Danielle Gauthier

The expansion of the “real world” using virtual computer-generated imagery is by no means a new idea – this once was the stuff of science fiction. Now, with developments in imaging, location-based applications and mobile data transfer, augmented reality has become a hot topic among marketers as brands struggle to cope with changing media and marketing rules. Augmented reality combines the real and the virtual to create a 3D interactive environment that appears in real-time. In the next year, there are predictions of great strides in augmented reality – Juniper Research has predicted $2 million in spending on AR in 2010, and growing to $714 million by 2014.

There are several different tracks of augmented reality currently being used or in development, but the retailer’s main concerns should be the use of AR in annotation and visualization.

Annotation: Annotate objects and environments with information: these could be public annotations whereby information was drawn from public databases, or private whereby private notes could be attached to objects and environments. For example, a mobile could display information about the products on the shelves as the user walks through a store.

Visualization: Visualization can be used to preview objects in the real world or to gain x-ray vision into real objects using a database containing information about the structure of the object. For example, a user could preview on their computer how different glasses would look on their face (this has been done, Ray-ban).

Likely the most authentic augmented reality experience would come from the use of a see-through HMD, much like the stereotypical virtual reality goggles but instead these are transparent in that the real world can still be seen with superimposed virtual objects and environments. This is not a very feasible format for marketers – instead the best way of building an augmented reality marketing piece would be to use a monitor-based configuration to be viewed in the browser or, better yet, go mobile. Mobile phones are increasingly intuitive and the GPS and imaging capabilities of modern phones is particularly conducive to augmented reality applications.

Augmented reality marketing campaigns have been employed lately by a number of big brands and while many of these approaches are no more than gimmicks, there are many viable uses for augmented reality that should make retailers sit up and pay attention. A few notable examples of augmented reality include the Esquire AR edition which included extra content when certain pages were captured by one’s webcam, Adidas shoes has introduced a new line of shoes that will double as game controllers, as well as more functional uses such as that by US Postal Service that allows users to compare the size of the object they want to send with boxes available.

The challenge here is weeding out the gimmicky uses of this technology to find pertinent, practical uses that could genuinely save consumers time and energy, and coincidentally shortening the sales cycle. Augmented reality allows the user to see the real world with with virtual objects superimposed upon it, which enhances the user’s perception of and interaction with the real world. Virtual objects can be made to display information that cannot directly be detected by the senses and this information can be made to help with real world tasks and aiding in the pre-shopping experience.

There is no doubt that augmented reality has several applicable uses that will only grow as the technology develops, but do you see any lasting value in using augmented reality as a marketing tactic or is it a gimmick that will quickly fade away?

The expansion of the “real world” using virtual computer-generated imagery is by no means a new idea – this once was the stuff of science fiction. Now, with developments in imaging, location-based applications and mobile data transfer, augmented reality has become a hot topic among marketers as brands struggle to cope with changing media and marketing rules. Augmented reality combines the real and the virtual to create a 3D interactive environment that appears in real-time. In the next year, there are predictions of great strides in augmented reality – Juniper Research has predicted $2 million in spending on AR in 2010, and growing to $714 million by 2014.

There are several different tracks of augmented reality currently being used or in development, but the retailer’s main concerns should be the use of AR in annotation and visualization.

Annotation: Annotate objects and environments with information: these could be public annotations whereby information was drawn from public databases, or private whereby private notes could be attached to objects and environments. For example, a mobile could display information about the products on the shelves as the user walks through a store.

Visualization: Visualization can be used to preview objects in the real world or to gain x-ray vision into real objects using a database containing information about the structure of the object. For example, a user could preview on their computer how different glasses would look on their face (this has been done, Ray-ban).

Likely the most authentic augmented reality experience would come from the use of a see-through HMD, much like the stereotypical virtual reality goggles but instead these are transparent in that the real world can still be seen with superimposed virtual objects and environments. This is not a very feasible format for marketers – instead the best way of building an augmented reality marketing piece would be to use a monitor-based configuration to be viewed in the browser or, better yet, go mobile. Mobile phones are increasingly intuitive and the GPS and imaging capabilities of modern phones is particularly conducive to augmented reality applications.

Augmented reality marketing campaigns have been employed lately by a number of big brands and while many of these approaches are no more than gimmicks, there are many viable uses for augmented reality that should make retailers sit up and pay attention. A few notable examples of augmented reality include the Esquire AR edition which included extra content when certain pages were captured by one’s webcam, Adidas shoes has introduced a new line of shoes that will double as game controllers, as well as more functional uses such as that by US Postal Service that allows users to compare the size of the object they want to send with boxes available.

The challenge here is weeding out the gimmicky uses of this technology to find pertinent, practical uses that could genuinely save consumers time and energy, and coincidentally shortening the sales cycle. Augmented reality allows the user to see the real world with with virtual objects superimposed upon it, which enhances the user’s perception of and interaction with the real world. Virtual objects can be made to display information that cannot directly be detected by the senses and this information can be made to help with real world tasks and aiding in the pre-shopping experience.

There is no doubt that augmented reality has several applicable uses that will only grow as the technology develops, but do you see any lasting value in using augmented reality as a marketing tactic or is it a gimmick that will quickly fade away?

When Google Wave came out I did not post anything because I really had nothing to say – like everyone I was excited to get my invite, but after signing up and feeling like I was part of a super exclusive club. Like most everyone else, I was disappointed at how few people there were on Google Wave and did not like the interface – it was pointless and really nothing very innovative. It was like a forum about anything that you could not browse. I just did not get it.

But now they have unleashed upon the world Google Buzz – integrated with Gmail and available via mobile, it allows for threaded discussions with no word or character limit, following other users and linking to other accounts such as Twitter.

Already, Google Buzz has been the source of some criticism. From the discussions on Google Buzz about Google Buzz these appear to be the main criticisms of the platform:

• There were major privacy concerns at the beginning – anyone could follow anyone to view anything, which were alleged to cause some real life problems.
• Do we need another way to dialog with people online or is this just another way for web geeks to talk to other web geeks?
• Not everyone uses Gmail so adoption rates will be slow – is Google Buzz compelling enough to get yet another email address?
• The threads get too long and there is character limit – you have to read through hundreds of sometimes long comments just to make sure you are not repeating something.

Google Buzz did not get the usual long testing and beta phase – it was tested internally by Google employees and individuals brought in to test at the Google offices. Likely Google wanted to move quickly to make up for the anti-climax that was Google Wave, but some say they were not ready.

Despite this, according to Google as of a few days ago they have already had 9 million posts and comments. I would wonder if that figure includes the tweets from Twitter integration, not to mention the other platforms that can be added to Buzz. Twitter is getting more than 25 million tweets daily last I heard, so 9 million in about a week is nominal if tweets are included. It figures that there will be a lot of traffic at the outset as well, as early adopters will spend a great deal of time testing out the new platform.

The big questions are: do we need another way to communicate online and does Google Buzz serve a purpose that other platforms such as Twitter and Facebook cannot. Pete Cashmore put it really way in his post for CNN.com: where Twitter is the town square and Facebook is the local bar, Google Buzz is the campus.

Built for inquiry, learning and collaboration, if Google refines the ability to form private groups this could become a valuable tool for small companies and academic circles – I can see how Google Buzz could mean easy dialog on problems to find solutions with a few more additions the offering. While Google might want it to be so much more than that, which I can tell from their video, nonetheless there is a need that is met with Google Buzz that cannot be found on Twitter or Facebook, or even in email.

How are you using Google Buzz, if at all, and do you think Google Buzz has any enduring qualities? If so, how do you see the value of Google Buzz?

When Google Wave came out I did not post anything because I really had nothing to say – like everyone I was excited to get my invite, but after signing up and feeling like I was part of a super exclusive club. Like most everyone else, I was disappointed at how few people there were on Google Wave and did not like the interface – it was pointless and really nothing very innovative. It was like a forum about anything that you could not browse. I just did not get it.

But now they have unleashed upon the world Google Buzz – integrated with Gmail and available via mobile, it allows for threaded discussions with no word or character limit, following other users and linking to other accounts such as Twitter.

Already, Google Buzz has been the source of some criticism. From the discussions on Google Buzz about Google Buzz these appear to be the main criticisms of the platform:

• There were major privacy concerns at the beginning – anyone could follow anyone to view anything, which were alleged to cause some real life problems.
• Do we need another way to dialog with people online or is this just another way for web geeks to talk to other web geeks?
• Not everyone uses Gmail so adoption rates will be slow – is Google Buzz compelling enough to get yet another email address?
• The threads get too long and there is character limit – you have to read through hundreds of sometimes long comments just to make sure you are not repeating something.

Google Buzz did not get the usual long testing and beta phase – it was tested internally by Google employees and individuals brought in to test at the Google offices. Likely Google wanted to move quickly to make up for the anti-climax that was Google Wave, but some say they were not ready.

Despite this, according to Google as of a few days ago they have already had 9 million posts and comments. I would wonder if that figure includes the tweets from Twitter integration, not to mention the other platforms that can be added to Buzz. Twitter is getting more than 25 million tweets daily last I heard, so 9 million in about a week is nominal if tweets are included. It figures that there will be a lot of traffic at the outset as well, as early adopters will spend a great deal of time testing out the new platform.

The big questions are: do we need another way to communicate online and does Google Buzz serve a purpose that other platforms such as Twitter and Facebook cannot. Pete Cashmore put it really way in his post for CNN.com: where Twitter is the town square and Facebook is the local bar, Google Buzz is the campus.

Built for inquiry, learning and collaboration, if Google refines the ability to form private groups this could become a valuable tool for small companies and academic circles – I can see how Google Buzz could mean easy dialog on problems to find solutions with a few more additions the offering. While Google might want it to be so much more than that, which I can tell from their video, nonetheless there is a need that is met with Google Buzz that cannot be found on Twitter or Facebook, or even in email.

How are you using Google Buzz, if at all, and do you think Google Buzz has any enduring qualities? If so, how do you see the value of Google Buzz?