Recent advances in Augmented Reality (AR) technologies have led to a growing interest in their application for marketing strategy and practice – what we term Augmented Reality Marketing (ARM). However, despite emerging publications on the subject, managers and academics struggle to articulate how ARM delivers experiences that are valuable to customers in a way that is different from other marketing approaches. In this article, we review the emerging literature, and define ARM as a customer-facing interface for the application of digital marketing technologies in physical settings. Rooted in a class of ‘situated cognition’ theories from social psychology, we identify a unique set of digital affordances which ARM offers beyond extant marketing approaches in traditional media. By drawing on the key conceptual building blocks of situated cognition theory, we develop a framework of ARM experiences to synthesize current research and applications, and to suggest directions for future research.
CarrozziA., ChylinskiM., HellerJ., HilkenT., KeelingD.I., & de RuyterK. (2019). What's mine is a hologram? How shared augmented reality augments psychological ownership. J. Interact. Market. (in press).
5.
ChylinskiM., de RuyterK., SinhaA., & NortheyG. (2014). Augmented retail reality: situated cognition for healthy food choices. Proceedings of the Australian and new zealand marketing academy conference, brisbane, Australia.
de RuyterK., HellerJ., HilkenT., ChylinskiM., KeelingD.I., & MahrD. (2020). Seeing with the customer's eye: exploring the challenges and opportunities of AR advertising. J. Advert.. In press, available online at: 10.1080/00913367.2020.1740123
8.
de RuyterKo, KeelingDebbie Isobel, & NgoLiem Viet. (2018). When nothing is what it seems: a digital marketing research agenda. Aust. Market. J. (AMJ), 26 (3), 199–203. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.07.003
DunleavyM., DedeC., & MitchellR. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 18(1), 7–22.
11.
EscalasJennifer Edson. (2006). Self-referencing and persuasion: narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration. J. Consum. Res., 33(4), 421–429.
GrubertJens, LanglotzTobias, ZollmannStefanie, RegenbrechtHolger, 2016. Towards pervasive augmented reality: Context-awareness in augmented reality. Grubert, Jens, Tobias Langlotz, Stefanie Zollmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. “Towards pervasive augmented reality: Context-awareness in augmented reality.” IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics23 (6), 1706–1724.
19.
GunastiKunter, & RossWilliam T. (2008). How inferences about missing attributes decrease the tendency to defer choice and increase purchase probability. J. Consum. Res., 35(5), 823–837.
20.
HaqueU. (2015). Google glass failed because it just wasn't cool. Retrieved April, 9, 2015.
21.
HellerJ., ChylinskiM., de RuyterK., MahrD., & KeelingD.I. (2019a). Let me imagine that for you: transforming the retail frontline through augmenting customer mental imagery ability. J. Retail., 95 (2), 94–114. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2019.03.005
22.
HellerJ., ChylinskiM., de RuyterK., MahrD., & KeelingD.I. (2019b). Touching the untouchable: exploring multi-sensory augmented reality in the context of online retailing. J. Retail.
23.
HellerJ., HilkenT., ChylinskiM., de RuyterK., MahrD., & KeelingD.I. (2020. forthcoming). “Decomposing the technology-enabled engagement process (TEEP): the case of augmented reality.”Journal of Service Research
24.
HilkenTim. (2018). Seeing is Believing: Enhancing the Customer Experience With Augmented Reality. Maastricht: Datawyse / Universitaire Pers Maastricht. doi:10.26481/dis.20180907th.
25.
HilkenTim, de RuyterKo, ChylinskiMathew, MahrDominik, & KeelingDebbie I. (2017). Augmenting the eye of the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service experiences. J. Acad. Market. Sci., 45 (6), 884–905. doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0541-x
26.
HilkenTim, HellerJonas, ChylinskiMathew, KeelingDebbie Isobel, MahrDominik, de RuyterKo, 2018. Making omnichannel an augmented reality: the current and future state of the art. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing12 (4), 509523. doi:10.1108/JRIM-01-2018-0023
27.
HilkenTim, KeelingDebbie Isobel, de RuyterKo, MahrDominik, & ChylinskiMathew. (2020). Seeing eye to eye: social augmented reality and shared decision making in the marketplace. J. Acad. Market. Sci., 48(2), 143–164.
28.
HoppToby, & GangadharbatlaHarsha. (2016). Novelty effects in augmented reality advertising environments: the influence of exposure time and self-efficacy. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert., 37 (2), 113–130. doi:10.1080/10641734.2016.1171179
29.
HuangTseng-Lung, & LiaoShuling. (2015). A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology: the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electron. Comm. Res., 15(2), 269–295.
30.
JavornikAna. (2016). Augmented reality: research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 30, 252–261.
31.
KalantariMahdokht, & RauschnabelPhilipp. (2018). Exploring the early adopters of augmented reality smart glasses: the case of microsoft hololensAugmented Reality and Virtual Reality (pp. 229–245): Springer.
32.
KeelingKathleen, KeelingDebbie, & McGoldrickPeter. (2013). Retail relationships in a digital age. J. Bus. Res., 66(7), 847–855.
33.
KerawallaLucinda, LuckinRosemary, SeljeflotSimon, & WoolardAdrian. (2006). “Making it real”: exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Real., 10(3–4), 163–174.
34.
KimJiyeon, ForsytheSandra, 2008. Adoption of Virtual Try?on technology for online apparel shopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing22 (2), 45–59. doi:10.1002/dir.20113.
35.
KubrichtJames R., HolyoakKeith J., & LuHongjing. (2017). Intuitive physics: current research and controversies. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.), 21 (10), 749–759. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.002
36.
MarkusM.Lynne, & KeilMark. (1994). If we build it, they will come: designing information systems that people want to use. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev., 35(4), 11.
37.
MurrayChase C., TalukdarDebabrata, & GosaviAbhijit. (2010). Joint optimization of product price, display orientation and shelf-space allocation in retail category management. J. Retail., 86(2), 125–136.
38.
PetitOlivia, VelascoCarlos, & SpenceCharles. (2019). Digital sensory marketing: integrating new technologies into multisensory online experience. J. Interact. Market., 45, 42–61. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004
39.
PizziGabriele, & ScarpiDaniele. (2016). The effect of shelf layout on satisfaction and perceived assortment size: an empirical assessment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 28, 67–77. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.08.012
40.
PoncinIngrid, & MimounMohamed Slim Ben. (2014). The impact of “e-atmospherics” on physical stores. J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 21(5), 851–859.
41.
PorterMichael E, & HeppelmannJames E. (2017). A manager's guide to augmented reality. Harv. Bus. Rev., 95(6), 45–57.
42.
PoushnehAtieh, & Vasquez-ParragaArturo Z. (2017). Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail customer's experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy. J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 34, 229–234. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.005
43.
RauschnabelPhilipp A., HeJun, & RoYoung K. (2018). Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: a closer look at privacy risks. J. Bus. Res., 92, 374–384.
44.
RauschnabelPhilipp A., FelixReto, & HinschChris. (2019). Augmented reality marketing: how mobile AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration. J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 49, 43–53.
45.
RobbinsPhilip, & AydedeMurat. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, 3–10.
46.
RochlenLauryn R., LevineRobert, & TaitAlan R. (2017). First person point of view augmented reality for central line insertion training: a usability and feasibility study. Simul. Healthc. J. Soc. Simul. Healthc., 12(1), 57.
47.
SchaafsmaSara M., PfaffDonald W., SpuntRobert P., & AdolphsRalph. (2015). Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.), 19(2), 65–72.
48.
ScholzJoachim, & DuffyKatherine. (2018). We ARe at home: how augmented reality reshapes mobile marketing and consumer-brand relationships. J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 44, 11–23.
49.
ScholzJoachim, & SmithAndrew N. (2016). Augmented reality: designing immersive experiences that maximize consumer engagement. Bus. Horiz., 59(2), 149–161.
50.
SchwarzNorbert. (2006). Feelings, fit, and funny effects: a situated cognition perspective. J. Market. Res., 43(1), 20–23.
51.
SeminGün R., & SmithEliot R. (2013). Socially situated cognition in perspective. Soc. Cogn., 31(2), 125–146.
52.
SminkAnne R., FrowijnSanne, van ReijmersdalEva A., van NoortGuda, & NeijensPeter C. (2019). Try online before you buy: how does shopping with augmented reality affect brand responses and personal data disclosure. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl., 100854.
53.
SmithEliot R., & SeminGün R. (2016). Situated social cognition. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 16 (3), 132–135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00490.x
54.
van EschP., NortheyGavin, ChylinskiM., HellerJ., De RuyterK., SinhaA., & HilkenT. (2016, 2016). Augmented reality: Consumer saviour or disruptive agent in the retail power pendulum?Proceedings of the ANZMAC, Christchurch.
55.
van EschPatrick, ArliDenni, GheshlaghiMahnaz Haji, AndonopoulosVicki, von der HeidtTania, & NortheyGavin. (2019). Anthropomorphism and augmented reality in the retail environment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 49, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.002
56.
VrechopoulosAdam P., O'KeefeRobert M., DoukidisGeorgios I., & SiomkosGeorge J. (2004). Virtual store layout: an experimental comparison in the context of grocery retail. J. Retail., 80 (1), 13–22. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.01.006
