A shop-floor conversational robot draws more attention but depresses sales-ready engagement: the bot (and a visibility-boosting fixture) prompts more passersby to stop yet lowers staff approaches, entries and purchases as clerks avoid interrupting and interactions cluster at the threshold.

Main Finding

A small conversational retail robot significantly increased attention (stopping) at a store entrance—especially when paired with a purpose-built fixture—but reduced clerk-initiated downstream engagement (approach, entry, assisted experience) and lowered purchase rates per stopper. Net purchases per passerby did not change significantly. Qualitative interviews attribute this divergence to entrance anchoring (often child-focused), clerk non-interruption norms, ambiguous handoff timing due to conversational latency, and fixture-anchored “micro-spaces” where curiosity closed without interior engagement.

Key Points

• Quantitative headline effects (Baseline → Robot-only → Robot+Fixture):
  • Stopping per passerby: 0.73% → 1.50% → 2.48% (Robot+Fixture > Robot-only > Baseline; p < .001).
  • Clerk approach per stopper: 19.73% → 13.41% → 4.83% (decline; p < .001).
  • Store entry per stopper: 31.97% → 20.12% → 9.46% (decline; p < .001).
  • Assisted in-store experience per stopper: 18.37% → 6.10% → 4.02% (decline; p < .001).
  • Purchase per stopper: 11.56% → 5.49% → 2.62% (decline; p < .001 for omnibus; Baseline > Robot+Fixture).
  • Purchase per passerby: 0.084% → 0.082% → 0.065% (no significant difference).
  • Sample product touch: increased most in Robot-only (63.72%) compared to Baseline (47.62%); Robot+Fixture was lower (46.68%).
• Qualitative themes from six staff interviews:
  • T1 Entrance anchoring: robot captures gaze, especially children, increasing stops but not purchase intent.
  • T2 Conversion barriers: high-ticket items (bedding) require clerk negotiation; robot interest often insufficient.
  • T3 Timing/priority: clerks avoid interrupting robot-customer interaction and face ambiguous timing due to conversational latency.
  • T4 Role positioning: norms developed where robot attracts and clerks defer; handoffs were rarely explicit.
  • T5 Fixture effects: fixture increased visibility and stopping but anchored interactions at the threshold, reducing interior movement.
• Interpretation: Robots can be powerful attention generators but may inadvertently reduce human-led selling if staging, handoff protocols, and staff coordination are not explicitly designed.

Data & Methods

• Setting: live 12-day field experiment in a bedding retail store in Japan during normal operations.
• Conditions: Baseline (no robot), Robot-only (robot at entrance), Robot+Fixture (robot mounted on an entrance fixture). Each condition ran 4 non-consecutive days, balanced for weekday/weekend.
• Robot system: small humanoid (“Sota”), speech via Google Speech APIs, conversational/dialogue state managed with OpenAI GPT-4 family, front display for prompts; fixture provided platform and sample product placement (dimensions ~0.70m W × 0.58m D × 1.68m H).
• Measures:
  • Primary funnel metrics: passerby counts; stopping per passerby; per-stopper outcomes — clerk approach, store entry, staff-led entry, assisted in-store experience (>30s), sample touch, and purchase.
• Data collection/analysis:
  • Video annotation from entrance webcam and store 360° camera; two researchers logged observations.
  • Statistical tests: Pearson chi-square omnibus tests with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons; Cochran–Armitage trend tests reported.
• Qualitative component:
  • Six semi-structured staff interviews (1 manager + 5 clerks), 30–60 minutes each, audio-recorded and transcribed; reflexive thematic analysis with iterative coding.
• Ethics/data handling: Institutional review approved; video stored encrypted; transcripts pseudonymized.

Implications for AI Economics

• On returns to robot deployment
  • Attention ≠ conversion. Investments that raise passersby attention (stopping) do not guarantee higher sales for high-ticket, advice-dependent goods. ROI should be estimated with downstream conversion metrics (entry, assisted engagement, purchase per passerby), not only impressions or stopping.
  • The fixture was a low-cost staging investment that amplified visibility, but it changed the spatial and conversational ecology in ways that reduced conversion—so staging costs can have ambiguous marginal returns.
• Labor complementarity vs substitution
  • Short-term effect: robot reduced clerk-initiated approaches (substitutive effect on the act of initiating contact), but that substitution was not productivity-enhancing because it lowered assisted selling (a complementary service for high-price items).
  • Policy/design implication: robots that attract but do not hand off effectively can weaken the complementarity that drives sales. Explicit, low-friction handoff protocols (visual cues, short turn-taking scripts, incentives for timely staff intervention) are needed to preserve complementarity.
• Organizational externalities and behavioral frictions
  • Non-intrusion norms and ambiguous conversational latency created coordination frictions. Economists and managers should model not just customer responses but also endogenous staff behavior (priority setting, social norms) when predicting impacts of automation in service contexts.
• Segmentation and product fit
  • Robot attraction skewed to children and accompanying adults; product-market fit matters. For child-oriented products, robots may improve conversion; for high-consideration items requiring consultation, robots may generate low-value traffic.
• Measurement and evaluation recommendations
  • Use funnel-based KPIs: stopping per passerby, entry per stopper, assisted interactions, purchases per stopper and per passerby. Track sample touch and staff interventions separately.
  • Include staff behavior metrics and qualitative feedback in evaluations to capture coordination costs and latent effects.
  • Run randomized or alternating-condition deployments and measure heterogeneity by customer segment and time-of-day to estimate net revenue impacts.
• Design & incentive suggestions for practitioners
  • Make handoffs explicit and low-cost: short robot prompts like “A staff member will be right with you” plus a visual signal to staff.
  • Spatially separate “attract” (robot/fixture) and “recommend” (clerk engagement) zones so curiosity does not close at the threshold.
  • Train staff on timing and minimal interruption norms; consider scheduling or incentive mechanisms to reduce hesitation in intervening.
  • Tailor robot behavior and staging to product type and target customer segment.
• Research opportunities for AI economics
  • Model the multi-agent interaction: customers, robot, and staff as strategic agents with incomplete information and coordination frictions—analyse when robot deployment increases or decreases expected revenue.
  • Dynamic/adaptive policies: evaluate learning algorithms that adjust robot behavior or handoff timing to maximize conversions while minimizing staff coordination costs.
  • Long-run equilibrium: study whether norms and staff behaviors evolve (e.g., staff learn to intervene) and how that changes welfare and firm-level returns over time.

Bottom line: Service robots can reliably draw attention but may depress revenue-generating human interactions unless deployment design explicitly integrates staging, handoffs, staff incentives, and product-market fit. Economic evaluations must therefore include downstream conversion metrics and staff-behavior effects, not only attention metrics.