The Ello Blog

No fluff and no zombie stats — just the numbers behind virtual try-on, where they come from, and what they mean for your store. Every figure is cited.

• 1 in 40 vs 1 in 4: The Online Conversion Gap Is a Confidence Gap — Online fashion converts ~1.5–3% vs 15–30% in-store — a ~10x gap. Most of it is structural, but one slice (visual confidence) is addressable before purchase. The honest, sourced breakdown.
• Sunglasses Virtual Try-On: Why AI Covers More Frames Than AR — AR eyewear try-on needs a 3D model of every frame; 2D AI renders any sunglasses from a flat photo, for pennies, seen by every shopper. Sunglasses are a style decision, not a fit decision — the honest AI-vs-AR comparison, sourced.
• Why Hats Are the Easiest Accessory to Add a Virtual Try-On To — Hats barely have a sizing problem, so a try-on for them is pure style confidence — and 2D AI covers them with no camera or 3D model. Why headwear is the easiest, least-competitive accessory to add a try-on to.
• AI Try-On vs AR Try-On: What's Actually the Difference? — AR try-on needs a live camera and a 3D model; AI try-on generates an image from a flat photo. The fork is the camera — and it decides cost, reach, and catalog coverage. A neutral, sourced explainer.
• 3D vs 2D Virtual Try-On: Why the Expensive One Stopped Winning — 3D try-on costs $99–$349 per SKU and only ~8–23% of shoppers use it. 2D AI try-on runs on your existing product photo, reaches everyone, and costs pennies. The ROI math, fully sourced.