Sources

Studies and statistics on product imagery, 3D, try-on and returns, linked to the original source.

Each entry says whether it is independent research or a company’s own figure. Company figures usually compare shoppers who chose to use a feature with shoppers who didn’t, which overstates the effect — so read them as direction, not size.

Try-on and 3D

  • Tan, Chandukala & Reddy (2022), Journal of Marketing — Peer-reviewed, 160,000 customers of a cosmetics retailer. Using AR try-on was associated with higher sales, most of all for pricier and niche products and for customers new to the category; Kellogg’s summary reports a purchase rate nearly 20% higher among AR users. Source
  • Bell, Gallino & Moreno (2018), Management Science — Peer-reviewed study of Warby Parker. Letting customers try frames on physically raised demand and conversion and lowered returns — evidence that reducing uncertainty about how frames look pays off in eyewear. Source
  • Gallino & Moreno (2018), Manufacturing & Service Operations Management — Randomized field experiments at an online apparel retailer: virtual fit information increased conversion and order value and reduced returns. Source
  • Wang, Pan, Dresner & Yao (2023), working paper — Sales data from 30 US eyewear chains: adopting virtual try-on raised online sales. Not yet peer-reviewed. Source
  • Yim, Chu & Sauer (2017), Journal of Interactive Marketing — Lab study including sunglasses: AR try-on raised enjoyment, usefulness and purchase intention compared with a conventional product page. Source
  • Hilken et al. (2017), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science — Lab study including sunglasses: virtual try-on increased shoppers’ comfort with their decision. Source
  • Shopify (2022) — Company figure: Shopify reports that merchants who add 3D content see a 94% conversion lift on average. No method published. Source
  • Google (2022) — Company figure: people engage with 3D images almost 50% more than with static ones in Search. Source

Product images and information

  • Salsify Consumer Research (2019) — Survey of 1,000+ US online shoppers. 69% had abandoned a product page for lack of information or detail — the most common reason — and shoppers expected around 6 images per product, 8 among 18–24 and 35–44 year-olds. Source
  • Baymard Institute (2020) — Independent usability research: 56% of users’ first action on a product page was to explore the product images. Source

Returns

  • Narvar, State of Online Returns (2019) — Survey of 3,519 shoppers in five countries. 12–14% said their main reason for returning was that the product wasn’t as depicted; 34–46% said size, fit or colour was wrong. Source
  • Yotpo (2020) — Survey of 2,000 shoppers: 33% had returned an item because it looked different in person than online. Source
  • NRF and Happy Returns (2024) — US retailers expected 16.9% of 2024 sales to be returned, about $890 billion. Source

Rendered imagery in practice

  • IKEA (2014) — IKEA’s in-house agency said about 75% of its product images were computer-generated. Source

Numbers we don’t use

Some widely repeated statistics could not be traced to an original source, so we don’t cite them:

  • “360° spins raise conversion 20–40%” — grew out of a single retailer’s 2010 anecdote.
  • “High-quality photos convert 94% better” — a mix-up of Shopify’s 3D figure with an unrelated blog statistic.
  • “93% of shoppers say visual appearance is the deciding factor” — traces back only through infographics.
  • “AR cuts returns by 40%” — no source found.

Compiled September 2026.

← All info · Demos · Contact