Photo: iStock | ronstik
Does Virtual Fitting Room Tech Discourage Sales?
University research finds virtual fitting rooms aren’t “uniformly positive” for customers, particularly those customers with unhealthy body image perceptions.
Researchers from Iowa State, using data from an online women’s apparel website in China, found such augmented-reality technology increased sales among shoppers with a low body mass index (BMI) but decreased sales for those with a high BMI. The technology also negatively affected product evaluations and lowered the self-esteem of participants with a high BMI.
The study concluded that shoppers unhappy with their appearance might shift that negative feeling to the product and that the negative perception is stronger in virtual versus physical settings.
“One possible reason for this: There are fewer distractions with virtual rooms,” Huifang Mao, an Iowa State marketing professor, said in a press release. “It’s just your image with the clothes and a white background. When the only thing you are looking at is your own image, you may view it with a more critical eye.”
In physical dressing rooms, there’s more “noise,” visual and audible, including the reflections from the mirrored walls and the presence of other pieces of clothing as well as music played in the store or conversations overheard from other fitting rooms.
Being able to virtually “try on” clothes has been presumed to have benefits, including reducing online returns and giving consumers the confidence to purchase. The study’s suggestions to reduce the adverse reactions related to body image issues included:
- Priming shoppers with diversified beauty norms (e.g., including models with different body sizes, shapes and ages on the website.)
- Using a mannequin face for the avatar to create distance between the consumer and their perceived imperfections.
A Shopify article notes that other virtual fit limitations include being unable to touch the product and distrusting that virtual items look like the real product.
Last September, Walmart launched a tool that lets shoppers upload photos for virtual try-on. “This experience allows customers to use their own photo to better visualize how clothing will look on them, and creates a gamification of shopping that we believe will be very compelling to the customer,” Denise Incandela, Walmart’s EVP of apparel and private brands, said in a statement.
Amazon, Nike, Macy’s and Asos are among others introducing virtual try-on for apparel or shoes although the technology does not yet appear to be widely used.
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Does it make sense that virtual fitting rooms may result in more negative experiences for shoppers than inside stores? Do you see solutions for this and other hurdles facing the adoption of virtual fitting?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Melissa Minkow
Director, Retail Strategy, CI&T
Ken Morris
Managing Partner Cambridge Retail Advisors
I believe virtual fitting rooms need to add user generated content (UGC) to their mix. This would give the shopper a more realistic view of how the product will fit, rather than the velcro-like experience described using a VR approach. I don’t think we should assume shoppers need to see the item on themselves. It’s good enough—maybe better—to see it on someone who looks like them. It’s a win-win approach when using UGC, because you get social proof plus a better idea of what the item would look like when worn. Plus, it’s done with an authentic background and not a sterile white space.
I agree 100%, I can see how UGC-driven changing rooms can improve the customer experience (CX) of email marketing and shopping carts. The try-on content could be used for personalized touches like remarketing and building viral loops, like on social media.
And when the industry figures out how to digitize the online store’s assortment on the fly, there will be UGC try-rooms that really work. I think this job can be done with Midjourney in the near future.
While this is an interesting study, the virtual fitting room can mitigate one of the negative factors affecting excessive returns: wrong size/bad fit, and retailers can’t have it both ways.
It makes sense that we will always find a segment of the population for which something doesn’t work or isn’t appealing. The question is whether that segment is significant enough to drive strategy and innovation. Regardless, the technology has merit so offering avatars or other strategies that are less image-centric could possibly help adoption. Also, in the cases of luxury or higher priced items, shoppable video-conferences (digital concierge/digital assisted shopping) could also be leveraged to help those needing extra support or guidance. The primary challenge for virtual fittings remains the ability to interact with the product itself. However with free returns losing favor, online shoppers will need to either adapt to new technologies or continue to shop in-store, IRL.
There is nothing I enjoy more than looking in a mirror and facing the reality of my advanced age and years of a sedentary lifestyle and poor diet. Apparently, I’m not alone. This technology is valuable and, for many customers, a great way to interact with the retailer. And just as some customers like curbside and never want to enter a store or go to the mall again while some customers cherish their in-store experiences, retailers should provide their customers with multiple ways to interact and make purchases. Unified commerce/omnichannel promises that I can shop, buy, receive, and return products on the channels and by the method I prefer.
Sigh, I feel you Gary.
I think the biggest issue with virtual fitting rooms is the lack of trust consumers have in their accuracy. We still barely do online grocery shopping in the states, and it’s because we need to touch and see produce in real life to feel comfortable picking it. It’s a similar case with apparel when it comes to fit perception.
Virtual try-on for apparel is a tough nut to crack because clothing, more than any other product, is a personal reflection of our self-perception. Seeing ourselves through the cold light of digital reality can be disorienting, and is still a new experience in general. We’re still in the experimentation and education phase with this technology, so continuous testing, trying and tweaking is important since raising customer satisfaction and reducing returns is so critical. Nothing less than the profitability of e-commerce is at stake for the entire apparel industry.
While virtual fitting rooms offer convenience, shoppers want to feel an item and ensure it fits their actual body.
More retailers (such as Victoria’s Secret, Under Armour, Amazon) have added fitting room tech to stores for convenient, personalized service.
I think the Warby Parker “try it on first” app was one of the first, but a clothing try-on app is going to be trickier in terms of getting the fit right (there are so many different body types and shapes). I can see a lot of returns, which would hinder this kind of app’s wide adoption.
No sale is complete until the clothing is tried on. The focus of smart retailers to discourage returns and get more add-ons is to get the customer in a fitting room with several possibilities to purchase rather than giving them a JPEG with their head attached which can add friction to the purchase.
Fit is both physical and emotional. The technical measurements of how the garment hangs on the body is different than how the customer thinks they look and how they feel with the garment on. There is the physical feel of the garment and the emotional feel of the shopper. The combinations of body shape, fabric, color, and pattern can get complicated very quickly. A virtual mannequin, no matter how accurate, get only convey so much information and feeling to the customer. Yet again, an app can take this process only so far. Feeling, both physical and emotional, happens best in real life.
I think we’re getting a little sidetracked here: as I understood it, the point of these ‘virtual fitting rooms’ is to improve fit, and thus reduce returns. They may or may not decrease sales, but it’s only net sales that we should be interested in. So while this study may be on to something, it seems to answering a question not being asked.
The idea of giving retailers one’s measurements can seem invasive and can be emotional for some users. The approach of showing garments on diverse models and showing their measurements is more palatable. The question is are virtual fitting rooms using UGC widely appealing enough to justify the cost?
I think it helps in some cases, but it is limited when you start to consider the comfort of products like shoes and the feel of the material for clothing. All that said, it is a step in that direction and too early in that product lifecycle.