Skip to main content

Consumers’ Perception of Augmented Reality as an Emerging end User Technology: Social Media Monitoring Applied

Abstract

Augmented reality (AR) is at a point where it is mature enough to be used in publicly available consumer applications. Nevertheless, the real commercial breakthrough of AR is still lacking. One reason for this is a deficit in consumer research regarding users’ perception, acceptance and attitude towards this technology. This paper remedies this lack by means of a novel social media monitoring method. Thereby, the population of 48,560 consumer comments published up until July 2013 on English speaking online community websites treating the topic AR, were extracted from the web and analyzed. The results indicate that consumers evaluate the technology positively and highly appreciate its idea and concept. Still, some obstacles need to be overcome before AR succeeds in becoming adopted by the mainstream user. Above all, there is a lack of consumer awareness, particularly regarding specific applications or products, in addition to technical, developmental and ethical problems. Nevertheless, AR technologies are on the rise and will become more important in the end user sphere, especially in the gaming sector and for information and knowledge transfer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

References

  1. 1.

    Adjei MT, Noble SM, Noble CH (2009) The influence of C2C communications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. J Acad Mark Sci 38(5):634–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ahlemeyer-Stubbe A (2013) Social media monitoring. In: Ceyp M, Scupin J-P (eds) Erfolgreiches Social Media Marketing. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, pp 189–196

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Aittala M (2010) Inverse lighting and photorealistic rendering for Augmented Reality. Vis Comput 26(6–8):669–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ansoff HI (1975) Managing strategic surprise by response to weak signals. Calif Manag Rev 18(2):21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ansoff HI (1976) Managing surprise and discontinuity: strategic response to weak signals. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 28:129–152

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ansoff HI (1980) Strategic issue management. Strateg Manag J 1(2):131–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Azuma R (1993) Tracking requirements for Augmented Reality. Commun ACM 36(7):50–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Azuma R (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 6(4):355–385

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Azuma R, Baillot Y, Behringer R, Feiner S, Julier S, MacIntyre B (2001) Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 21(6):34–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bartl M, Füller J, Mühlbacher H, Ernst H (2012) A manager’s perspective on virtual customer integration for new product development. J Prod Innov Manag 29(6):1031–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Berger J, Iyenga R (2013) Communication channels and word of mouth: how the medium shapes the message. J Consum Res 40(3):567–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Brauckmann P (2010) Web-monitoring. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, Konstanz

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Carmigniani J, Furht B (2011) Augmented reality: an overview. In: Furht B (ed) Handbook of augmented reality. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Chan SWK, Franklin J (2011) A text-based decision support system for financial sequence prediction. Decis Support Syst 52(1):189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chen H, Chiang RHL, Storey VC (2012) Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Q 36(4):1165–1188

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Chen Y, Xie J (2008) Online consumer review: word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Manag Sci 54(3):477–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Chesbrough H (2003) The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 44(3):35–41

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Croll A, Power S (2009) Complete web monitoring, 1st edn. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopool

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Decker R, Trusov M (2010) Estimating aggregate consumer preferences from online product reviews. Int J Res Mark 27(4):293–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchell R (2009) Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J Sci Educ Technol 18(1):7–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Dünser A, Grasset R, Billinghurst M (2008) A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 5

  22. 22.

    Egger M, Lang A (2013) A brief tutorial on how to extract information from user-generated content (UGC). Künstliche Intelligenz 27(1):53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Egger M, Lütters H (2013) Listening is the new asking: social media-analyse in der Marktforschung. Transf Werbeforsch Praxis 59(4):35–41

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Feiner S (2002) Augmented reality: a new way of seeing. Sci Am 286(4):49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fenn J (2010) Hype cycle for emerging technologies. Gart Res Retrieved 7(24):2012

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Francisco P (2008) Information arbitrage: gaining competitive advantage through data analytics. Inf Manag Dec 22:2008

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Füller J, Bartl M, Ernst H, Mühlbacher H (2006) Community based innovation: how to integrate members of virtual communities into new product development. Electron Commer Res J 6(1):57–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gabbard JL, Swan E (2008) Usability engineering for Augmented Reality: employing user-based studies to inform design. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 14(3):513–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Gandy M, Catrambone R, MacIntyre B, Alvarez C, Eiriksdottir E, Hilimire M, Davidson B, McLaughlin AC (2010) Experience with an AR evaluation test bed: presence, performance, and physiological measurement. In: Proceedings of mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), pp 127–136

  30. 30.

    Gensler S, Völckner F, Egger M, Fischbach K, Schoder D (2010) Listen to your customers! Using consumer-generated content to elicit brand image. In: Proceeding of the 39th EMAC Conference

  31. 31.

    Goh K-Y, Heng C-S, Lin Z (2013) Social media brand community and consumer behavior: quantifying the relative impact of user- und marketer-generated content. Inf Syst Res 24(1):88–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Golparvar-Fard M, Pena-Mora F, Savarese S (2009) D4AR: a 4-dimensional Augmented Reality model for automating construction progress monitoring data collection, processing and communication. J Int Technol Constr 14(2009):129–153

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hecht B, Gergle D (2010) The tower of Babel meets web 2.0: user-generated content and its applications in a multilingual context. In: CHI’10 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Humand Factors in Computing Systems, pp 291–300

  34. 34.

    Höllerer T, Feiner S (2004) Mobile Augmented Reality. In: Karimi H, Hammad A (eds) Telegeoinformatics: location-based computing and services. Tayler & Francis Books Ltd, London, pp 1–39

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Höllerer T, Feiner S, Terauchi T, Rashid G, Hallaway D (1999) Exploring MARS: developing indoor and outdoor user interfaces to a mobile augmented reality system. Comput Graphics 23(6):779–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Jebara T, Eyster C, Weaver J, Starner T, Pentland A (1997) Stochasticks: augmenting the billiards experience with probabilistic vision and wearable computers. In: ISWC’97: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp 138–145

  37. 37.

    Jeppesen LB, Laursen K (2009) The role of lead users in knowledge sharing. Res Policy 38(10):1582–1589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kane GC, Alavi M, Labianca G, Borgatti SP (2014) What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda. MIS Q 38(1):275–304

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Keller J, von der Gracht HA (2014) The influence of information and communication technology (ICT) on future foresight processes: results from a Delphi survey. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 85(2014):81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kozinets RV (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. J Mark Res 39(1):61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kruijff E, Swan E, Feiner S (2010) Perceptual issues in augmented reality revisited. In: Proceedings of Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp 3–12

  42. 42.

    Landwehr K (2007) Strategische technologiefrühaufklärung: grundlagen, systematik und methoden. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Lee C, Cho Y, Seol H, Park Y (2012) A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79(1):16–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Li N, Wu DD (2010) Using text mining and sentiment analysis for online forums hotspot detection and forecast. Decis Support Syst 48(2):354–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Liu B, Zhang L (2012) A survey of opinion mining and sentiment analysis. In: Aggarwal CC, Zhai CX (eds) Mining text data. Springer, US, pp 415–463

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Manning CD, Raghavan P, Schütze H (2008) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. In: IEICE Transactions of Informations Systems, pp 1321–1329

  48. 48.

    Nee AYC, Ong SK, Chryssolouris G, Mourtzis D (2012) Augmented reality applications in design and manufacturing. CIRP Ann: Manuf Technol 61(2):657–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Olson DL, Delen D, Meng Y (2012) Comparative analysis of data mining methods for bankruptcy prediction. Decis Support Syst 52(2):464–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Olsson T, Kärkkäinen T, Lagerstam E, Ventä-Olkkonen V (2012) User evaluation of mobile Augmented Reality scenarios. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ 4(1):29–47

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Pang B, Lee L (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inf Retr 2(1–2):1–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Peppet SR (2012) Freedon of contract in augmented reality: the case of consumer contracts. UCLA Law Rev 59(2012):676–730

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Piekarski W, Thomas B (2002) ARQuake: the outdoor augmented reality gaming system. Commun ACM 45(1):36–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Pleil T (2010) Web-monitoring: Kommunizieren setzt Zuhören voraus. In: Brauckmann P (ed) Web monitoring. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, Konstanz, pp 11–18

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Prahalad C, Ramaswamy V (2000) Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Bus Rev 78(1):79–91

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Rheingold H (1993) The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier, 1st edn. MIT Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Rodan S (2010) Structural holes and managerial performance: identifying the underlying mechanisms. Soc Netw 32(3):168–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Satyanarayanan M (2001) Persuasive computing: vision and challenges. IEEE Personal Commun 8(4):10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Servan-Schreiber E, Wolfers J, Pennock DM, Galebach B (2004) Prediction markets: does money matter? Electron Markets 14(3):243–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Sherchan W, Nepal S, Paris C (2013) A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Comput Surv 45(4):1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Singhal A (2001) Modern information retrieval: a brief overview. IEEE Data Eng Bull 24(4):35–43

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Squire KD, Jan M (2007) Mad city mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Swan E, Gabbard JL (2005) Survey of user-based experimentation in augmented reality. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Virtual Reality, pp 1–9

  64. 64.

    Van Krevelen DWF, Poelman R (2010) A survey of Augmented Reality technologies, applications and limitations. Int J Virtual Real 9(2):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Van Liere D (2010) How far does a tweet travel? Information brokers in the twitterverse. In: MSM’10 Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling Social Media, pp 1–4

  66. 66.

    Völckner F, Gensler S, Egger M, Fischbach K, Schoder D (2010) Die Meinung des Kunden zählt. Absatzwirtsch, Sonderausg zum Marken-Award 2010:116–118

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Wagner D, Schmalstieg D (2009) Making augmented reality practical on mobile phones: part 2. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 29(4):6–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Walker Naylor R, Poynor Lamberton C, West PM (2012) Beyond the “like” button: the impact of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in social media settings. J Marketing 76(6):105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Weiser D (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 265(3):94–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Wilson A, Benko H, Izadi S, Hilliges O (2012) Steerable augmented reality with the beamatron. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp 413–422

  72. 72.

    Yamaguchi T, Yoshikawa H (2013) New education system for construction of optical holography setup: tangible learning with Augmented Reality. J Phys: Conf Ser 415(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Yeo CT, Ungi T, U-Thainual P, Lasso A, McGraw RC, Fichtinger G (2011) The effect of augmented reality training on percutaneous needle placement in spinal facet joint injections. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58(7):2031–2037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Yovcheva Z, Buhalis D, Gatzidis C (2012) Overview of smartphone augmented reality applications for tourism. E-Rev Tour Res 10(2):63–66

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanna Stockinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stockinger, H. Consumers’ Perception of Augmented Reality as an Emerging end User Technology: Social Media Monitoring Applied. Künstl Intell 29, 419–439 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-015-0389-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Augmented Reality
  • Wearable Device
  • Thought Pattern
  • Augmented Reality Application
  • Negative Context