put down PBS, Discovery Channel, and all that even though he doesn't watch it. When it comes to neuromarketing, you can't lie or fake it.

Secondly, let's say you have two ads. Both are great, both would work and get people to buy your product. Neuromarketing might have the ability to show which one was slightly better, or slightly more appealing in some way. Even if you are talking a 1 or 2% better response, when you look at a large target market that can add up to a significant profit.

To say that neuromarketing is a fad and that you can tell whatever you need to know by psychological or other methods is like saying that you don't need an MRI on your knee if a physical exam will give you a pretty accurate diagnosis.

Given Jennifer's forward thinking style and the fact that she reads stuff by Kurzweil and Pinker and guys like that, I am surprised she isn't embracing this idea. Time will tell how serious of a tool neuromarketing becomes to the business world.

For more info, see this old post of mine.