Dramatically Increase Your Traffic While Saving Hours Of Time... 大幅度增加您的流量，同时节省小时的时间... 100% Guaranteed! 100 ％保证！
I just found the answer to my long hours of Web 2.0 promotion.我刚刚找到的答案我很长时间的Web 2.0促进。 It's called Web2Submitter and it is a life saver.它叫做Web2Submitter这是一个生活的程序。 I am going to save at least 5 hours of submission time per week with this thing.我要节省至少5个小时提交每星期的时间与这件事。
Author: Priya Shah 作者：普里亚沙阿
Article source: http://www.ebizwhiz.biz/ . 文章来源： http://www.ebizwhiz.biz/ 。 Used with author's permission. 用作者的许可。 In the international bestseller "Blink," Malcolm Gladwell explains why our decisions to choose brands, select a mate, sue our doctor or make choices that decide Presidential elections, aren't as simple as they seem.在国际畅销书“眨眼” ，马尔科姆格拉德威尔就是为什么我们决定选择品牌，选择一个队友，起诉我们的医生或作出选择，决定总统选举，不是那样简单，他们似乎。 Why we often let unconscious biases affect our opinions about people who are taller or have a different skin colour.为什么我们经常让无意识的偏见，影响到我们的意见的人谁是高或有不同的肤色。 And why we find it even harder to explain them when asked.为什么我们找到它更难解释时问道。 I consider "Blink" essential reading for all marketers.我认为“眨眼”基本阅读的所有商家。 I mean, which blue-blooded marketer wouldn't love to know how the workings of their customer's brain will decide whether their new packaging is going to work or fail?我的意思是，这些贵族的销售将不爱知道如何运作，其客户的大脑将决定是否把他们的新包装是去工作或失败？ Or why their new website is converting far fewer visitors than the old one?为什么他们的新网站是远远少于转换游客比旧的？ Of course we would.当然，我们会的。 But is it really possible to understand why people choose Budweiser over Coors?但是，它真的有可能理解为什么人们选择在库尔斯啤酒？ George W. over John Kerry?乔治布什的克里？ Coke over Pepsi?百事可乐超过可口可乐？ No one really knows for sure.没有人真正知道是肯定的。 And asking people why they took those decisions doesn't necessarily give the right answers.并要求人们为什么他们采取了这些决定并不一定给予正确的答案。 Why?为什么？ Because most of us really haven't a clue as to why we make those choices.由于我们大多数人来说实在不是一个线索，为什么我们作出这些选择。 95% of consumer decision-making occurs subconsciously, according to research from Harvard University, cited in an article in Time. 95 ％的消费者购买决策下意识地发生，根据研究由哈佛大学，中引用的一篇文章中的时间。 That's a hell of a lot of decisions we have little or no conscious control over.这是一个地狱的许多决定，我们很少或根本没有意识的控制权。 http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1101040308-596161,00.html&e=9707 http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0 ,9171,1101040308 - 596161 ， 00.html和电子商务= 9707 In Blink, Gladwell also shows how sometimes the sort of data that marketers rely on - such as market research and focus groups - can fail miserably because they don't always predict actual consumer behaviour, as Coca-Cola discovered during the New Coke fiasco.在闪烁，格莱德威尔还表明有时排序的数据，依靠市场-如市场研究和重点群体-可以一败涂地，草草收场，因为他们并不总是预测实际的消费行为，如可口可乐公司发现了新可乐惨败。 But new research is beginning to shine a light on the mysterious workings of the neural processes behind those snap decisions.但新的研究正开始光线照射的神秘运作的神经过程背后的仓促决定。 Known as "neuromarketing," this controversial science could one day lead to new advertising strategies that directly stimulate hard-wired mental reflexes rather than appealing to fuzzy consumer attitudes, according to an article in Wired News.被称为“ neuromarketing ， ”这一有争议的科学有朝一日可能导致新的广告战略，直接刺激硬连线心理反应，而不是呼吁模糊消费者的态度，根据文章中有线新闻。 http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,67597,00.html http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0 ， 1286,67597,00 。的HTML The Time article also cited research that seems to have solved that eternal mystery - why people prefer Coke over Pepsi.时间文章还引用的研究，似乎已经解决了这个永恒的谜-为什么人们更喜欢百事可乐超过可口可乐。 The answer lies in how people identify with brands.答案就在于人们如何识别与品牌。 Although consumers preferred Pepsi's taste they choose Coke because they identified with its brand better.虽然消费者的首选百事可乐的口味，他们选择可乐，因为他们认同自己的品牌更好。 A branch of cognitive neuroscience, neuromarketing relies heavily on the ability to visualise how the brain sees choices and takes decisions, using brain scans and a process called functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI.的一个分支认知神经科学， neuromarketing依赖于想象能力，大脑是如何把选择和作出决定，利用大脑扫描和这个过程被称为功能性磁共振成像或功能磁共振成像。 fMRI measures the level of oxygen in the blood and tells scientists which parts of the brain are most active.功能磁共振成像措施水平的氧在血液中并告诉科学家哪些部分的大脑最活跃。 http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,65775,00.html http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0 ， 1286,65775,00 。的HTML According to the Wired article, this research even recently revealed the differences in the brains of Democrats and Republicans.据有线的文章，这项研究甚至最近揭示了不同的大脑中民主党人和共和党人。 Consumer groups worry that the research could lead to companies using more effective "mind control" to brainwash consumers into decisions that the companies desire, and have issued calls to ban the technology.消费者团体担心，这项研究可能会导致公司使用更为有效的“精神控制”洗脑消费者的决定，这两家公司的愿望，并已发出呼吁，禁止技术。 http://www.commercialalert.org/index.php/category_id/1/subcategory_id/82/article_id/202 Imagine if the tobacco, alcohol, and gambling industries (or even worse, politicians) should start exploiting such information to manipulate the weak minds of their zombified consumers.试想，如果在吸烟，酗酒，赌博行业（或更糟的是，政治家）应开始利用这种信息来操纵的薄弱心中的zombified消费者。 But the experts insist we are light years away from such an Orwellian scenario, and believe that the research will help businesses better understand the needs of their consumer and show them how to make life better for their consumers.但专家坚持，我们光年从奥威尔这种情景，并认为，这项研究将帮助企业更好地了解他们的需求消费，并显示他们如何让生活更美好的消费者。 Whatever the outcome, neuromarketing is certainly going to be a bone of contention between marketers hoping to get a better grip on their consumer's decision making processes, and consumer activists seeking to help consumers retain control over their minds.无论结果如何， neuromarketing无疑是将是一个争论的焦点营销之间希望能更好地把握消费者的决策过程和消费活动寻求帮助消费者保持控制自己的头脑。 _______________________________________________ Priya Shah is the CEO of eBrand360 and writes the Marketing Slave blog .普里亚沙阿是首席执行官eBrand360和写入博客营销奴隶 。 This article may be reprinted as long as the resource box is left intact and all links are hyperlinked.本文可以转载，只要资源方块原封不动，各个环节的链接。 _______________________________________________
Tags:标签：
| 
