In operational terms (cost, implementation), a virtual 3D laboratory store offers an attractive alternative to a physical laboratory store for testing in-store marketing initiatives (packaging, price or other). Comparing controlled samples, this study shows that declared attitudes to the product are the same but observes significant differences for in-store shopping behaviour and attention to price. These differences are moderated when the subject is a regular buyer of the brand.
BakerJGrewalDLevyM (1992) An experimental approach to making retail store environmental decisionsJournal of Retailing68(4): 445–460.
2.
BerneburgA (2007) Interactive 3-D simulations in measuring consumer preferences: Friend or foe to test results?Journal of Interactive Advertising8(1): 1–37.
3.
BerneburgA (2008) Presence in a three-dimensional test environment: Benefit or threat to market research?Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting, 5, 1, 1–20.
4.
BurkeP (1996) Virtual shopping: Breakthrough in marketing research, Harvard Business Review3: 120–131.
5.
BurkeRHarlamBKahnBLodishL (1992) Comparing dynamic consumer choice in real and computer-simulated environments. Journal of Consumer Research19(2): 71–81.
6.
BreugelmansECampoK (2011) Effectiveness of in-store displays in a virtual store environment. Journal of Retailing87(1): 75–89.
CampoKGijsbrechtsEGuerraF (1999) Computer simulated shopping experiments for analyzing dynamic purchasing patterns: Validation and guidelines. Journal of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing Science4: 22–69.
9.
ChandonPMorwitzVReinartzW (2005) Do intentions really predict behaviour? Self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing69(2): 1–14.
10.
CohenSGaddM (1996) Virtual reality shopping simulation for the modern marketer. Marketing and Research Today2: 18–26.
11.
DahanESrinivasanV (2000) The predictive power of internet-based product concept testing using visual depiction and animation. Journal of Product Innovation Management17(2): 99–109.
12.
DahlènMLangeF (2002) Real consumers in the virtual store. Scandinavian Journal of Management18(3): 341–363.
13.
DegeratuARangaswamyAWuJ (2000) Consumer choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: The effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes. International Journal of Research in Marketing17(1): 55–78.
14.
DicksonPSawyerA (1990) The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing54(3): 42–53.
15.
FitzsimonsGHutchinsonJWilliamsPAlbaJChartrandTHuberJKardesFMenonGRaghubirPRussoEShivBTavassoliN (2002) Non-conscious influences on consumer choice. Marketing Letters13(3): 269–279.
16.
FoxJArenaDBailensonJ (2009) Virtual reality: A survival guide for the social scientist. Journal of Media Psychology21(3): 95–113.
17.
GaborAGrangerCSowterA (1970) Real and hypothetical shop situations in market research. Journal of Marketing Research7(3): 355–359.
18.
HeitzMDouardJ-PCliquetG (2001) Grande distribution alimentaire et ‘drive’: une solution à la mobilité des consommateurs?Paper presented at the Colloquium E. Thil, Roubaix, 22–23 September 2011. Available at: institut-gestion.univ-larochelle.fr/Colloque-Etienne-THIL.html (accessed December 2011).
19.
HoyerWD (1984) An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research11(3): 822–829.
20.
InmanJWinerRFerraroR (2009) The interplay among category characteristics, customer characteristics, and customer activities on in-store decision making. Journal of Marketing73(3): 19–29.
21.
In-Store Marketing Institute, Advertising Research Foundation & Kelley School of Business. (2009) Shaping retail: The use of virtual store simulations in marketing research and beyond. Available at: www.kelley.iu.edu/CERR/files/09ISMI_VirtualRetailing.pdf (accessed March 2010).
22.
Jansson-BoydC (2011) The role of touch in marketing: An introduction to the special issue. Psychology & Marketing28(3): 219–221.
LeongSW (1993) Consumer decision making for common, repeat-purchase products: A dual replication. Journal of Consumer Psychology2(2): 193–208.
25.
LewittSListJ (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?Journal of Economic Perspective21(2): 153–174.
26.
LynchJ (1982) On the external validity of experiments in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research9(4): 225–239.
27.
NeedelS (1998) Understanding consumer response to category management through virtual reality. Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 2, 61–67.
28.
NevinJ (1974) Laboratory experiments for estimating consumer demand: A validation study. Journal of Marketing Research11(3): 261–268.
29.
PayneD (1966) JetSet, Pseudo-store, and new product testing. Journal of Marketing Research3(4): 372–376.
30.
PessemierE (1960) An experimental method for estimating demand. Journal of Business33(3): 373–383.
31.
PuccinelliNGoodsteinRGrewalDPriceRRaghubirPStewardD (2009) Customer experience management in retailing: Understanding the buying process. Journal of Retailing85(1): 15–30.
32.
RosenbergerPde ChernatonyL (2007) Virtual reality techniques in NPD research. International Journal of Market Research37(4): 345–355.
33.
ShimpTHyattESnyderD (1991) A critical appraisal of demand artifacts in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research18(3): 273–283.
34.
SuhK-LLeeYE (2005) The effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: An empirical investigationMIS Quarterly29(4): 673–697.
35.
TjostheimISaether-LarsenH (2005) How to validate a new MR tool: A case study in FMCG. In: ESOMAR Congress, Paris: Conference Proceedings. Amsterdam: ESOMAR, pp.155–172. Available at: www.esomar.org/web/research_papers/conference.php (accessed March 2010).
36.
TreiberBNeedelS (2000) New ways to explore consumer point-of-purchase dynamics: Combining virtual reality and choice modeling in consumer purchase analyses. In: ESOMAR Congress, Vienna: Conference Proceedings. Amsterdam: ESOMAR. Available at: www.esomar.org/web/research_papers/conference.php (accessed March 2010).
37.
VrechopoulosAO’KeefeRDoukidisGSiomkoscG (2004) Virtual store layout: An experimental comparison in the context of grocery retail. Journal of Retailing80(1): 13–22.
WillkeJ (2002) The future of simulated test markets: the coming obsolescence of current models, and the characteristics of models of the future. In: ESOMAR Congress, Barcelona: Conference Proceedings. Available at: www.esomar.org/web/research_papers/conference.php (accessed March 2010).
