Extended Reality in Marketing—A Multiple Case Study on Internet of Things Platforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper attempts to discuss the Internet of Things platforms in marketing, with a particular focus on the topic of Augmented Reality. The topic is important and interesting to me. As a survey paper, the reviewer has some concerns as follows:

1. The paper is more likely to discuss Augmented Reality in Cloud Services than Internet of Things.
2. The organization is rough, that is the manuscript does not categorize certain chapters or sections to specific topics.
3. Lack of diagrams gives the reader an idea of the scopes, compositions, and relationships of the topics being presented.
4. Lack of table gives the reader a realization of the features, advantages, or limitations among the different services being discussed.

Generally, though the reviewer is interested in topics of Augmented Reality, Extended Reality, Digital Enterprise, Digital Twin, and Metaverse. However, it is difficult to read through the manuscript. As a survey paper, it is expected that there will be organized introductions and structured comparisons in terms of background, application, technology, solution, cost, etc.

Author Response

1. The paper refers to Internet of Things platforms, that is Cloud Platforms as a Service
2. The organization should now be clear enough, as the sections have been respected and the paragraphs speak for themselves
3. A general diagram of the technologies and business processes has ben presented; it shows how Extended Reality enables customer's orders to dictate all business processes and business models
4. A table with all technologies integrated in Enterprise Architecture is now presented; this is the standard Acatech model in theory but practice shows 50 cases

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the article is contemporary, and the title attracts the reader's attention. The article itself, in my opinion, needs serious improvement, starting with the Introduction, which is inconsistent and messy.

There are many repetitions of whole sentences or statements throughout the article. It is strange that the literature review is related to the "Results" section. Much attention is paid to the architecture of digital enterprise, ERP, SaaS without mentioning and explaining the connection with augmented reality, the reader obviously guesses that there is one.

The very structure of section 3 " Results" would benefit if it was divided into several section.

The section “Empirical data analysis” is again for the most part listing a mix of different technologies without a direct link to AR. And in this regard, is it important to know which companies were market leaders for Internet of Things platforms in 2016, 2018, 2020 ... and as a source for this market share here is the definition of ERP from Oracle ([114] - 114. Definition of enterprise resource planning (ERP). Available online: https://www.oracle.com/erp/what-is-erp/). A total of 5 pages of the article do not show a clear relation with the title of the article.

The general impression is that there is no systematic approach and view on the topic, no new positions have been made. It would be good to have a more pronounced connection of customer experience, business strategy, etc. with AR (or XR). There are no analytical conclusions from this study.

Although it is claimed that "Empirical data shows Augmented Reality and other Extended Reality applications are rated a breakthrough in marketing", the article does not provide evidence for this.

The purpose of this study is unclear. The article could be revised as an overview with appropriate changes.

Author Response

The article was revised with serious improvement as advised. The article is now structured in Extended Reality and digital marketing and Extended Reality part of Digital Enterprise architecture and integrated solutions with new customer value propositions. The entire article follows this structure.

There was an issue that old links were copied and pasted from a different report, but they were old, broken and needed to be refound. The empirical data section should be clearer now.

The article is divided into Extended Reality on a stand-alone basis and Extended Reality integrated in solutions. The first part if rather easy to argue. The latter part totally not so, as there are many technologies, business processes and business model implicated. The theoretical part shows the general Enterprise Architecture of the Digital Enterprise. The empirical part shows some 50 solutions in use cases, each elaborate with numerous and various technologies. It is beyond the means of this research to prove the solutions are viable. The point to be made is that Extended Reality can drive many solutions. These solutions tend to be marketing driven and initiate business processes in marketing driven business models. They bring new forms of customer value that is only possible on the Internet. A vision of a new Internet, which may allow room for new ventures, is now being predicted. Arguments are in favor of the complexity of the Extended Reality Internet.

The article shows Gartner's list of emerging technologies and the place of Digital Twin related technologies therein. This argues the technologies have just recently emerged.

Analytical conclusions have now been input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article centres on Augmented Reality in Marketing - a Multiple Case Study on Internet of Things Platform to show Cloud Platforms as Service technologies and operating models and the Digital Enterprise. The multiple case study provides linkages to the new Customer Relationship Management Cloud solutions as an integrated part of the Digital Enterprise Architecture to enhance Marketing significantly with the latest technology and other Extended Reality technologies. Overall, the article is well written and presents information about Augmented Reality to concentrate on Customer Relationship Management in support of promoting or co-create goods. The paper presents technical possibilities to shape marketing strategies and other activities. The links to other research titles could extend to future Service suppliers as Augmented Reality provides timely support for sales and product, service, and solution co-creation. The overall merit of the article is high.

Author Response

Thank you for this review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper explores the role of Augmented Reality in Marketing. This could be an interesting topic but I think that the paper needs some improvements to be published.

Literature review

The literature review should be immediately after the introduction (not in the section "Results") trying to give a conceptual framework of the paper. This part should be divided in subparagraphs that concern the various approaches that emerge from literature. What should be improved is the literature review of the management side being the paper about Augmented reality and marketing. For example in page 3 you say that “Some authors have merged the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Customer Relationship Management [18]”: this should be better analysed. The following articles could contribute to reinforce this part of the analysis. To name only a few:

• Rauschnabel, P. A., Babin, B. J., tom Dieck, M. C., Krey, N., & Jung, T. (2022). What is augmented reality marketing? Its definition, complexity, and future. Journal of Business Research, 142, 1140-1150.
• Rauschnabel, P. A., Felix, R., & Hinsch, C. (2019). Augmented reality marketing: How mobile AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 43-53.
• Scholz, J., & Duffy, K. (2018). We ARe at home: How augmented reality reshapes mobile marketing and consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 44, 11-23.
• 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.
• Yussof, F. M., Salleh, S. M., & Ahmad, A. L. (2019). Augmented reality: a systematic literature review and prospects for future research in marketing and advertising communication. Intelligent and Interactive Computing, 459-473.

Methodology

How do you conduct the analysis? Only consulting public reports? Maybe for a scientific paper it could be useful a qualitative research method by means of interviews. One for each case study could be sufficient.

Results

I suggest dividing the case studies in different paragraphs for a better comprehension of the text.

At the end a scientific paper should indicate:

• Limitations
• Managerial implications
• Theoretical implications (how your study contribute to literature?)
• Future research

Please add these sections.

In general, the language should be improved. The sentences are sometimes very short and not linked one to the other. For this reason it is difficult to comprehend some parts of the paper.

Author Response

The suggested references have been added, along with definitions of technology and digital marketing.

The literature review has been improved.

The multiple case study is representative for 12 of the 36 vendors which offer integrated business solutions. It has abductive value for the Extended Reality based Internet. It is intended to show a new trend for the Internet in all. The data presented online is rich and sufficient for the purpose. It would take interviews with very many departments to reach what is publicly available.

The conclusions section has been updated according to suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is suggested the authors to provide an organized presentation and structured comparison in terms of technology, solution, cost, and application. That will help readers effectively to understand the professional background and knowledge in this field or making right decisions for the target research.

Author Response

Table 2 has been inserted and includes the vendors’ names, the solutions names and their applications in business processes. This may be emerging reality or convergent technologies. Table 2 is the empirical correspondent of Table 1. This approach has been used due to empirical data, where vendors provide business customers ER technologies, such as PTC Vuforia, or business solutions with coherent functionality that comprise several technologies which shape functional activities or processes and delivery models. The solution approach prevails in practice but receives scarce consideration in emerging reality related literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been significantly improved.  Thanks to the authors. Some remarks:

The Materials and Methods section can be shortened, it is now a little bit wordy, it could be more focused. It looks someway more like a conclusion stylistically.

The "Results" section - you'd better rename it "findings" in my opinion. Thus, the review of the literature will be seen more naturally. In addition, this section may be more structured for the convenience of readers.

The same is for the  “Empirical data analysis”. Figure 3 is not so clear.

Despite these remarks, I believe that the topic is timely, attractive and the article offers a good basis for further research, offering a broad view of technologies, trends and applications.

Author Response

The Materials and Methods section is now more focused, and explains why the case study is exploratory, descriptive and instrumental. The multiple case study highlights the leading vendors according to Forrester, 11 vendors which make up nearly a third of the PaaS providers with system integration capabilities. Arguments are that the topic is new; the empirical data is also new; the empirical data refers to customer businesses, giving its instrumental nature. There is no data to quantify the businesses but they are intended to reach to mass customers.

The Results section does show the empirical data findings, but the name is consistent with the name in the review and journal standard and therefore remains unchanged. The sections have been changed to respond to another reviewer comments, and they now match previous journal articles.

Figure 3 has been changed to explain the customer pull effect of extended reality shaped marketing. The discussion section has also been structured around this effect, as ultimately the business solution vendors offer business customers a marketing technology intended to attract mass consumers and incur higher revenue. The empirical data offers numbers of customers attracted to the new technology, which will generate new sales; these will succeed past sales or provide additional opportunity. The pull effect is defined as attracting customers/ sales. The conclusions section has been changed to argue the pull effect by the delivery model. Further research is to add the operating model and refer to business models that may shift to networks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Dear Authors,

thank you for the improvements of the paper. I think some of my previous comments could be considered in the revision of the paper.

 

The literature review has been improved. However, it should be immediately after the introduction (not in the section "Results"). After the literature review the authors generally explain the methodology and the results. 

I still think that the section about case studies should be divided in different paragraphs for a better comprehension of the text.

 

You integrate limitations in the methodology and in the section discussion you mentioned Managerial implications,Theoretical implications (how your study contribute to literature?), Future research. Maybe these last points could be better explained.

Please verify the format/editing of the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendations. I have added the references indicated. The methodology section is based on public data indeed, and this is not very difficult from a scientific point of view. On the other hand, this corresponds to all market leaders and numerous departments therein and their cross functionality. The statements do not match obvious assertions from these companies but a large number of data about their products’ functionality and business impact, which has been searched by many keywords across time to obtain this data. The data is consistent with vendors’ reports and their strategic approach rather than a questionnaire; the article is structured to represent vendors’ customer offering. This is not biased by a questionnaire. It is intended to capture business innovation and novel topics such as solutions, use cases, enterprise architecture, business process and business model solutions. One could have searched for extended reality, but the technology is used in convergence with others to meet specific goals and this could not have been anticipated in a questionnaire. This is the advantage on relying on vendors’ assertions as they are, taking advantage they may advertise their customer offerings. The statements date years 2017-2022 and match a broader investigation that has obtained the links using many keywords across time.

The file has been restructured in accordance with your recommendations.

The Results section has been divided into two paragraphs, one about the market data and the other one about vendor data. Table 2 structures the vendor data to match Table 1 in the literature review. The data matches vendor statements which show diverse approaches, in line with their strategy and customer offerings.

There are limits to the methodology: relying on the data without an proof technologies function accordingly is the main one. It is also important the statements refer to business customer solutions as provided by vendors to several vertical markets. A descriptive case study is not complicated methodology but is a suitable approach for an exploratory and instrumental case study. The instrumental value comes from guiding business processes at technology users, business customers, which is what the multiple case study tackles. The approach is limited by the words possible to be allocated to research the solutions presented, some 50 that they are, and this creates leeway for future research. To make this clear, future research directions have been singled out as paragraph.

The article is challenged in the use of upper case or lower case: names of customer offerings, departments or markets are in upper case; the other technologies are in lower case to the issue of plenty to consider.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision provides acceptable diagrams and tables for a better understanding of the context. However, the paper organization can be further refined. It is still recommended to break the long paragraphs into separate sections, to provide readers with an organized presentation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your recommendations, which have been considered extensively. The paragraphs have been broken down into shorter ones. The tables have been elaborated, and the pictures revised to give a clear view. The tables should now be comprehensive. Compared to the previous section, the tables and pictures have been modified to give a clear view and correlated in this respect. Both tables and pictures refer to the elements of the delivery model or business model. This structure has been induced in the article and is the focus of the discussion section. To be noted, the tables and pictures refer to the elements of the delivery model shaped by digital marketing or business model shaped by the entire enterprise architecture. These elements are inferred as the most important arguments in literatue review and empirical data analysis. The structure is induced and not deduced. The discussion section elaborates these findings and the level of current or future research.

The structure of the paper is presented in the introduction, and explanations have been insterted to guide readers through the process. 

The methodology has been redesigned to explain the exploratory, descriptive and instrumental nature of the multiple case study. The same goes for its abductive reasoning value, as the 11 market leaders are part of 36 system integrators on the cloud market. 

As the article has been structured, we hope the article is more coherent and the introduction and conclusions better explained. 

We have also considered changes to the use of English, mainly in the use of lower case or upper case that has created difficulties. 

Thank you for review and hope the criteria are now fulfilled,

The authors

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the revision.