Advertisement

Virtual Reality for Marketing Research

  • Raymond R. Burke
Chapter

Abstract

Computer graphic simulations of retail shopping environments have become a popular tool for conducting marketing research, allowing manufacturers and retailers to test innovative marketing concepts with shoppers in realistic, competitive contexts. Virtual store tests can deliver more detailed behavioral data than traditional methods of consumer research, and are faster and less expensive than in-store field tests. This chapter outlines the benefits and limitations of virtual reality simulations, describes the steps involved in creating and running a simulated shopping study, discusses the validity of the simulation technique, provides examples of several commercial and academic research applications, and summarizes the future prospects for using the virtual store for marketing research and other business applications.

References

  1. Breen, P. (2009). Shaping Retail: The Use of Virtual Store Simulations in Marketing Research and Beyond. In-Store Marketing Institute White Paper, available online at http://kelley.iu.edu/cerr/files/09ismi_virtualretailing.pdf
  2. Bressoud, E. (2013). Testing FMCG Innovations: Experimental Real Store Versus Virtual. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(4), 286–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, R. R. (1988). Computer Graphic Simulations for Marketing Research. Faculty presentation at the American Marketing Association Doctoral Consortium, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, R. R. (1996). Virtual Shopping: Breakthrough in Marketing Research. Harvard Business Review, 74(March–April), 120–131.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, R. R., & Leykin, A. (2014). Identifying the Drivers of Shopper Attention, Engagement, and Purchase. In D. Grewal, A. L. Roggeveen, & J. Nordfält (Eds.), Review of Marketing Research: Shopper Marketing and the Role of In-store Marketing (Vol. 11, pp. 147–187). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, R. R., Harlam, B., Kahn, B., & Lodish, L. (1992). Comparing Dynamic Consumer Choice in Real and Computer-Simulated Environments. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Guerra, F. (1999). Computer Simulated Shopping Experiments for Analyzing Dynamic Purchasing Patterns: Validation and Guidelines. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, 4, 22–61.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New Products: What Separates Winners from Losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desforges, T., & Anthony, M. (2013). The Shopper Marketing Revolution. Highland Park: RTC Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Desmet, P., Bordenave, R., & Traynor, J. (2013). Differences in Purchasing Behaviour Between Physical and Virtual Laboratory Stores. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 28(2), 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickson, P. R., & Sawyer, A. G. (1990). The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erickson, G. (1995). New Package Makes a New Product Complete. Marketing News, 29(10), 10.Google Scholar
  13. Feder, B. J. (1997, December 22). Test Marketers Use Virtual Shopping to Gauge Potential of Real Products. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  14. Fusco, C. (1994, December). New Product Introduction: Challenges in Researching Customer Acceptance. In M. Adams & J. LaCugna (Eds.), And Now for Something Completely Different: “Really” New Products (pp. 29–31). Conference Summary, Report Number 94-124, Marketing Science Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Garber, L. L. Jr., Burke, R. R., & Morgan Jones, J. (2000). The Role of Package Color in Consumer Purchase Consideration and Choice. MSI Technical Report (pp. 1–46), Report No. 00-104, Boston.Google Scholar
  16. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(June), 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(June), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jelinek, M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1993). The Innovation Marathon. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  20. Madzharov, A. V., Block, L. G., & Morrin, M. (2015). The Cool Scent of Power: Effects of Ambient Scent on Consumer Preferences and Choice Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Needel, S. P. (1998, July/August). Understanding Consumer Response to Category Management Through Virtual Reality. Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 61–67.Google Scholar
  22. Nielsen Company. (2016, June). Nielsen Breakthrough Innovation Report. Available online at http://www.nielsen.com/breakthrough
  23. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). To Have and to Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schneider, J., & Hall, J. (2011, April). Why Most Product Launches Fail. Harvard Business Review, 89, 21–23.Google Scholar
  25. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(September), 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(August), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sorensen, H. (2009). Inside the Mind of the Shopper: The Science of Retailing. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing, ISBN-10: 0137126859.Google Scholar
  28. Tjøstheim, I., & Saether-Larsen, H. (2005, February). How to Validate a New MR Tool? A Case Study in FMCG. ESOMAR, Innovate! Conference, Paris.Google Scholar
  29. Tushman, M. (1994, December). Radical Innovation, Dominant Designs, and Organizational Evolution. In M. Adams & J. LaCugna (Eds.), And Now for Something Completely Different: “Really” New Products (pp. 22–26). Conference Summary, Report Number 94-124, Marketing Science Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Underwood, R. L., Klein, N. M., & Burke, R. R. (2001). Packaging Communication: Attentional Effects of Product Imagery. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(7), 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Urban, G. L., Weinberg, B. D., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Premarket Forecasting of Really-New Products. Journal of Marketing, 60(January), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Herpen, E., van den Broek, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Yu, T. (2016). Can a Virtual Supermarket Bring Realism into the Lab? Comparing Shopping Behavior Using Virtual and Pictorial Store Representations to Behavior in a Physical Store. Appetite. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.033.
  33. Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (1988). New Product Development Process: A Perspective for Reexamination. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Zhang, X., Li, S., Burke, R. R., & Leykin, A. (2014). An Examination of Social Influence on Shopper Behavior Using Video Tracking Data. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond R. Burke
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana University, Kelley School of BusinessBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations