Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Innovative Research Methodologies in Management pp 63–82Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Virtual Reality for Marketing Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • 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

  • Bressoud, E. (2013). Testing FMCG Innovations: Experimental Real Store Versus Virtual. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(4), 286–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Burke, R. R. (1996). Virtual Shopping: Breakthrough in Marketing Research. Harvard Business Review, 74(March–April), 120–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New Products: What Separates Winners from Losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desforges, T., & Anthony, M. (2013). The Shopper Marketing Revolution. Highland Park: RTC Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, P. R., & Sawyer, A. G. (1990). The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 42–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, G. (1995). New Package Makes a New Product Complete. Marketing News, 29(10), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, B. J. (1997, December 22). Test Marketers Use Virtual Shopping to Gauge Potential of Real Products. The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(June), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1993). The Innovation Marathon. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needel, S. P. (1998, July/August). Understanding Consumer Response to Category Management Through Virtual Reality. Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen Company. (2016, June). Nielsen Breakthrough Innovation Report. Available online at http://www.nielsen.com/breakthrough

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J., & Hall, J. (2011, April). Why Most Product Launches Fail. Harvard Business Review, 89, 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(September), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(August), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, H. (2009). Inside the Mind of the Shopper: The Science of Retailing. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing, ISBN-10: 0137126859.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban, G. L., Weinberg, B. D., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Premarket Forecasting of Really-New Products. Journal of Marketing, 60(January), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (1988). New Product Development Process: A Perspective for Reexamination. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 304–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Raymond R. Burke

Authors
  1. Raymond R. Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Suffolk, Suffolk, England, United Kingdom

    Luiz Moutinho

  2. Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Mladen Sokele

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Burke, R.R. (2018). Virtual Reality for Marketing Research. In: Moutinho, L., Sokele, M. (eds) Innovative Research Methodologies in Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64400-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation