I watched a good panel discussion last week from CAT in New York. The panel talked about “Location,” specifically as it relates to mobile geo-location. Members of the panel were from Foursquare, Booyah, and AKQA. Interesting panel make-up, all with good perspectives. The one thing missing from all of them – how mobile, specifically “location-based advertising,” fits into the larger brand marketing ecosystem. The discussion was all around mobile as its own silo. They all talked about how important it is for brands to create deeper, meaningful engagement with vs. “advertising” to their customers, which is definitely hitting on something larger than a single silo. But they really weren’t purposeful about talking how effective their apps (Foursquare and MyTown) could be cross-channel, particularly with OOH (the “new” OOH is much more than a canvas to broadcast messages to masses). All in all, though, it’s good to hear other perspectives and get a glimpse into how companies (providers and agencies) are thinking about location-based/behavioral targeting and advertising. We need one of these on OOH!! (The video is a little long ~20 minutes, but worth a listen!)
First, it was a talking, feeling, thinking bike, now it’s a tree. Thanks to Happiness Brussels, we are now able to hear and see this tree’s thoughts and feelings. Aside from the fact that this is yet another example of how (enabling) technology can turn any real-world object into an engagement mechanism (this is true 11th Screen stuff here), the purpose behind the initiative is meaningful – to create a discussion around climate change. This, just as Nike’s Precious Bike did, illustrates the power of anything and everything “Out of Home” as a conduit to drive consumers deeper into a brand/discussion. As I’ve maintained here, the “new” Out of Home is not Digital Out of Home, it is utilizing the things and spaces around us to engage consumers and drive them deeper into the brand experience. While this execution is technically a “push only” execution on the surface, it is designed to facilitate discussion across multiple social channels, and it is in those channels that 2-way (push/pull) communication occurs. OOH is just one channel in the communication mix. Facebook, Flickr, Vimeo, Soundcloud, and Twitter are other ones. .com is another one. They’re not hard to make work together, it just requires forethought and planning. If you’re able to do that, these are the types of solutions you can make. Complete. Not silo’ed.
Mark your calendars, if you’re in NYC or not – September 23, Honda plans to launch Times Square’s first 3-D billboard for their new sporty hybrid, the CR-Z. They’re going all out with this campaign, focusing on many emerging technologies, including 3-D, iPad/mobile apps (their interactive brochure that launched last week), a Facebook app that includes a video wall (?), and no telling what else. Be on the lookout!
This code showed up right after the announcement for Glee, Season 2 and stayed on the screen for no more than 5 seconds. Knowing what this was and having the curiosity to interact, we paused the TV so I could snap a picture of the code. It being Glee, I held out hope that I would find something exclusive on the other end, something fun, engaging, unexpected.
Wrong. Just another mobile site with videos.
While I was happy to see videos (and even a choice of videos), I just felt jilted of a unique experience, which is what I expect from the Glee “brand.”
Here’s my takeaway from this, one that I haven’t verbalized before now – the brand identity trumps everything. It sets the context for everything a brand does. For the Glee brand, it’s not about implementing new technology (QR codes) like everyone else does. It’s about implementing new technology in the Glee “way,” commiserate with the brand identity.
Right now, with new technology like this, I’m sure brands are merely experimenting without any expectations. On the consumer side, it’s raising awareness for this type of technology and satisfying an urge to know “more” about their favorite show. But with this audience, in particular, Glee could take the experiment much deeper while still exposing their audience to the technology. What about a mash-up? What about an all-Glee scavenger hunt? What about a simple ringtone? These are Glee-type executions that, without consciously thinking about it, I already expect from the brand. So, when I don’t get it, it makes me care a little bit less, not wanting to engage a little bit more.
Nike one-ups the Chalkbot with Precious – the bike with a brain. This “brain,” made by Breakfast, New York is the ultimate enabling technology. It not only merges the real-world (offline) with the virtual world (online), it actually processes data like a brain and then responds (via Twitter) accordingly. It’s pretty amazing what they’ve made.
They’ve explored an interesting angle here, one that is much more in play here vs. Chalkbot – the thing (bike) is the hero, not the person (bike rider). (I also think it’s way cool that they’ve given a voice to Precious on the website, and taken it away (for the most part) from the rider, as you can see by the picture-only blog). This is a great example of the potential of the things and places around us – not people or true “screens” – that can engage consumers in ways we never thought possible. Technology is key to this. And in this specific instance, this brain technology actually enables the messaging to take on a life of its own. These messages are not customized based on the audience, they’re customized based on the messenger, powered by all of the context leading up to each message.
For marketers this is one of those game-changing ideas and executions. A thinking, talking bike? A “thing” that can provide content with a more-than-decent level of context. It truly learns as it goes. This is what gets me excited. This is the potential that I see in this space – those who are effective (will) understand the power of merging offline (which to me, is “out-of-home”) with online to create deep, meaningful brand experiences for their consumers.
And here we are, QR codes again. There’s no other enabling technology that I’ve blogged about more here than QR codes. For good reason – I think they have good potential, but I just don’t know if they make the general consumer’s life easier. So, I don’t know that they’ll ever take off here in the U.S. (And I do have the perspective of actually implementing a program around them for a large brand.)
That said, I read what amounted to a good post this morning on QR codes, but it was another example that supports my doubt. The post was titled, “NYC Garbage Trucks Take QR Codes Mainstream,” so it piqued my interest. But when I saw what it was, I just had to shake my head:
How many people take pictures of garbage trucks? How many people want to get close enough to garbage trucks to take a picture of them? I mean, who came up with this idea? I just don’t get it. What are they trying to accomplish? Apparently, there’s a video behind the code that supports a recycling initiative in NYC, but it’s also going to run on TV. Why don’t they just advertise the details of the TV spot? Or just paste the URL big and bold on the side of the garbage truck that would accomplish the same thing?
I don’t think this is going to take QR codes mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, if Calvin Klein can’t do it with a super-large QR code on the side of a building, I doubt that the city of NYC can do it on the side of garbage trucks.
There is something to be said with delivering (exclusive) content through technology like this. More and more, technologies are enabling brands to merge the offline with the online. (This is the future of marketing, in my opinion.) QR codes are no different. But brands are still a ways away from utilizing these technologies correctly, and to their fullest ability.
What do you think of this garbage truck initiative? Will they bring QR codes into the mainstream?
I didn’t run into the Happiness Machine, but I ran into the next best thing – Coke’s interactive (via touch screen) vending machine. A true 11th Screen kiosk. Say what you will about Coke as a product – as a brand, I think they are doing many things right. They do a good job across platforms, they’re really good at social, and as most recently evidenced by their Happiness Machine, they’re pushing IOOH, and innovation. I saw this 3-sided kiosk in a mall – 2 of the sides consisted of branding (from other advertisers) and then, this side, was one big interactive display.
I think this scorecard review is going to be pretty straight-forward.
Purpose – The purpose here is clear – sell drinks. I don’t know why more and more products like these don’t do what Coke has done here. You’re going to have vending machines. People already buy from them. Why not maximize that effort by creating something that can immerse consumers deeper into the brand and can support other advertisements? (I assume cost is one of the biggest barriers.) With this framework, Coke can advertise their own products, other advertiser’s products, or even the mall.
Drama – You can see for yourself – you can’t miss this thing. I think the one thing working against it, just as any installation like this, is the fact that digital (non-interactive) posters are commonplace throughout malls today. Someone could see this and just expect for it not to be interactive. I think they’ve done a good job here of utilizing the space – the primary real estate for the products and the secondary real estate for ads. Something moves on the screen at all times, so it stands a real good chance of stopping people.
Usability – There were two things I could do besides purchasing. 1) Select one of the drinks and 2) scroll through them. The experience wasn’t deep at all. Simple. But just right. My mom could operate this without any trouble.
Interactivity – This was a single-touch touch screen and not much different than a “normal” vending machine. The screen was responsive to touch (even though it might not look like it at the beginning of the video – I sometimes have a hard time operating the camera and touching at the same time) and I thought it was executed very well. I like how they also included a mobile component for one of their products (Sprite) whereby the user could text in a short code, made aware by this screen, to receive updates and rewards. Although this particular component doesn’t connect offline with online, they’re smart to include it if they have it, particularly in a dynamic experience like this.
Information – High quality video, animation, stills. They told the Coke (and products) stories with the ads, not the interactive component. Every piece of content in here is highly produced which is necessary when displayed on something this big. I thought they did a good job of incorporating the right content, not only type of content, but length of content. And they ran all of the ads on a loop. This was all very purposeful and run by someone who knew the space and what they were doing.
Personalization – No real personalization beyond my single-touch, single-user experience. The mobile component brought a level of personalization in the fact that it extends the experience onto a consumer’s mobile phone, which is very personal. As far as the actual kiosk goes, though, there was really no need for my experience to be personalized. (Now, in the future, when this experience is smart enough to know that I like Coke and not Diet Coke, not only can it serve me the right ads, but it can also present me with the right options instead of everything in the lineup. Then, it’d be personalized.)
All in all, I was really happy to see this. Hopefully cost won’t be as big of a barrier in the future as it might be now and we’ll see these more and more. It sure does make a lot of sense.
Have any of you seen any of these? Not only for Coke but other brands? Probably the most notable is Best Buy’s interactive vending machines, but this is the first I’ve seen of a drink maker. If so, shoot them my way. I’d love to learn about them.
I had Daddy’s Day Out this weekend, so the kids and I journeyed to Lowe’s to check out some tile for a back-portch-tiling-project. I think that home improvement stores like this are ripe with interactive out-of-home opportunities, with all the DIY’ers and supplies and possibilities…there are only so many employees walking around who have expertise in your desired improvement area. Here, technology could help bridge the gap and influence buying decisions in a sound, effective way. I’ve played around with the “pick-your-paint” program on the computer in the paint section, but I haven’t seen anything else on the interactive front. Until now. Enter Whirlpool’s washer/dryer attempt at interactivity via this touchscreen (Yes, that is one of my sons saying “dad” over and over again – disregard that.):
So, let’s put it up against the scorecard and see how she does.
Purpose – as with any of these installations in retail environments, the purpose is to sell products and a clear way to sell products is to highlight all of the its benefits. This particular touchscreen solution highlights clear benefits of the washer and dryer and ended up driving me deeper into the brand. But quite honestly, I left more confused than educated. It looked cool, but it really didn’t give me the information I wanted. I believe products like washers and dryers need comparisons (against like products) to really make the most informed buying decision. Without the help of a sales associate, I have no idea how this product rates against the others. I only know that this is the best product on the floor, which I assumed of course, given that it was the only one that got special space-age, touchscreen love.
Drama – if I weren’t looking for it, I would have easily missed it. And by “it,” I mean anything that looks touchable and interactable via touchscreen, because, well, that’s what I do. If I were to watch 5 random people stop by this washer/dryer, I guarantee at least half would not know they could interact with the screen. This small, little screen that hung over the washer/dryer. Physical placement on the floor didn’t help matters either, because two washer/dryers over, there was a non-interactive, digital screen touting how great that one was. I assumed since I couldn’t touch the other one that I couldn’t touch this one, but low and behold, I was wrong. After realizing that this one was interactive, I thought the use of video avatars and the spacey animations were catchy, although I can’t find whether or not they’re on brand. I have a feeling they were just catchy elements that they used to theme the experience. For me, it seemed out of left field and after interacting with it, I found those elements distracting.
Usability – maybe it was my kids distracting me, but I had no idea where to begin and where to end in this experience. While the content seemed to be bucketed in a logical manner, the content itself seemed very nebulous. Once I got into one of the buckets of information, I didn’t know how much I could experience. When I felt like each piece of content was “finished,” it wasn’t, and when when I wanted it to be finished, it kept going. The spacey animations worked into the actual functionality of the experience, too, and it just made it more difficult to me than I felt like it needed to be. I walked away from the experience thinking that they did this just to be cool. And while I appreciate that, I don’t know how useful it really is to the intended audience.
Interactivity – everything was based on touch in this experience. The screen itself was fairly responsive, but I think the content in the application slowed everything down, including responsiveness. The content was probably a processor suck with rich graphics, video, and spacey animations. As you can see in the demo, I pressed a couple of times without any immediate response. I also didn’t know what all was “hot” (pressable) and not.
Information – the struggle with any “advertisement” in this open day and age is how in-your-face it is. Brands are being recognized more and more by providing utility to consumers. How useful is the information brought to me by brand X? Does it make my life easier? Is it helping me out? Questions like this are dictating purchasing decisions. Brands are getting credit without stuffing advertisements down your face. Here, as a consumer, I recognized what Whirlpool is trying to do. They’re trying to influence my purchasing decision. But instead of telling me how great this product is, I want to know how it compares to similar products. A comparison tool would be useful to me. It would help my decision-making. I appreciated “consumer reviews” in this experience, but I can’t tell whether they come from real people or from actors. The production of the piece makes it seem like actors, which in turn, takes credibility away from what they’re saying. If it were up to me, I would have gone a much simpler route (still maintaining quality production value) with real people and real problems and real comparisons. I think that in-store experiences like this are going to hinge on reviews, thus making the experience inherently social, so brands will have to know what consumers are saying about them before-hand, good or bad. This would just help frame how to present the content. If Whirlpool thinks these are the best products ever and their audiences either disagree or don’t know about them, then those two insights should drive the content in the experience (and they might have – in fairness, I don’t know what drove their decisions to make any part of this experience.) I checked out their Facebook page and they’re engaging with their fans on a customer-service basis only. Sentiment seems to be mixed among the fraction of the community of 2,000+ who engages with them. If I’m sitting in the room with the CMO, I’m telling him to get his social in order before embarking on an interactive out-of-home experience. At least, set a strategy for social so you know how it plays into the entire brand experience, this included.
Personalization – this is a single-touch, single-user experience so there is a sense of personalization that comes along with this type of experience. Beyond that, the experience had no other level of personalization. This is a great opportunity for the brand to offer up some sort of discount to the user who interacts, either from the touchscreen itself or to the user’s mobile phone. If, after seeing the information here, I wanted to buy one of these products, I should have a little incentive. My personal golden ticket.
I’ve taken the grades out of this scorecard. I just don’t think I have enough information to make responsible judgements. That said, I wished for more in this experience. I would not have made a decision to buy this product based on this experience, and if you go back to the original purpose that I believe drove this solution, it failed. I’d love to see metrics on this and if it really impacted the bottom line.
I can’t say enough about creating toward objectives. If the objective is to create awareness, go ahead, get crazy, you can do wild things if you want. If the objective is to convert shoppers into buyers, laser-focus in on the best way to do that in today’s ecosystem-driven world.
Life is becoming more and more interactive right in front of our eyes. Today’s installment brought to you through mobile interactivity. One of the most popular forms of mobile interaction, centered around our lives and connections, is geo-location based services like Gowalla and Foursquare.
I personally play both of them, and I emphasize “play.” Not only do they provide another source of social connection, but they enable a game-like experience in my life. (I’ve also helped implement one of the first B2C experiences in Gowalla, a trend with both of them that is now picking up more steam.)
New to the game, both literally and figuratively, is Stickybits.
Stickybits is fascinating. The technology is centered around bar codes – these “stickybits” – to which people can attach photos, videos, and/or written word. In essence, they enable any real-world object to easily be made into social objects, ones that can be shared, passed around, commented on, connected through – anything, really, that you can imagine sharing with someone, just through a simple barcode. (You can either buy barcodes from Stickybits or you can use existing barcodes and download the Stickybits app, which is only available on iPhone and Android right now.)
As an example, think of a birthday card (which has a barcode). Instead of signing a long, drawn-out message on this birthday card, I can record a special video message and attach it to the card. Then, I can pass it around to others in the office for them to attach their special message to it. Then, when the recipient receives the card, they can scan the barcode and experience everyone’s messages. Cool, eh?
Think now, of applying/using user reviews. If I want to see what others have said about a new pair of tennis shoes before I buy them, I can scan the barcode and see a list of user reviews, provided someone has started the “string.” If not, I can create the review myself and attach it to the code for others to see who come after me.
There are cool things that you can do as the initiator of this string – you’re basically the moderator of all content posted thereafter. Anyone who contributes to the string can receive automatic updates and become even more involved in the (virtual) conversation.
From a brand’s perspective, this should be really exciting. Any packaged good that they produce has a barcode. They can easily attach a brand message or a special call-to-action or exclusive content for all who come into contact with that product to experience. You want to attach a special message from a thought-leader, or an executive at the company? No problem. You want users to vote on a particular flavor of soda (Mountain Dew)? No problem. You want Tom Hanks to deliver a Forrest Gump-like anecdote on that box of chocolates? No problem.
I talk often about the power of merging the offline with the online. It’s really what the 11th Screen is all about. This technology not only enables that real-time merging, but it provides connection, interactivity, and a little fun.
I just read a great re-cap post on “super brand’s” use of Augmented Reality from Chris Lake on Econsultancy and it got me thinking. Specifically about AR & QR codes. I call both technologies enabling technologies because they both enable the offline to be merged with the online. And they both enable deeper experiences with the brand. But QR codes – really any barcodes – just don’t seem to have the attraction, nor the experimentation to scale and use that AR has. Why do you think this is?
Aside from the end-visual difference between the two, I think it’s simple – QR codes don’t do for a brand what AR does. In other words – QR codes are just another way to access information. AR is another way to experience a brand. It’s quite a big difference.
At the end of the day, do we really need QR codes? We can duplicate the same experience through advertising a URL or a short code. Some would even argue that accessing a deeper level of information through a URL/short code is a better experience than through a QR code. You don’t have to understand what it is, how it works, download an app, take a picture. Just simply type or text for the information you want.
AR, on the other hand, is an experience unto itself. You can’t duplicate the experience any other way. And because AR is what it is, it allows brands to either create an experience or utility that can show things in ways that no other medium can. And that’s one of the fascinating things to me about AR – it transcends the mediums/screens we use to consume media. It lives, literally, somewhere between your hands in the real world and your eyes on whatever screen you experience it on. It can immerse someone in a brand far more effectively than any barcode can. And depending on the actual solution, it can probably immerse someone more than a TV commercial can, or a website, or a banner ad, or a “static” video.
QR codes & AR both have hurdles for sure. Start with the technology needed and the effort required to access either of them. But because of what each provides, do you think one will outlive the other? Or do you think that they’re both here to stay?
Emerging Technology, Mobile 
No Comments 
