VR, AR and "Lean Forward" Versus "Lean Back" Experiences

It is too early to determine whether various forms of virtual reality; extended or augmented reality will prove to be marketplace successes, and if so, where and to what degree, even if we might expect the greatest appeal to be in “lean forward” experiences, not “lean back” experiences such as entertainment video. 

Earlier efforts intended to increase the realism of “lean back” content experiences have fizzled, notably 3D and motion simulators, while other less-intrusive innovations such as high-definition TV and 4K have gotten much-better acceptance from consumers. 

Early content innovations including movie color and sound did not face consumer adoption issues as they were incremental improvements to an existing experience and did not require purchasing of new equipment or changes in behavior. 

That began to change as television was introduced, since consumers sometimes must buy new equipment to take advantage of enhancements such as color, stereo and other sound enhancements or higher-image quality features, internet access and so forth. 

 

But HDTV and 4K offer incremental improvements to the existing “lean back” viewing experience, not wholesale changes in experience. That might not be so true of VR or AR, which arguably mostly enhance “lean forward” interactive experiences. 

So some amount of consumer resistance to virtual reality games and other content might be attributed to equipment cost or user convenience and other issues such as a “killer” application or use case. Also, a simple lack of content could have been a barrier. 

Regarding virtual reality, some users experience motion sickness when using VR headsets. Another issue is the high cost of entry for high-quality VR hardware and content. The most-immersive and compelling VR experiences often require expensive headsets, powerful computers or gaming consoles, and specialized software or games. 

Some of the same issues--equipment cost; discomfort and inconvenience--have arguably limited 3D content success. 

The point is that VR and AR might be uncomfortably more similar to 3D TV than to color and image quality for television and video content experiences, potentially enhancing “lean forward” rather than “lean back” experiences such as traditional TV and video experiences. 

In other words, AR and VR extend the interactive media experience (gaming, web browsing, social media, shopping, learning), with far less relevance for “lean back” entertainment video. 

"Lean forward" media refers to interactive experiences that require active participation from the user, while "lean back" media involves passive consumption of content. VR and AR are fundamentally designed to be interactive and immersive, aligning them more closely with the "lean forward" paradigm. 

So VR and AR are extensions of gaming and other interactive experiences such as search, e-commerce or e-learning or social media, and not so much an extension of lean-back media. 

Lean-forward media typically involves shorter attention spans, as users actively seek specific information.

Lean-back media typically works with longer attention spans. Lean-forward is more active; lean-back is more passive. 

So the logical issues are perhaps centered on how VR and AR can enhance interactive media, and not so much how those platforms apply to lean-back media. Most of the successful innovations related to lean-back media enhance the realism of the experience, so it is not impossible for VR and AR to create value for traditionally passive content consumption. 

But storytelling remains central for entertainment. That is not true for most interactive media, where there typically is some goal-oriented purpose (communicate, play, shop, learn). 

That noted, the perhaps more promising use cases for lean-back media include performances, concerts and live events; theme park attractions or sports content.