King’s Research Portal

DOI:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.004

Document Version
Peer reviewed version

Link to publication record in King's Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

de Regt, A., Plangger, K., & Barnes, S. J. (2021). Virtual reality marketing and customer advocacy: Transforming
experiences from story-telling to story-doing. Journal of Business Research, 136(November), 513-522.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.004

Citing this paper

Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may
differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination,
volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are
again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

•Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.
•You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
•You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 08. thg 6. 2025

 Author Accepted Version

Virtual Reality Marketing and Customer Advocacy:

Transforming Experiences from Storytelling to Story-Doing
Anouk de Regt1,*, Kirk Plangger1 & Stuart Barnes1
1
King’s Business School, King’s College London
30 Aldwych London WC2B 4BG United Kingdom

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Marketing managers strive to build branded experiences that both excite and engage their
customers in novel ways in order to enhance attitudes and encourage positive behaviors towards
their brands. As it offers immersive and interactive encounters, Virtual Reality (VR) technology
is a promising tool for managers to create these experiences, evidenced by increasing and
successful VR marketing applications. Yet, the literature offers little guidance on how VR
experiences can be strategically designed to create favorable customer perceptions, attitudes, and
behaviors. Based on five semi-structured focus groups of 27 VR consumers, this article constructs
a framework that deconstructs VR branded experiences into both narrative and social interactions
to optimize strategic customer outcomes. An experimental study validates the findings after which
practical recommendations to maximize the success of VR branding campaigns and a future
research agenda for VR marketing is provided.

KEYWORDS: virtual reality (VR); virtual reality marketing; virtual reality brand campaigns;
customer experience; customer brand engagement (CBE).

SUGGESTED CITATION:
De Regt A, Plangger K & Barnes S (2021) Virtual Reality Marketing and Customer Advocacy:
Transforming Experiences from Storytelling to Story-Doing, Journal of Business Research, 136,
513-522.

1
 Author Accepted Version

1. INTRODUCTION
As consumers increasingly interact on digital platforms with brands, relationships are established,
enhanced, and broken due to customers’ direct and indirect experiences (Okazaki et al., 2019).
This interaction has given rise to the experience economy where customers increasingly desire
unique experiences that go beyond mere consumption, offering novel ways of exciting and
engaging them (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Virtual reality (VR) technology provides a promising
avenue to for firms to create fully immersive, multi-sensory customer experiences. Several brands
are experimenting with VR as a promotional channel by providing immersive experiences that
enhance and build brand relationships, including brands in retail (Kang, Shin & Ponto, 2020), real
estate (Pleyers & Poncin, 2020), and tourism industries (Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2019). This
article explores how campaigns that use VR can contribute to the effectiveness of marketing, retail,
and brand management.
As customer interactions with brands are heavily dependent upon their environment
(Hudson et al., 2019), brand campaigns that employ VR technology offer completely synthetic and
vivid worlds that can exceed the bounds of a physical reality environment. These branded VR
experiences enable customers to be fully immersed with environments they can interact with
(Deng, Unnava & Lee, 2019).
However, beyond adoption studies, few academic studies explore VR’s true potential to
deliver integrated, real-time, and relevant experiences in context (MSI, 2018). Therefore, this
article explores how VR can enhance customers’ experiences by moving from storytelling to story-
doing; it investigates how turning passive observers into active participants, through VR brand
experiences, influences strategic outcomes. Aligned with a human-centered and experience-based
approach, VR is regarded as a real-time, immersive, and interactive multisensory experience
situated in, and artificially induced by, a responsive three-dimensional computer-generated virtual
environment (De Regt & Barnes, 2019).
Marketing practitioners fully embraced customer brand engagement (CBE), as one of the
core elements of their marketing strategies to sustain and increase relative attitudes and positive
behaviors towards their brands (Hollebeek, 2011). CBE can be both positively and negatively
valanced, resulting in affective, cognitive, or behavioral responses that are not always favorable
towards advertised brands (Naumann, Bowden & Gabbott, 2020). Moreover, Hollebeek and Chen
(2014) report that the consumers’ immersive relationship with the brand significantly impacts
customer attitudes towards the brand. Since branded VR experiences are highly immersive in
nature, this article explores CBE in a VR context by first adopting an interpretive method to gain
deeper conceptual insights before testing the factors that contribute to positively valenced
consumer responses.
This article offers two principal contributions. First, guided by insights from a literature
review and focus, the article develops a conceptual framework that clarifies CBE outcomes —
brand awareness, brand attachment and brand advocacy—based on customers’ level of social and
narrative interaction in a VR context. Second, an experimental survey extends these conclusions
and confirms that VR brand campaigns facilitate advanced CBE in the form of brand advocacy
through enhancing social presence, narrative interaction, narrative transportation, and affective
brand engagement.

2
 Author Accepted Version

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Virtual Reality as a Customer-Centered Experience

Adopting a customer-centered experience perspective (i.e., emphasizing an individuals’
experiences and needs), branded VR applications will be classified based on customers’ level of
immersion that results from different configurations of VR systems’ elements (i.e., the input and
output devices and content that produce the VR experience). Immersion is the feeling of being
present in an environment resulting from the multi-modal nature of perceptual senses combined
with the interactive aspects of the environment (Slater, 2003). Immersion in VR experiences can
result in presence, a context-dependent state of consciousness that can be described as virtual
transportation or remotely ‘being there’ either with or without others (Lombard & Ditton, 1997).
In VR context, presence involves three experience dimensions—personal, environmental,
and social—that impact customers’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes (Heeter 1992).
Personal presence encompasses the extent to which customers sense that they are part of virtual
environments. Environmental presence relates to the degree in which virtual environments
themselves acknowledge and react to customers’ virtual existence. Social presence refers to the
extent to which other beings—living or synthetic—also exist in virtual environments. The level of
presence can fluctuate over time depending on factors, such as the customers’ current state of mind
and prior experience (Slater, 2003). Thus, since presence is an individual and context-dependent
state of consciousness, different customers exposed to the same VR brand campaign can
experience varying levels of presence with different CBE outcomes.

2.2 Virtual Reality Customer Brand Engagement

Although there has been much conceptual debate and discussion on what CBE in various contexts
entails and how it should be defined, researchers agree that CBE should be facilitated (Kumar &
Pansari, 2016). Research shows that engaged customers positively contribute to, for example, co-
developing products and services (Blut, Heirati, & Schoefer, 2020), producing and disseminating
brand content or word-of-mouth (Campbell et al., 2011), and co-creating value-laden experiences
(Ranjan & Read, 2016). In general, across promotional channels, CBE is positively correlated with
acceptance of, and responsiveness to, branded messages (Calder et al., 2009). However, in highly
immersive and interactive media typical of VR experiences (Wedel, Bigné, & Zhang, 2020), CBE
and its effects on customer responses are likely magnified.
CBE is popularly broken down into affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions
(Hollebeek et al., 2014). Affective brand engagement occurs when brands build positive rapport
with their customers either through emphasizing key features and benefits, or alternatively, by
providing enjoyable and memorable experiences that may enhance brand perceptions, attitudes,
and preferences. Behavioral brand engagement arises from active participation that may facilitate
and improve the desire to use or purchase a brand. Cognitive brand engagement elicits states of
conscious attention that can result in absorption and retention of brand knowledge. However, CBE
that is mediated by rich media environments that permit immersive interactivity necessitate a social
dimension that captures social brand engagement. Social brand engagement involves sharing brand
experiences, knowledge, and endorsement (Wedel et al., 2020). Thus, within a VR context and
incorporating this social dimension, CBE is regarded as a motivational state of mind resulting in
affective, behavioral, cognitive, and social consumer responses formed by a VR mediated brand
experience.

3
 Author Accepted Version

2.3 Virtual Reality in Marketing and Advertising

While VR research typically examines customers’ perceptions of presence and immersion (Cowan
& Ketron, 2019), narrative transportation, which encapsulates the journey into the narrative world
and imagination of the story plot, is an essential factor that can complement these elements (Van
Laer, Feiereisen & Visconti, 2019). Although presence, immersion and narrative transportation all
encompass the involvement with the medium and the experience of a virtual world, the focus of
the concepts differ. Presence is the experience of the virtual environment as though it was real and
authentic, leading to the visualization of a consumer within that environment (Green, Brock &
Kaufman, 2004). Immersion is an experiential response to aesthetic and visual elements (Wang &
Calder 2006).
The concept of narrative transportation relies on a different set of cognitive processes than
presence and immersion, namely emotional investment in a story with plot and characters (Van
Laer et al., 2019). Prior research indicates that content containing narrative structures increases
feelings of identification and presence due to the stimulation of sensory cues (Lee, 2004). These
feelings create a stronger sense of reality, especially in VR settings where consumers can not
physically touch the objects (i.e., no haptic feedback is available).
VR marketing campaigns offer experiences that transcend temporal and spatial boundaries
that restrict other marketing communication in the real-world (Hilken et al., 2017). These
campaigns can enable interaction with living or synthetic others, increasing the extent to which the
experience is related to the self (i.e., social distance; Trope & Liberman, 2003). Additionally,
whereas standard (2D) video formats rely on fully static storylines (i.e., narrative directed by
creator: everyone experiences exactly the same narrative), the narrative in VR advertising is not
entirely predetermined (i.e., narrative directed by consumer) allowing small differences in
interaction levels and experience. In line with this, prior literature on the underlying mechanism
of being transported in a narrative ad and processing the information indicates that easy-to-
navigate 360-degree ads are more likely than a narrative ad in standard (2D) video format to result
in narrative transportation (Feng, 2018). However, currently little is known about the customer
outcomes that arise from CBE in a VR context. Although purchase behavior is marketing’s
ultimate goal, marketing communications can achieve this behavior by increasing brand salience,
then favorably changing attitudes toward the brand, before purchase is considered. In general,
brand experiences can also generate brand awareness (Huang & Sarigöllü, 2012), brand attachment
(Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2019), and brand advocacy (Hsiao et al., 2015). However, it is unclear
how branded VR experiences create different levels of CBE and the associated customer outcomes.
The next section reports the findings of an exploratory focus group study and a
confirmatory experimental study that investigates CBE and its outcomes in a VR context,
specifically examining the following research questions: (1) what levels of CBE can branded VR
experiences elicit; (2) to what extent does the content of a branded VR experience impact CBE
outcomes; and (3) to what extent does presence of other entities in the branded VR experience
impact CBE outcomes?

3. EMPIRICAL EXPLORATIONS

3.1 Study One: Exploring VR Customer Brand Engagement with Focus Groups
Focus groups allowed the exploration of how social presence and narrative interaction promote
CBE and its outcomes. Focus groups are an interpretative research method where participants
interact dynamically (e.g., questioning one another, commenting on each other’s’ experiences).

4
 Author Accepted Version

Focus groups create synergistic effects that increase the depth of the inquiry and unveil aspects of
the phenomenon assumed to be otherwise less accessible (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2014) and reveal
participants’ similarities and differences of opinion and their understandings and belief. Because
this research, in part, focusses on social phenomena, focus groups were preferred as part of the
research design over individual interviews.

3.1.1 Study One’s Method

Participants were recruited using non-probabilistic, purposive sampling methods (Patton, 2005),
making use of online channels (e.g., Twitter, Discord, Gumtree, and Call For Participants) and
rewarded with a small honorarium for their time. Five semi-structured focus groups with 27
participants (female=48%, mean age = 32 years; see table 1) explored their experiences with fully
immersive VR content using high-end, head-mounted displays (e.g., HTC Vive and Oculus Rift).
All participants experienced VR at least once; however most participants (n = 23) had multiple
VR experiences covering the whole VR spectrum (e.g., Web, HMD and Mobile VR). Most of the
participants did not personally own a VR device (n = 17, 63%).

The focus groups lasted between one and a half to two hours. To mitigate social desirability
issues, worksheets were distributed in each group to provide an opportunity to report any other
personal views or statements that were not expressed during the group discussion. The worksheets
were also used to record demographics and the respondents’ familiarity with VR technology. The
focus groups were video recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using an inductive approach
consisting of the following steps: (i) open coding; (ii) identifying themes to create core categories;
(iii) the disaggregation of core categories to refine the definition of and understand the relationship
between core categories (i.e., axial coding); and (iv) hermeneutic interpretation of the findings
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Codes were developed posteriori for key concepts, such as presence,
CBE, social interaction and participation to aid the mapping of responses into core categories
relevant to designing branded content that transforms the VR experiences from storytelling to
story-doing.

3.1.2 Study One’s Findings

Emerging from the focus group data, the following key themes provide rich detail of branded VR
experiences: (1) narrative interaction, (2) social presence, (3) affective brand engagement, and
(4) customer outcomes. First, in terms of narrative interaction, participants’ report their brand
VR campaign experiences are heavily influenced by whether they were actively—story-doing—
or passively—story-telling—engaging with brand campaign plots. Overall, respondents indicate
that active story-doing, sometimes aided by consumers’ own physical movements (and or props),
enhances their feelings of presence, immersion and transportation into the narrative. This point is
illustrated by Adam, who recalls his most memorable experience:
It was in an aeronautic firm and they showed you the [helicopter] fly routine. So you just sit
down there and you know it's like, you're in a field then you are trying to lift off [makes fist
as if holding a joystick], fly…you can feel it. We landed the thing, and then he told me to
stand up [physically] and lift off again. And when I tried to lift off, the thing was going
forward [the VR perspective] and I felt like, I had to move forward you know. So going back,
I felt like actually going backwards [upper body moves back and forth].

5
 Author Accepted Version

Table 1: Participant demographics

Name* Age Nationality Gender Occupation Education Focus VR device

group ownership
Adam 40 British Male Security guard College 4 Sony PlayStation/
Samsung Gear VR
Amy 35 British Female Administrator College 2 Google cardboard
Beth 28 British Female PhD researcher Postgraduate 5 no
Brian 49 British Male Policy researcher Postgraduate 4 no
Carmen 19 Chinese Female Student College 2 Sony PlayStation
Connor 58 Indian Male Managing director Postgraduate 4 Sony PlayStation
Diana 22 Spanish Female Student Graduate 4 no
Derek 47 Spanish Male Dancer College 2 no
Ethan 36 South African Male Production manager Graduate 4 Sony PlayStation
Eline 22 British Female Actress/ Nanny College 2 no
Fabian 38 British Male Consultant Graduate 4 no
Fae 25 Indian Female Research engineer Postgraduate 5 no
Gloria 29 Chilean Female Human rights activist Postgraduate 3 no
George 32 British Male Artist/photographer Postgraduate 4 no
Hanna 28 Thai Female Business owner Graduate 2 Google cardboard
Hugo 21 Slovak Male Student College 3 no
Ian 18 Chinese Male Student College 3 no
Irene 30 British Female Administrator Graduate 5 no
Jack 46 British Male Banker College 5 no
Jordan 27 British Male Unemployed High school 1 HTC Vive
Kai 46 British Female Phlebotomist College 1 no
Kevin 33 British Male Infrastructure engineer Postgraduate 1 HTC Vive
Laura 27 Norwegian Female Lecturer Postgraduate 5 no
Lejo 26 Indian Male Facilities manager Postgraduate 5 Google cardboard
Marcus 28 Chinese Male Student Postgraduate 1 no
Mia 26 British Latin Female Communications officer Postgraduate 1 Google cardboard
Yuta 25 Australian Female Venue manager Graduate 2 no
* These names are pseudonyms that protect anonymity of the participants
It starts of where you are in a wheelchair,
However, this does not mean that all branded you get strapped in and sort of look down
VR experiences where physical movement, [at your body] and I thought, I'm actually
or the use of props is restricted automatically tied to this wheelchair. And feel just the
result in passive brand engagement. The noise that, the cranking of this old
perception of story-doing is enhanced when wheelchair being wheeled down by
multisensory correlations provide consumers someone pushing you behind. As a site, it
with the feeling of being ‘embodied’ in the was really nice. Real.
scenario (i.e., induce the illusion of
ownership of limb or body; Kilteni, Groten & Building onto these sentiments about active
Slater, 2012). Active story-doing can also story doing, participants indicated that they
mean doing nothing if that is what the become so involved in the branded VR
scenario and narrative calls for. Both points experience that they forget the outside world,
are illustrated by Amy who recalls “I thought with Gloria stating:
it was good. Because it's like you can actually It was a bit deeper than what I would have
put your hand in front of you. Sort of flex it, expected it. But it was also kind of
like it is actually moving like look at this it is refreshing for a couple of minutes to just
actually me” and elaborates further by be completely separated from everything
saying:
6
 Author Accepted Version

else. Because the place where I was their VR experience (human-object relation),
where a bit, was a bit small uhm so a lot other participants experienced enhanced
of people around. It was a bit crowded, social presence owing to being with others
people you know queuing up, waiting. (human-human relation) in the VR
And so I, but I didn’t feel that while I was environment (i.e., co-presence; Zhao, 2003).
experiencing the virtual reality. So, it was When recalling these group experiences, it
like, like a break. A brief break for reality becomes apparent that the interplay between
narrative transportation and social presence
Based on the findings and prior research that can result in different personal experiences
compares VR and standard video ads (Feng, and group story-doing. Thus, even though the
2018), the first hypothesis is: set-up of the VR experience stays the same,
H1: Customers experiencing a this set-up entices people to participate more
branded VR experience are than once, as is illustrated by Marc’s
more likely to be transported statement:
into the narrative than those It was a group of ten of us…we were all
who see a standard video ad. trying it at the same time. Although some
Second, social presence was referred to people before me and after me [limited
in many participants’ accounts of their capacity on number of people in VR
branded VR experiences. Talking about a experience]. Yeah, we all tried it different
360-degree video experience, Jack elaborates times. I didn't expect it to be so
on the extent to which VR allows users to good…Yeah, it’s funny, it’s shareable.
experience others as being psychologically
present and real: Thus, VR experiences can facilitate
I felt more included in the actual events, individuals’ interaction goals—building onto
although I was an observer, and they Nowak’s (2001) notion of social presence as
didn't know that I was there. Cause they transportation—leading to the following
weren't looking at me at any stage…I hypotheses:
wanted to actually get involved in the H2: Customers experiencing
conversation with the family, cause they branded VR experiences
were talking among themselves, and I got perceive higher levels of
drawn into that…I felt part of that group. social presence than those
who see a standard video ad.
In line with that, Jordan indicates that being H3: Customers that report high
narratively transported into the VR (vs. low) narrative
experience enhanced the emotional transportation will have
connection with the VR entities: increased perceptions of
Now, I have a great sense of respect for social presence.
them. Because I know it is next to Third, participants reported more
impossible to do something like that…I affective brand engagement with branded VR
feel differently about them now. Because experiences following being successfully
I didn't have a first-hand experience with transported into the storyline or narrative and
it, but I was very near to that first-hand perceived social presence. When comparing
experience [in the VR setting], I think her storytelling and story-doing experiences,
about them differently. Laura emphasizes this by saying the
Whereas Jack and Jordan did not have following:
the opportunity to engage with the entities in

7
 Author Accepted Version

I have one [branded VR experience] that strengthen social interactions with others.
was more passive, where you were just Combining these focus group insights with
walking around an environment, and the transportation theory (Green et al., 2004),
other one was a Rollercoaster where I was storytelling can generate affective brand
getting a more whole-body experience engagement and also facilitate social
really. So, for me the roller coaster was presence. This is consistent with other
much more exciting! customer engagement research (Dessart &
Pitardi, 2019) and corroborates Pengnate,
This sentiment was widely shared amongst Riggins and Zhang (2020)’s findings that
participants in the different focus groups and social presence can improve the hedonic
extended further when discussing entities in value of VR. Thus, positing the following
the VR experience. Ian builds on to this hypotheses:
sentiment and extends it to the social H4: Customers experiencing
presence by saying: higher levels of narrative
I suppose it’s like not actually transportation increase
experiencing the real event [seeing affective brand engagement in
someone in real-life], but experiencing the branded VR experience.
the real emotions with that. H5: Customers that perceive high
(vs low) social presence will
When comparing branded VR experiences to have more affective brand
similar content experiences, participants engagement with the branded
emphasize VR experience.
Fourth, exploring deeper into the
VR’s ability to elicit positively emotions, as outcomes of branded VR campaigns,
Mia states: differences in narrative transportation and
social presence levels seem to be the most
I found it really kind of like strong in the influential in determining how participants
sense that this is actually a really good responded. Combined with the affective
way of capturing people’s, you know, of brand engagement in these campaigns,
getting people to relate to situations that participants brand outcomes can be classified
they are far away from…it was into three categories: (1) brand awareness,
memorable for me because yeah it really, the ease to which a brand can be recalled,
really stood out to me more than anything recognized and identified (Rossiter & Percy,
I’ve experienced in a long time, regarding 1997); (2) brand attachment, in which a brand
films or media. is positively perceived as being strongly
connected to a customer’s identity (Mitchell
Whereas Fae reflected that branded VR & Olson, 1981); and (3) brand advocacy,
experiences can be “an isolated experience, if where customers’ readiness to speak
you're the only person doing it, because you positively about the brand, try new offerings,
are the only person perceiving that reality.” and their resilience to negative brand
This point was echoed by Eline’s comment information (Du et al., 2007). Figure 1
that “I don’t really feel like it should be consolidates these outcome findings from the
taking away from human contact.” She exploratory focus groups into an initial
mentions that VR should instead be used to conceptual framework that is further
developed and supported below.

8
 Author Accepted Version

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of VR Customer Brand Engagement

Brand awareness is likely to increase I link my experience to the brand of

with branded VR experiences, particularly the [VR] goggles. Like, to actually
with passive experiences without social trying the [brand] technology rather
interaction, such as 360-degree videos. than, I didn't actually notice if
Respondents report high levels of presence anybody was sponsoring anything.
while in these experiences. Additionally, in a
statement that elicited approval among other Brand attachment is facilitated by
participants, Ethan says: providing more active or more communal VR
I would be quite keen to try on virtual experiences. Generally, responses indicated
reality from different brands…because I that participants would like to have more
really am sick of YouTube videos and interaction opportunities in branded VR
billboards and TV adverts, they are all experiences. This result aligns with the
just sort of the same thing. Over and over current branded VR experiences in the
again, for years now. So, it would make market being mostly virtual brand
me more inclined if your marketing storytelling using 360-degree content.
campaigns, if it was in VR. However, respondents that experienced the
pairing of 360-degree video content with
However, VR as a medium is not body sensors or haptic feedback gear,
enough. When the match with the brand and additional physical objects (e.g., walking
the narrative is less apparent, brands risk the across a wooden beam) or external effects
branded VR experience being negatively (e.g., water mist spray) that enhance the
valanced or associated with VR technology narrative interactivity level of the branded
brand rather than the brand that sponsored the VR experience and further emphasize
content (Naumann et al., 2020). Laura positive effects. As Hugo puts it: “I would
provides a clear example: say that the effects like the fans [blowing air]
and things like that, they definitely still do
9
 Author Accepted Version

add something. It still wasn’t down to the After these branded VR experiences,
virtual reality like in itself and such.” participants mention that they acquired new
Participants who only experienced 360- knowledge and felt more informed. These
degree branded VR video content, effects were even more pronounced for those
specifically highlight their expectation to VR experiences in which respondents
tailor and control certain elements of the perceived an authentic content-brand fit.
experience (e.g., the color of objects, camera Additionally, participants believe that they
angles, or the storyline), as Gloria indicates: acquired the most valuable knowledge when
I went to the [car brand] stand in the the VR content provided a brand experience
O2 arena and they had some virtual that they could not have experienced in the
reality experience that was like sitting real-world. Adam corroborates this point by
in a car and to try the technology of saying, “How to kind of disassemble it and
that car... I expected to, that I was see the parts inside [hands indicating picking
going to be able to customize the up and turning things around]. So, you know,
speed or the direction of the car, but I me playing with the product, because I
wasn't. The experience was already couldn't do that in the shop, I mean a normal
set. But I would like to think that if I shop.” Besides enhancing positive sentiment
do something, that I would expect and knowledge acquisition, respondents
from the brand, that it would allow indicated that VR advertising could facilitate
you to customize the experience. behavioral changes, including increases in
usage intention and positive word-of-mouth.
Some participants extend this by adding that Increasing the social and activity levels
personal data could be collected and used to during the branded VR experience appeared
tailor the branded VR experience to their to be the most efficient means to facilitate
specific needs or desires. Moreover, all these brand advocacy intentions and
participants with more than one VR behaviors. This point is illustrated by Hanna:
experience, believed that interactivity was I went to an event and tried
essential to their sentiment like the headset on with the
regarding their experiences. For example, reeling and they give me the
Yuta elaborates on her experience that used shoes to slide on the
externally platform...I posted it on
generated bodily sensations saying: [social network] because my
For me I think it's like at this friend back at home wanted to
point, every brand that is using read about my daily life and I
like virtual reality it's like they thought that this would add an
are like a step forward from interesting story to my diary.
the ones that are not. Not in
terms of like quality, not in Nearly all participants report sharing
terms of product, in terms of their VR experiences with at least one other
like connecting with person and often directly after taking part in
technology… that's like the the experience. Although some shared on
thing that changed my view. social media, most participants said that they
Like I saw that brand as like shared their VR experiences in person, as Kai
something more up to date. excitedly reported:
“I spoke to the whole of the [building] by the
time I got out of there. When I was going

10
 Author Accepted Version

down the stairs, I was speaking to everyone, Based on these findings and the extent to
tourists, everybody!” Besides sharing their which VR as a medium allows users to
experience, respondents also expressed experience others as being psychologically
strong desires for more social VR present and real (Lee, 2004), it is
experiences where they feel they can connect hypothesized that:
with other users (e.g., family and friends) H6: Customers with more (vs.
during the experience itself (i.e., branded less) affective brand
multi-user experiences). This sharing engagement with the ad report
behavior occurs both in the physical world more brand advocacy
and in the virtual world. Moreover, behaviors.
participants’ social desires are amplified H7: Customers that perceive high
when gamification mechanics (c.f., Robson (vs. low) social presence will
et al., 2015) are embedded into branded VR have more brand advocacy
experiences. This also raised the allure of behaviors.
being in a branded VR environment with
strangers. Especially when other people’s 3.2 Study Two: Linking VR Customer
(perceived) presence in branded VR Brand Engagement with Brand Advocacy
experiences contributes to the ‘realness’ of To validate the focus group findings and test
the experience. This is illustrated by Carmen the resulting hypotheses, an experimental
who points out: “I think the expectation for study was designed and conducted that
the roller coaster, it's better to have more than compare a 360-degree VR video ad with a
one [person]. People sitting, trying it standard video ad. The experiment evaluated
together. Just like a real roller coaster where brand advocacy resulting from active
there is like six or seven of them together.” narrative interaction, resulting in enhanced
Thus, not only is there value to be created by narrative transportation and social presence
including social aspects in branded VR that increased affective engagement (see
experiences but depending on the context and Figure 2).
narrative it is often expected by customers.

Figure 2: Research Model

11
 Author Accepted Version

3.2.1 Study Two’s Method (Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie, 2014), and
This experimental study implemented a one- social presence (Makransky, Lilleholt &
factor between-subjects design by Aaby 2017); and (4) filled out their
manipulating the video format of an VR ad, sociodemographic information. Table 2
Jeep’s A Surfing Journey in 360° (3:12 min), reports the descriptive statistics.
into a standard ad. This ad features two
World Surf League surfers (Jordy Smith and 3.2.2 Study Two’s Findings
Malia Manuel) as they embark on a Jeep The research model (Figure 2) was analyzed
brand adventure to find the best waves. using partial least squares structural equation
Rather than using a different Jeep ad, VR modeling (PLS-SEM), as PLS-SEM is
video-conversion software was used to turn designed for exploratory evaluations of
the VR video (interactive, first-person causal relationships among constructs in
panoramic perspective) into a standard theoretical models (Hair et al., 2019). The
traditional 2D video format (flat non- validity of construct items was assessed by
interactive, fixed perspective) to control for investigating the loadings (Table 2). Since all
the tone, narrative, and brand message values exceeded the 0.7 threshold (Hair et al.,
consistency in the two narrative interaction 2019), no changes to the construct structure
conditions. Thus, in the VR setting the were made. Table 3 shows that composite
consumer partly controls the narrative reliability scores and Cronbach’s α values all
through choosing where to look and what to exceeded the recommended value of 0.7
focus on (story-doing perspective). With the (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), demonstrating high
standard video ad, the brand fully dictates the levels of internal consistency reliability.
narrative and the consumers attention (story- Since all latent variable’s average variance
telling perspective). extracted (AVE) values are greater than the
Time spent and the clicks on the page acceptable threshold of 0.5, convergent
were measured to ensure that people were validity was supported. The results in Table 3
exposed to the two different stimuli from start indicate that discriminant validity is well
to finish. This was followed up by an established since all the square roots of the
attention check (i.e., How many distinct jeep AVE values exceeded the correlations among
models (cars) are driven by the surfers in the latent variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
video?). A total of 573 complete survey The variance inflation factors for the inner
responses were collected through the Cloud and outer model were all below the 5.0
Research platform (Litman, Robinson & benchmark (Hair et al., 2019).
Abberbock, 2017). These responses were Research model validity was assessed
checked for potential bot behavior, response by examining the coefficient of
patterns, and identical IP addresses after determination (R²) and the statistical
which 12 responses were removed, leaving significance and relevance of the path
561 responses that were used for the analysis coefficients. Path coefficients were tested
reported below. Respondents (1) read the using standards bootstrapping procedures
information sheet and accept the informed using 5000 subsamples (Table 4). The model
consent; (2) were randomly exposed to one of indicates a significant total effect of narrative
the narrative interaction scenarios; (3) interaction on brand advocacy (β=0.109,
answered in random order questions about p<0.001). All path coefficients are significant,
narrative transportation (Escalas, 2004), supporting the hypotheses at a minimum
brand advocacy (Obilo, Chefor & Saleh, p<0.05 level. The results indicate that 41.7%
2021), consumer brand engagement of the variance for the brand advocacy

12
 Author Accepted Version

endogenous latent variable was accounted for social presence (R²=0.478) being moderately
by variables in the model (R²=0.417), with strong predictors (Hair et al., 2019).
affective brand engagement (R²=0.260) and
Table 2: Item Descriptive Statistics and Factor Loadings

Dimension Item Mean S.D. Factor Loading

Narrative While I was watching the video ad I could easily 5.870 1.126 0.831 0.283 0.039 0.129
Transportation picture the events taking place
I could picture myself in the scene of the events 5.344 1.494 0.714 0.257 0.268 0.302
described in the video ad
I was mentally involved in the video ad while 5.610 1.320 0.784 0.323 0.166 0.24
watching it
Affective I feel very positive when watch the Jeep video ad 5.537 1.325 0.316 0.816 0.255 0.182
Brand Watching the Jeep video ad makes me happy 5.471 1.339 0.304 0.841 0.251 0.179
Engagement
I feel good when I watch the Jeep video ad 5.48 1.307 0.279 0.871 0.206 0.18
Brand I engage in forwarding the promotions offered by 4.004 1.872 0.027 0.122 0.802 0.329
Advocacy Jeep to others
I actively inform others online and offline about 3.813 1.879 0.064 0.14 0.877 0.256
the superiority of Jeep and its products
I am willing to stand to protect the reputation of 4.201 1.780 0.124 0.257 0.827 0.213
Jeep
I recommend Jeep and its employees to others 4.251 1.749 0.158 0.184 0.872 0.205
I encourage friends and relatives to use Jeep in 4.269 1.743 0.173 0.195 0.869 0.197
the future
I give advice to others regarding Jeep's products 4.050 1.777 0.137 0.115 0.861 0.185
Social I felt like I was in the presence of another person 4.877 1.591 0.259 0.221 0.173 0.765
Presence in the virtual environment.
I felt that the people in the virtual environment 4.207 1.835 0.019 0.087 0.382 0.727
were aware of my presence
The people in the virtual environment appeared 5.171 1.566 0.401 0.135 0.045 0.684
to be sentient (conscious and alive) to me
During the simulation there were times where the 4.235 1.744 0.122 0.132 0.408 0.761
computer interface seemed to disappear, and I
felt like I was working directly with another
person
I had a sense that I was interacting with other 4.376 1.701 0.169 0.148 0.363 0.786
people in the virtual environment, rather than a
computer simulation
Notes: Extraction Method; Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Loadings larger
than .70 are in bold

Table 3: Reliability and Validity Metrics.

CR CA AVE 1 2 3 4
1. Advocacy 0.96 0.96 0.82 0.91
2. Affective Brand Engagement 0.96 0.94 0.89 0.49 0.94
3. Narrative Transportation 0.91 0.85 0.77 0.41 0.67 0.88
4. Social Presence 0.92 0.89 0.69 0.61 0.49 0.55 0.83
Note: CR = composite reliability; CA = Cronbach’s alpha. Figures in diagonal (bold) are the square-root of average variance
extracted. Figures below the diagonal are the bivariate correlations between constructs

13
 Author Accepted Version

Table 4: Path coefficients and significance levels within the specified model

Hypothesis Path β-Value t-Value p-Value

H1 Narrative Interaction → Narrative Transportation 0.144 3.518 <0.001
H2 Narrative Interaction → Social Presence 0.091 2.609 0.009
H3 Narrative Transportation → Social Presence 0.539 15.691 <0.001
H4 Narrative Transportation → Affective Brand Engagement 0.575 14.220 <0.001
H5 Social Presence → Affective Brand Engagement 0.168 4.012 <0.001
H6 Affective Engagement → Brand Advocacy 0.260 6.899 <0.001
H7 Social Presence → Brand Advocacy 0.478 12.541 <0.001

Table 5: Mediation analysis

Path Std. Std. Error t-Value Confidence Interval Mediation type
Beta (BC)
LL UL
Narrative transportation à 0.150 0.025 6.068*** 0.104 0.201 Complementary Full
Affective brand engagement mediation
à Brand advocacy
Narrative transportation à 0.258 0.027 9.707*** 0.207 0.310 Complementary Full
Social Presence à Brand mediation
advocacy
Social presence à Affective 0.044 0.012 3.613*** 0.070 0.022 Complementary
brand engagement à Brand Partial mediation
advocacy
Narrative Transportation à 0.024 0.006 3.641*** 0.012 0.038 Indirect only
Social Presence à mediation
Affective Brand
Engagementà
Brand Advocacy
Note: ***p< 0.001, BC = Bias Corrected, UL = Upper Level, LL = Lower Level

Mediation analyses indicates video ad. Although manipulating the

statistically significant indirect effects that narrative interaction itself does not
impact brand advocacy (Table 5). Although automatically lead to brand advocacy, the VR
these indirect effects are all statistically video ad outperforms a standard video ad in
significant, some of the mediation effect sizes terms of narrative transportation and social
are quite small within the Web-VR context of presence which ultimately results in
this study, therefore, may not be practically enhanced positive advocacy behavioral
significant (Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, outcomes. The next section discusses these
controlling for other variables, the direct results in terms of the literature and examines
effect from narrative interaction on brand academic and practical implications.
advocacy is not significant (β= -0.037, p=
0.259) indicating limited diagnosticity of 4.0
narrative interaction in studied context. DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS
Overall, the results demonstrate This research explores the drivers of CBE in
significant differences in ad effectiveness a VR brand campaign context. It investigates
between the VR video ad and the standard how brands can enhance the effectiveness of

14
 Author Accepted Version

these campaigns and gauges their efficacy in by the fact that people tend to
producing strategic CBE outcomes. The anthropomorphize computers and treat them
evidence indicates that branded VR as “social actors” (Reeves & Nass, 1996),
experiences produce strong emotive and even when the virtual actors are less
memorable events that contribute positively embodied.
towards the lasting brand perception and Enhanced CBE with the media
attitude. This could be explained due to vehicle does not necessarily translate into
reduced psychological distance of the positive responses toward the brand
message from customers and subsequently sponsoring or featured in the advertisement.
increased message processing fluency (Kim This can sometimes facilitate a link between
& Song, 2019); which could be further aided the consumer and the manufacturer of the
by the first-person perspective (Kilteni, technology. Prior research (e.g., Calder et al.,
2012) and body ownership (Han et al., 2020). 2009) provides no direct explanation for
This would also explain increases in the these results, since consumers that are highly
authenticity and validity perceptions of engaged with a media vehicle are generally
marketing claims and brand messages more open and responsive to advertising. The
(Wright et al., 2012). These findings are lack of authentic content-brand fit and
positively influenced by higher levels of narrative might not fully account for these
story-doing, contributing to enhanced results. Novelty effects might play a role as
narrative transportation and customer well, since novel stimuli, such as VR
perceptions of social presence. When technology, are thought to provoke
branded VR experiences move from intensified deliberation (Ajzen, 2002). This
storytelling to story-doing, customer could potentially shift the focus towards a
interactivity increases. different engagement object. Although this
Owing to the enhanced interactivity, explanation is strengthened by the vivid
brands not only allow for increased levels of recall of consumer’s first VR experiences,
CBE but also enable customers to take on the this does not necessarily provide an adequate
role of co-experience designers that, through explanation for participants with repeated or
their interpretation and interactions, shape prolonged branded VR experiences. An
the experience into the desired direction alternative explanation could be that the
(Ranjan & Read, 2016). This view on story unmasked logo displayed on the VR headset
doing aligns with the conception of narrative could lead to unintended co-advertising or
as a process and aids the classification of VR co-branding effects. In that case, the results
as a distinct narrative medium (Aylett & might be explained by competitive
Louchart, 2003). Facilitating social, or interference theory of dual-brand processing,
socially perceived, consumption experiences where two brands compete for attention
(Hudson et al., 2019) enhances campaign resources (Nguyen et al., 2018).
effectiveness. A possible explanation could
be that the social interaction with living or 4.1 Theoretical Implications
synthetic others improves the hedonic value The results indicate a direct positive
of VR (Pengnate et al., 2020) which can correlation between higher levels of narrative
positively impact future preference affects and social interaction in branded VR
(Zhao & Xie, 2011). The persistence of the experiences and CBE outcomes. However,
social interaction effects across VR they also suggest that CBE outcomes
modalities (e.g., web, mobile, head-mounted inspired by Web-VR experiences require
displays, or room-scale) could be explained more than only higher levels of narrative

15
 Author Accepted Version

interaction. In other words, the findings point portfolio, which can help to generate
to a boundary of narrative interaction’s alignment across departments and facilitate
effectiveness when using simple Web-VR insights into how the campaign supports the
campaigns, therefore, indicating the need to key objectives of stakeholders. At the same
create content that enhances narrative time, different VR brand experiences in the
transportation and emotional engagement. In same category (e.g., 360-degree videos) can
addition to the CBE dimensions already be compared and evaluated.
established (i.e., affective, behavioral, Second, based on the input and the
cognitive and social), the findings show that learnings that follow from the framework, it
CBE needs to pay attention to the sensory can be implemented to advance strategic
elements of these branded VR experiences, branding practices both online and offline.
(i.e., physical and artificially induced Brands should clearly define the desired CBE
sensations). Prior research (e.g., Hepola et outcomes that they want to address with their
al., 2017) indicates that both involvement and brand campaign and decide on the
sensory brand experience are directly related appropriate narrative and social interaction
to CBE levels, with emotional engagement level accordingly. Based on the findings,
being the most influential factor. As such, the brands are generally advised to direct
results indicate a growing need to examine marketing communications in a VR context
the experience-engagement dichotomy in towards facilitating higher-order consumers’
interactive, multi-sensory branded VR need satisfaction and generating positive
experiences. Although the differences consumer-brand relationships through
between the two concepts are clearly defined interactive and social VR content. However,
theoretically, the technological features of smaller companies should carefully weigh
the medium and the context in which the the benefit of an agile route to brand
branded VR experience takes place might advocacy against the resource demands (e.g.,
blur these lines in practice. Thus, researchers financial or human capital) required to
investigating highly interactive media are achieve this goal. Moreover, it will help to
advised to ensure that the constructs (i.e., facilitate timely adjustment and refinement of
CBE) they are investigating are appropriate advertising goals, objectives, and targets. As
for their research context (i.e., VR the accumulation of datapoints rises,
experiences). businesses will also be able to better predict
the CBE of future VR campaigns and develop
4.2 Managerial Implications them in a way that is most likely to yield
Since VR is a relatively new marketing beneficial CBE responses.
channel, some businesses might be limited in
their ability to properly track and evaluate the 4.3 Limitations
impact of their VR-enabled marketing As with all empirical research, this article has
campaigns (de Regt, Barnes & Plangger, some limitations. This research uses a
2020). Brand managers can apply the relatively low immersive Web VR
conceptual framework as a consolidated basis experience. However, the findings indicate
for VR brand marketing in two ways. First, that even in a low immersive setting,
the framework can help to monitor and assess consumers have generally positive outcomes.
the current situation. Brands that are This suggests the potential for enhanced
experimenting with different types of VR effects when more immersive VR
experiences will quickly get an overview of experiences are strategically deployed in a
the performance of their diversified VR brand brand campaign. Additionally, the absence of

16
 Author Accepted Version

normal distribution of the dataset in the (augmented reality or mixed reality). Future
quantitative study (study 2) limited the researchers can use the findings and see how
applicability of alternative forms of they could be used in other customer
quantitative analysis, specifically technology contexts.
covariance-based structural equation Third, although the self-selection of
modeling. Yet, the findings of study 2 appear branded VR experiences among the
to be consistent with the interpretative participants included both product and
analysis of the qualitative data in study 1. service encounters, a more extensive and
Lastly, both the focus groups and the diverse sample (other geographical and
experiment were conducted in English. cultural regions, different target groups, and
Combining this with the online modality of specific market segments) might provide
the experiment, the results might differ for further and more nuanced insights.
other geographical or cultural regions. Furthermore, other more quantitative
research methods, enabled by a VR customer
5.0 FUTURE RESEARCH IN VIRTUAL measurement scale, might provide more
REALITY MARKETING depth to the analysis and conclusions, as well
This article yields a useful framework that as potentially discovering new insights.
aids academics investigating branded VR Fourth, although participants reported
experiences in terms of VR system different intensities of narrative interaction
configurations, presence, interactivity, and and affective brand engagement, some
CBE. Several directions for future research participants provided cross-sectional
are proposed that can advance knowledge evidence that did not account for time-
further as VR rapidly spreads throughout dependent factors, such as state of mind or
business practice. First, although this article prior experience (Slater, 2003). Therefore,
responds to calls for more conceptual studies future research could investigate the
that deeply explore the application of new customer-brand relationship across multiple
technologies (e.g., Khan & Rahman, 2015) encounters, while examining the influences
and validated the model using a further of other moderators, such as the length of
empirical study, additional research to test time between the encounters or repurchase
and validate the findings with other frequency. These additional factors would
participants, in other contexts and varying facilitate understandings customer dynamics
levels of VR experiences is required. When outside of novelty and potentially establish
doing so, research geared towards fully- longitudinal effects of VR experiences. This
immersive branded VR experiences that could be combined with further exploration
utilize head-mounted displays on-site (i.e., of CBE as a multi-dimensional construct
integrated into the broader business context) (Obilo et al., 2021) to further strengthen the
aided by non-invasive or implicit measures, results.
such as external observation or eye-tracking, Fifth, to fully leverage the potential of
could further enrich the findings. branded VR experiences, future research
Second, since this research adopts a should take a more omni-channel approach.
human-centered VR approach (de Regt & The effects of a diversified VR branding
Barnes, 2019) that highlights the individual portfolio should be investigated while
and context-dependent state of the consumer- incorporating customer touchpoints
brand relationship, caution needs to be generated by other (traditional) advertising
exercised in generalizing these findings to platforms to provide a more holistic view on
include other alternate reality contexts the CBE outcomes. While this article

17
 Author Accepted Version

explores how branded VR experiences opportunities beyond traditional digital

contribute to brand advocacy, future research channels to remain relevant. VR technology
could explore other non-transaction (e.g., provides a new platform for customer-brand
brand trust) and transactional (e.g., purchase relationships that can supplement existing
intention) customer responses that could also digital and physical channels. By deepening
have strategic implications. the digital storytelling experience and
Finally, this article investigates providing the path that leads away from the
customer-brand relationships in the business- abstract depiction of objects on flat screens
to-consumer context; however, there is towards more visceral experiences with a
growing recognition of the opportunities near real-life sense of scale and physicality,
virtual reality provides for business-to- VR experiences move beyond being
business (B2B) marketing (Boyd & Koles, gimmicks that are quickly forgotten. Brands
2019). Future research could explore if the that are pursuing a true omni-channel strategy
CBE framework would be applicable in a are starting to realize how VR technology can
B2B context and focus on identifying other be utilized to augment their overall marketing
elements that might impact firm-stakeholder approach. In line with that, the importance of
outcomes. To that extent, it could be branding strategies that are applicable in the
beneficial to research the overall VR context of VR has come into sharper focus in
ecosystem, to better identify opportunities marketing theory and practice. Although
and address challenges. strategic CBE outcomes of a business may
vary depending on the different stages of the
6.0 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS product or service lifecycle, the proposed
Since the digital-first audience moved framework provides a context to advance
beyond merely including consumers who strategic marketing and branding practices
grew up in a connected world, marketers have while allowing for adaptation according to
increasingly begun exploring marketing individual-firm strategy.

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action perspectives.
Personality & Social Psychology Review, 6, 107–22.
Aylett, R., & Louchart, S. (2003). Towards a narrative theory of virtual reality. Virtual Reality, 7(1), 2-9.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94
Blut, M., Heirati, N., & Schoefer, K. (2020). The Dark Side of Customer Participation: When Customer
Participation in Service Co-Development Leads to Role Stress. Journal of Service Research, 23(2), 156-173
Boyd, D. E., & Koles, B. (2019). Virtual reality and its impact on B2B marketing: A value-in-use perspective.
Journal of Business Research, 100, 590-598.
Campbell, C., Pitt, L. F., Parent, M., & Berthon, P. R. (2011). Understanding consumer
conversations around ads in a Web 2.0 world. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 87-102
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online
engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321-331.
Cowan, K., & Ketron, S. (2019). A dual model of product involvement for effective virtual reality: The roles of
imagination, co-creation, telepresence, and interactivity. Journal of Business Research, 100, 483-492.
Deng, X., Unnava, H. R., & Lee, H. (2019). “Too true to be good?” when virtual reality decreases interest in actual
reality. Journal of Business Research, 100, 561-570.
De Regt A., & Barnes S. J. (2019) V-Commerce in Retail: Nature and Potential Impact. In: tom Dieck M., Jung T.
(eds) Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality (pp. 17-25). Springer, Cham.
De Regt, A., Barnes, S. J., & Plangger, K. (2020). The virtual reality value chain. Business Horizons, 63(6), 737-
748.

18
 Author Accepted Version

Dessart, L., & Pitardi, V. (2019). How stories generate consumer engagement: An exploratory study. Journal of
Business Research, 104, 183-195.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The
role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224-241.
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion.
Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48.
Feng, Y. (2018). Facilitator or inhibitor? The use of 360-degree videos for immersive brand storytelling. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 18(1), 28-42.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F., (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation
into narrative worlds. Communication theory, 14(4), 311-327.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-
SEM. European Business Review, 31(1) 2-24.
Han, S. L., An, M., Han, J. J., & Lee, J. (2020). Telepresence, time distortion, and consumer traits of virtual reality
shopping. Journal of Business Research, 118, 311-320.
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual
Environments, 1(2), 262-271.
Hepola, J., Karjaluoto, H. & Hintikka, A. (2017), "The effect of sensory brand experience and involvement on brand
equity directly and indirectly through consumer brand engagement", Journal of Product & Brand Management,
26(3), 282-293.
Hilken, T., de Ruyter, K., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D., & Keeling, D. I. (2017). Augmenting the eye of the beholder:
exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service experiences. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 884-905.
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 19(7), pp. 555-573.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media:
Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149-165.
Hsiao, C. H., Shen, G. C., & Chao, P. J. (2015). How does brand misconduct affect the brand–customer
relationship? Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 862-866.
Huang, R., & Sarigöllü, E. (2014). How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity, and the marketing
mix. In Fashion Branding and Consumer Behaviors (pp. 113-132). Springer, New York, NY.
Hudson, S., Matson-Barkat, S., Pallamin, N., & Jegou, G. (2019). With or without you? Interaction and immersion
in a virtual reality experience. Journal of Business Research, 100, 459-468.
Kang, H. J., Shin, J. H., & Ponto, K. (2020). How 3D Virtual Reality Stores Can Shape Consumer Purchase
Decisions: The Roles of Informativeness and Playfulness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49, 70-85.
Khan, I., & Rahman, Z. (2015). A review and future directions of brand experience research. International Strategic
Management Review, 3(1-2), 1-14.
Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators
and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 373-387.
Kim, D. H., & Song, D. (2019). Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand?
The effect of brand experience on consumers’ construal level. Journal of Brand Management,26(3), 255-267.
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of Marketing
Research, 53(4), 497-514.
Lee, K.M., 2004. Presence, explicated. Communication theory, 14(1), pp. 27-50.
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition
platform for behavioral sciences. Behavior research methods, 49(2), 433-442.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 3(2), 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x.
Makransky, G., Lilleholt, L., & Aaby, A. (2017). Development and validation of the Multimodal Presence Scale for
virtual reality environments: A confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Computers in
Human Behavior, 72, 276-285.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand
attitude? Journal of marketing research, 18(3), 318-332.
MSI Research Priorities 2O18–2O20. 2018. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

19
 Author Accepted Version

Naumann, K., Bowden, J., & Gabbott, M. (2020). Expanding customer engagement: the role of negative
engagement, dual valences and contexts. European Journal of Marketing, 54(7), 1469-1499
Nguyen, C., Romaniuk, J., Faulkner, M., & Cohen, J. (2018). Are two brands better than one? Investigating the
effects of co-branding in advertising on audience memory. Marketing Letters, 29(1), 37-48.
Nowak, K. (2001, May). Defining and differentiating co-presence, social presence and presence as transportation. In
Presence 2001 Conference, Philadelphia, PA (pp. 1-23)
Obilo, O., Chefor, E., & Saleh, A. (2021). Revisiting the consumer brand engagement concept. Journal of Business
Research, 126, 634-643.
Okazaki, S., Plangger, K., West, D. & Menendez, (2019). Exploring digital corporate social responsibility
communications on Twitter. Journal of Business Research, 117, 675-682.
Patton, M.Q., 2005. Qualitative research. Wiley Online Library.
Pengnate, S. F., Riggins, F. J., & Zhang, L. (2020). Understanding Users’ Engagement and Responses in 3D Virtual
Reality: The Influence of Presence on User Value. Interacting with Computers, 32(2), 103-117.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 97-105.
Pleyers, G., & Poncin, I. (2020). Non-immersive virtual reality technologies in real estate: How customer experience
drives attitudes toward properties and the service provider. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102-
175.
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 44(3), 290-315.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like
real people and places. Cambridge university press.
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2015). Is it all a game? Understanding the
principles of gamification. Business Horizons, 58(4), 411-420.
Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1997). Advertising Communications & Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Slater, M. (2003). A note on presence terminology. Presence connect, 3(3), pp. 1-5.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups: Theory and practice (Vol. 20). Sage publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403.
Van Laer, T., Feiereisen, S., & Visconti, L. M. (2019). Storytelling in the digital era: A meta-analysis of relevant
moderators of the narrative transportation effect. Journal of Business Research, 96, 135-146.
Wedel, M., Bigné, E., & Zhang, J. (2020). Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing research in consumer
marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(3), 443-465
Wright, S., Manolis, C., Brown, D., Guo, X., Dinsmore, J., Chiu, C. Y. P., & Kardes, F. R. (2012). Construal-level
mind-sets and the perceived validity of marketing claims. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 253-261.
Yung, R., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2019). New realities: a systematic literature review on virtual and augmented
reality in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(17), 2056-2081.
Zhao, S. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 445-
455.
Zhao, M., & Xie, J. (2011). Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers' responses to peer
recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 486-496.

20