Picture this. You're thirsty. You'd like a drink, maybe some spring water, at a push some flavoured spring water. You turn into the drinks aisle ​and stop in your tracks.

​

Amongst the rows of healthy drinks and sugary, ulcer-inducing sodas is a miracle-in-waiting. One of the bright red cans (yes, that one) is pulsating. It changes colour, glowing-gold, grabbing your attention, sparkling and pulsating. The nearer you go, the brighter it gets, the words ‘drink me’ now floating around it. You are transfixed. Firework-like rainbows swirl around it and a beautiful girl is suspended above, blowing kisses. You find yourself at the checkout paying for the miraculous beverage before you even know.

​

Forbes reported very recently that the world of branding and marketing may soon be woven seamlessly into the world of augmented reality (AR), the technique of introducing virtual (computer-generated) elements into a real setting. The scenario above suggests that monitoring authorities (for example, the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK) need to monitor marketing activity that uses such technology. Currently, AR techniques require either a mobile phone app with AR viewed through the phone’s camera, or an AR headset or glasses. There are already AR contact lenses in development. How long will it be before this kind of virtual enhancement can be generated without the need for an external device?

​

What that means for the consumer depends how quickly legislators and the ASA respond to new uses of this technology, and how scrupulous the marketers of global commerce are prepared to be. Neither are reassuring based on past performance (1), with repeatedly fraudulent claims made by companies such as Apple and Coca Cola even in recent years (2).

​

Many would argue that the intelligent viewer of marketing messages should always be alert to dishonesty and aware of strategies used to manipulate their purchasing decisions. To some extent, we agree that we should be vigilant, although outright lies about products should (and usually do) attract penalties. However, if we are faced with advertising that places no boundary between reality and augmentation, how are we, even the more astute among us, supposed to differentiate?

​

Magic Leap claim that their next generation AR will pass the Turing test (the one that makes computer generated stuff indiscernible from real stuff): in other words, when using their tech, if you can see two identical objects sitting on a table, you won’t be able to tell which is real and which is virtual. Think of Pokemon Go! (with its myriad little critters in real settings all around the world) and level up to make its AR indiscernible from the real world. It’s a diamond mine for marketers who’ll be able to make anything look and behave like anything they want it to. It’s unlikely that the ASA will have the time or resources to police every advertisement, and the law is notoriously slow to respond to technological change. That leaves the vulnerable consumer at risk. Expect increasingly complex litigation.

​

See Issue Three (out in June) for an in-depth look at the potentially dystopian future of AR.