Someone at HSBC convinced the company to spend thousands maybe tens of thousands on this:
But HyperGrid Business reports they're far from the only ones:
According to Virtual Reality Brand Power Index released this morning by YouVisit, 75 percent of the Forbes World’s Most Valuable Brands have created some form of virtual or augmented reality experience for customers or employees, or are themselves innovating and developing these technologies.The tech sector is in the lead in adopting virtual reality technology, but automotive is also notable in being an early mover, Endri Tolka, COO and co-founder of YouVisit, told Hypergrid Business. “Brands like BMW, Audi, Porsche, KIA, Volkswagen, Lexus, Chevrolet, and Honda have all incorporated virtual reality and augmented reality experiences into their marketing strategy,” he said. “It’s clear that the automotive industry is really starting to see the value in virtual reality,” he added. “The technology is allowing automotive companies to better connect with their customers and allowing them to get in cars without actually making the purchase.”
That's pretty much the same argument that the VR company that developed a presence for Nissan in Second Life made -- and look how well that turned out. (Toyota and Mini Cooper also had a similarly disastrous presence in Second Life.)
In fact, I bet most or all of these new VR projects will fail for the very same reasons they failed when attempted in Second Life: Little ROI from a niche product that very few people are actually using. But then again, VR developers are once again making money off the big brands' big shortsightedness, so who am I to complain?
Please share this post:
It takes them a while for it to sink in that it won't make a dent in their car sales. Or sell more Coke.
Apparently it needs to sink in with and without goggles.
The irony with the cars is that they've been dabbling with 3D views of cars for quite a few years now and they probably can't correlate that with increased sales.
But now if by some miracle, half their consumers decide to boldly don googles it will increase sales even more than ... the 100% that can view cars now in 3D without goggles?
It's a real goggle-boggler, indeed.
Posted by: Dartagan Shepherd | Friday, November 06, 2015 at 03:41 PM
Okay, Devil's Advocate here. What DID it really cost Pontiac or American Apparel to maintain a sim or two in SL, compared to any other advertising venture they had at the time?
I'd be the first to say that VR is the latest, greatest case for the Hype Cycle. I don't see my Millennials lining up to put scuba masks on their heads (which should come with the sign "kick me" to pin on their butts).
With VR, as with SL before, companies simply are hedging their bets, in case a new technology becomes "the next big thing."
Posted by: Iggy | Friday, November 06, 2015 at 05:27 PM
I think Iggy has it right in terms of advertising budgets, it's a very small drop in the ocean to dabble in areas such as VR for large companies.
Posted by: Ciaran Laval | Saturday, November 07, 2015 at 07:01 AM
Amazon is selling having sales on pets supplies, because that worked out so well for Pets.com in 1000-2000
Apple is releasing a touchscreen phone, because that worked out so well for Palm in the 90s.
Nintendo is releasing a console with motion controls, because that worked out so well for Nintendo in the 90s.
There's a second step and more to analytical thinking other than pointing out the most shallow of similarities between two things and then drawing a conclusion based off that alone. There's no way you're oblivious to all the differences between Second Life of 10 years ago and a VR headset and associated software.
Posted by: Ezra | Saturday, November 07, 2015 at 11:45 AM
"There's a second step and more to analytical thinking other than pointing out the most shallow of similarities between two things and then drawing a conclusion based off that alone."
Dang! You just stumbled upon Hammy's entire journalistic premise!
Posted by: Issa Heckroth | Sunday, November 08, 2015 at 07:03 PM
"There's no way you're oblivious to all the differences between Second Life of 10 years ago and a VR headset and associated software."
And the significance differences which make VR-marketing much more likely to work now are...?
Posted by: Wagner James Au | Sunday, November 08, 2015 at 09:10 PM
I think it isn't all wrong to be sceptical about VR projects from brands due to past experiences. However the success will depend on the implementation (and I find the HSBC's teaser video not too bad). Here are some arguments why it might work better this time:
1) There is a huge lack of VR content and it is probably the biggest problem for VR in general. Also producing such content is going to be much more difficult than it has been with Second Life (performance, graphics design, level design etc.). Prims look lame with VR googles, so mastering a mesh creation programme is a must. While Second Life had tens of thousand of sims at the time, those companies will put with a few hundred experiences today.
2) So people like me who always skip ads at Youtube or ignore them on websites might actively chose this content for a change, if it is exciting enough and providing me the content that I am looking for.
3) Due to the low number of content these companies will get a lot of media coverage about their ventures, especially if it is an exciting experience. If they get people to talk about their ventures on traditional media channels (TV, newspapers), they will save millions of dollars in advertisement costs and bridge the gap of a rather small market of VR users.
4) SL content has suffered from missing game mechanics and design in the hype years (OMG, LSL was so limited at the time...). With this second wave of commercial VR content, a project is no longer bound to a closed platform with limited creation possibilities. All kind of game designs are easily possible now.
5) Most of these experiences will probably be single player experiences (maybe with a closely monitored shared community experience add-on). People will probably comment and share these experience on Facebook and not in the world itself. Last but not least griefers won't be able to upload their content and use their scripts (no penis guns, yay)!
6) Let's come back to an argument that is center of some of my previous arguments: it's the content, Baby. SLers tend to look always at the technical side ("But now if by some miracle, half their consumers decide to boldly don googles it will increase sales even more than ... the 100% that can view cars now in 3D without goggles?"). Yes, it's simply boring to sit and drive in a 3D car in a virtual space. But if a car producer would sponsor an exciting experience with clever product placement (James Bond -> Aston Martin, get it?), it might be something that people enjoy a lot and talk about.
Posted by: Estelle Pienaar | Monday, November 09, 2015 at 10:11 AM
How is second life comparable to VR. I think the confusion between the terms virtual worlds, and virtual reality (as its being used so often) needs to stop.
Virtual worlds, like second life are applications, No matter how it is used to communicate or to share things with other people, its still just software. This software is becoming more and more impressive, but at no point does it ever trick your brain, you watch it through your monitor, and you are fully aware of where you are.
Virtual Reality (as the term is being used here) is the hardware configuration, the new peripherals that allow an individual the ability to feel as if they are somewhere they are not....its even coined a new tern to "measure" it, and its called presence. That point at which you lean on a table that is not there, or move back from an avatar because you are in its personal space and its bothering you on a real level. Weather or not you want to believe the hype, this new device is eliciting new reactions on an instinctual level. Yes, I realize that you can totally lose yourself to a great book or video game...I get that. Media is designed to create feelings, that's what it has done forever. This hardware does it so well, some of our real world instincts kick in....which I'll admit, won't last, the first motion picture of a train had people running out of the theater in fear. Our brains will see through it with more exposure, but that's not the point....the point is, how long did it take for our brains to adjust to being in SL? It was ambitious for what it was trying to do, but it was doing it on media device, we've all had exposure to.
So I'm not sure how a 3d environment which allows people to connect and chat and share things compares to a new hardware configuration that has the ability to fool our brain at a completely new level.
I could be wrong, or missing the point....I do that :D.
And I am in no way condoning a bank to make a virtual experience. If they could magically transport me with 100% authenticity, its still going to be banking.
Posted by: Todd | Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM