Photo: Imaginuity
JLL Scores With ‘Virtual Shopping Bestie’
JLL Retail Property Management recently became the first shopping center owner to introduce a virtual influencer, and it found year-over-year online website visits across participating shopping centers vaulted by 500% in its first month.
The “virtual shopping bestie,” named Cindy, was developed by AI provider Imaginuity and introduced to 13 shopping centers across the U.S. She’s tasked with publicizing local events and sales that retailers are offering on each center’s website and social media pages as part of a two-month campaign.
In a LinkedIn Live session, officials at JLL; The Dealey Group, the shopping center operator’s lead brand agency; and Imaginuity discussed Cindy’s development.
One reason behind Cindy’s arrival was that one virtual influencer could be customized to support multiple properties at a significantly lower cost than using real influencers at each property. Another was recent advances in artificial intelligence, including ChatGBT.
JLL also felt confident that a virtual influencer would resonate with real shoppers because a study from the London School of Economics & Political Science found that “customers are increasingly attracted to virtual influencers and that virtual influences are perceived as more trustworthy, credible, and relevant to customers’ preferences, leading to an increase in purchase intention.”
The study didn’t identify the underlying reasons, but Corbett Guest, Imaginuity’s president and chief strategy and innovation officer, said human influencers are often distrusted because they’re paid. He said at the LinkedIn session, “Even though the brand may indeed control that virtual person, the fact that somehow they’re not personally getting paid may have a huge impact on people’s perception that they’re more authentic.”
Regardless, a major challenge in creating Cindy was overcoming the “uncanny valley effect,” or the phenomenon where people feel a greater affinity for artificial humans as they become more realistic, but then feel a sense of unease or even revulsion if they’re overly realistic.
Ashlyn Booth, JLL’s EVP and director of property marketing, said JLL wanted shoppers to know Cindy was “computer generated,” as transparency over the use of robots and artificial intelligence in campaigns is becoming increasingly important.
She was looking for Cindy to mimic virtual spokespersons at Disney World or Disneyland. Booth said, “You get to certain areas and you’re getting on a ride, there’s this sort of virtual person that’s telling you if you’ve been through Epcot… it’s like this futuristic spokesperson, and that’s how I wanted [Cindy] to feel. You knew she wasn’t real, but you also trusted her.”
Much of the session explored how Cindy’s looks, mannerisms, and personality were created to feel authentic and relatable across markets while landing on the “fine line between too human and not human enough,” said Guest.
In her introductory video, Cindy appears in a mall setting, saying, “Hi, besties. I’m Cindy, your virtual source for styling tips. You can always find me right here in my favorite place, getting my steps in and showing you how to style the latest trends. Follow me and check out my picks for more. Shopping is my cardio.”
Backlash has been seen from past campaigns using virtual influencers by Marks & Spencer, H&M, and PacSun. Some critics have called out risks to girls’ mental health competing against computer-generated models.
JLL’s minimal backlash so far to Cindy was attributed to efforts to make her relatable. The negative feedback related to the replacement of real influencers, but JLL assured commentators it would continue to work with human influencers on local campaigns.
Indeed, JLL found consumers across age groups interested in AI technology. Booth said, “There were a lot more sort of fun comments, like ‘Is she real?’ You start to see the dialogue between the shoppers, which was fun, but overwhelmingly positive feedback… [Cindy’s] got this trustworthy quality about her.”
Guest said AI advances will continue to push the envelope in making increasingly realistic virtual influencers, and he expects transparency will continue to be a hotly debated topic. He said, “We’re going to get to the point that we can have these AI-driven personalities that are specific to your tastes and your wants. Because of your data, they’re going to know what you’ve been looking at and what you’ve been shopping for.”
Discussion Questions
How would you assess the pros and cons of using virtual influencers?
What policies or safeguards should guide the use of virtual influencers to protect against potential backlash?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Gene Detroyer
Professor, International Business, Guizhou University of Finance & Economics and University of Sanya, China.
Ricardo Belmar
Retail Transformation Thought Leader, Advisor, & Strategist
I am sure the technology and degree of effort to create ‘Cindy’ is impressive. But the impact is anything but, in my opinion. On the center websites I looked at when this came out, Cindy is just a slightly odd video (the lip movements, expressions, and eye contact are all off). You can’t interact with her or ask questions, and she doesn’t do anything other than offer a short intro. Under the video are a list of offers and picks that are static listings and nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe this saves time creating videos using real people, or maybe it evolves into a virtual assistant that can answer questions, or maybe it is a glimpse of things to come … but for now I see it as a bit of a fuss over nothing!
Good analysis, Neil. I have no doubt she will improve. It seems that she is simply a human-like bulletin board.
Haha! She really doesn’t add much value! If she was a human, she’d be sacked…
I believe that Cindy was antiquated even before she hit the ground running. The video quality is “off” and interaction with Cindy is quite limited. AI technology will offer marketing, advertising, and service conveniences that offer greater technologies than Cindy. I’m sorry, Cindy, if I hurt your feelings. Db
So much work to do something that would have been better conveyed with an animated mascot, probably at much lower expense. I adore Hatsune Miku, but no property owner is saying she’s an actual human being. The point of influencers is that they have authentic reactions and are relatable to the group you want to communicate with – a local personality for a local shopping complex, dining at a local restaurant, with local in-jokes and speech, someone you might actually bump into at the grocery store. Let mascots do mascot work, and humans do influencing work!
The London Study found “customers are increasingly attracted to virtual influencers and that virtual influences are perceived as more trustworthy, credible, and relevant…”
The virtual person “is not getting personally getting paid so that may have a huge impact on people’s perception that they’re more authentic.” Not paying people for a job is more authentic? On what planet?
Do the people in this study think that Cindy magically appeared? Do they not understand that she was created and is controlled by real people?
I mean…
I am fine with virtual people discussing style tips and promos, but becoming someone’s “virtual shopping bestie”? Nope. If Alexa is your BFF you’ve got problems.
Being blunt, I found Cindy odd. Her expressions and mannerisms are strange. Give me a real person anyway!
I think they would have had as much or buzz with BK’s Subservient Chicken
I agree with my colleagues. She is sort of human-like. But she will get better as the technology improves. In the end however, she is only a human-like bulletin board. What else could she be?
Who is more trustworthy and credible? The paid influencer or the programmed influencer? Apparently that’s a real question, and I’m not sure whether I should laugh or cry.
As others have stated, the image timing is off from the audio, which makes watching it distracting. I assume they can improve the quality of the video to make it more interesting. The con is that consumers may not feel as much connection with a virtual influencer as they would with a real influencer. The pros are the cost savings of creating recorded videos of virtual influencers is much more cost effective than paying celebrities and it eliminates the risks of humans doing something in their public life that isn’t in line with the reputation of the brand.
As an observer with an eye on technological trends, my take on JLL’s introduction of Cindy, a virtual influencer, is cautiously optimistic yet critical. Cindy’s role in boosting website traffic showcases potential, as evidenced by a reported 500% increase in visits. However, after viewing her content, it struck me as somewhat superficial, lacking the depth in trend discussion that fosters deeper consumer engagement.
From what I’ve seen, Cindy’s videos felt more like basic announcements rather than engaging content that can drive sustained interest and revenue. The effectiveness of such virtual influencers in the long term remains debatable. They offer logistical and financial efficiencies over human influencers and avoid certain PR risks. However, it is still uncertain whether they can truly replace the human element in fostering lasting customer relationships. There is still work to be done in matching the spoken word with lip movement. The overall movements of Cindy as she spoke were strange and slightly annoying to watch
It’s still early to fully gauge Cindy’s long-term impact on retail marketing. Businesses exploring virtual influencers should strive for a balance, leveraging these tools to enhance rather than replace human interactions, ensuring they contribute meaningfully to the consumer experience.
Although the virtual influencer angle is interesting, Cindy’s debut reinforces the movement to unify the shopping center customer experience. JLL, Simon, and a host of other developers, along with innovative third-party tech providers, are transforming malls and lifestyle centers into multi-channel brands (not just places that have brands as tenants). Cindy may be somewhat inarticulate and awkward at this stage, but you have to start somewhere. After all, she’s working pro bono!
Oh please, website traffic went up 500% means you had a crap website. I’m sure people like the novelty but seriously, I do not see this as moving the needle of sales.
Virtual influencers will continue to become more realistic. The threshold of whether they are virtual or real will become an important factor. In this case, Cindy is intentionally programmed with some flaws that make it seem less human, but it has some key appeal factors based on the demographics Imaginuity is targeting. Backlash is inevitable as the influencers become real and consumers will be repulsed at various points- so this will be difficult to manage.
This is an early phenomenon to the market and shifting the shopper mindset, enable adoption and eventually embracing it might take a while. As they make Cindy more interactive, it will move towards a more interesting opportunity to influence sales, offer reasonable recommendations, address complaints and more- making a glorified chat machine more of a value-add to the consumer (and retailer). I suspect a fan base within 18 months for sure…
This is a fad that will fade fast, not because it is not interesting but because the unique qualities will stale quickly-too quickly for a proper rollout to be funded.
This is an interesting novelty for now, but the technology and use cases will improve. Should retailers and brands use more virtual influencers? In the long run, I believe consumers will want to know if they “influencer” is real vs virtual. You can’t be an authentic brand if you’re hiding the fact that your influencer is virtual! There will be a place for virtual influencers, I have no doubt. But the best influencers for a retailer in my opinion will always be store associates that know and use the store’s products! You can’t be any more authentic than that, and no virtual influencer can replicate that feel!