Remember those boots that I talked about my wife finding at JC Penney, the last time I wrote an Out & About (their “Find More” kiosk)? Well, they really didn’t work out – they weren’t the right boots. So, the past couple of weeks have been “mission-on” again to find the right boots. She/we’ve searched offline and online at virtually every store to find these boots, and finally, at our local Kohl’s, we found what seemed to be a solid substitute – the perfect combination of style, color, versatility, and something that can’t be overlooked insofar as women’s shoes go – price. As was the case at JC Penney, while my wife found boots, I found another example of Interactive Out-of-Home (IOOH) – the Kohl’s Kiosk.
This was some kiosk, if you ask me. They seem to be getting better and better, the more I see. My first impression was positive, but I had to put it up against the scorecard to get the full picture. So, let’s take a look.
Purpose – the common purpose for all of these in-store kiosks is to obviously drive the consumer to purchase. Those are the table stakes – you want to put a kiosk like this in a store – how is going to help the store drive sales? Once that question is answered, I think it’s important to also understand if & how the kiosks are making the shopping experience easier for the consumer and in any way, making the life of the store employee better. It stands to reason that if the kiosk accomplishes those goals, they’re going to drive a fair amount of sales. So, it is here – both in making the consumer’s experience easier and the employee’s life better. These kiosks are a price-checker, in-store catalog, and check-out machine all in one. What else do you need, other than human-to-human contact? This is an element that shouldn’t be overlooked, but I think now more than ever, consumers are more purposeful shoppers vs. casual shoppers. They know what they want and don’t need a lot of help & interaction when they’re in this mindset. All they really need is the Kohl’s Kiosk.
Drama – I think these are fabricated and located just right. They’re not obnoxious in their form, but they’re prominent and noticeable. They don’t block any major traffic areas, but they’re convenient to access via those major traffic areas. In our local Kohl’s, I saw 2 of these kiosks (1 in the shoe department, 1 near the frames), and they were both next to/facing the isle, and whether or not you were looking, you were bound to notice them. The smart thing in their form – they occupy space from floor to ceiling, all of the interaction points are well-placed (touchscreen at eye/torso level and price-scanning/check-out at waist level), and include multiple awareness points (high above the clothes and fixtures, there is a 4-sided “Kohl’s Kiosk” sign and again, at eye level, there is a looping animation with a clear “Touch Screen” indicator/call-to-action). Everything about the form and placement seems to be well thought-out and purposeful.
Usability – blah. I understand that these kiosks need to access the real-time database and as a result, are going to run a little bit slower than I’d like. This is probably not an issue to the average consumer. All in all, considering the vast inventory, it wasn’t bad at all. I just hate seeing the arrow & hourglass. They modified this experience from their website experience, namely to adjust to the touchscreen form. The buttons were big enough and spaced out nicely. The information was presented in a clear, easy-to-use way, and the navigation was intuitive (no different than a good web experience). I also liked the fact that they had a global navigation menu docked to the bottom of the screen that allows the user to access any of the main categories in a click.
Interactivity – this was a single user, single touch experience and for the most part, the touchscreen was responsive. The true value in this kiosk, for me, comes in the form of the other interactive elements, aside from its touchscreen. Consumers have the ability to take any piece of merchandise with a UPC tag and scan it. In return, they’ll see the price, the quantity, and where in-store it’s located. In addition, to take it one step further, if the consumer wants to pay out via credit/debit card straight from the kiosk, they have that ability to do that, too. Important to note – this means that these systems must tie to the store’s POS system, which means there is a level of complexity and integration to the solution, which means this was not an afterthought. Impressive.
Information – A+ on all of the product information and access to the in-store and online merchandise. If you want it at Kohl’s, you can get it through this kiosk. But I’m still not seeing a consistent social integration through these. There are many ways to approach this, from being able to access the brand’s social presences, to allowing the consumer to “like” a particular product, to letting them “share this” to their own social communities after purchasing a product, to consumer/social reviews. I hope to see more of this type of content in future iterations of these in-store experiences.
Personalization – no real personalization to speak of through the kiosks, but they have an incredible opportunity to do something special via a loyalty program or simply through their credit cards. The card-scanning mechanism is already in place. With a couple of back-end hooks, they could make this a unique experience for their most loyal customers.
Hands-down, this is the most versatile in-store kiosk I’ve seen this year. I think it should be a model for retailers who are considering one of these in their store. I anticipate seeing more social integration in the coming year. An interesting thought that hit me this morning – I’ve seen and reviewed experiences like this in stores like Walmart, Target, JC Penney, and Kohl’s – staples in middle-class America shopping. Exposing these consumers to technology like this and getting them comfortable with it not only shows confidence in what they consumer will do/interact with, it is also gives us hope that this could be something that is adopted by the masses sooner rather than later.
Have you seen any of these kiosks? What were your impressions? Would love to hear them!
Recently, I’ve talked a lot about the ability (and power) of mobile + code and/or image recognition technology to bridge the offline with the online and drive consumers deeper into brand experiences. I’ve noticed that brands are increasingly becoming better at telling their story through these technologies, which is critical because, now more than ever, consumers can access those brands through a myriad of channels. There’s a long way to go, for sure – brands need to consider their marketing and communications mix, what channels they’re going to advertise and be present in, what story they’re going to tell & how they’re going to tell it in each of those channels, and more importantly, how/if they’re going to support their story in the “unconventional” channels with what they do in the more “conventional” channels. There’s a brand-story component and an advertising component and the crux is always, how well do they work with each other? Organizations, particularly large ones, are often times fragmented to the point of not knowing what each department (marketing, advertising, PR, customer service, etc…) is doing, much less integrating with each other to make their story and individual campaigns stronger. So, it was a nice surprise when I saw a Bud Light commercial (er, Apollo Creed) call out the ability to “snap” a photo of the box and get immediate access to a clever piece of content – the Bud Light Playbook – all football-season long.
It’s great to see the brand a) incorporating technology like this as a way to touch the consumer while they’re out and about and b) raising consumers’ awareness of this new type of experience via their TV (largest “conventional” media channel) spot. This is obviously a much better way to drive this type of action vs. sticking a code on printed material. I think it’s a great case to learn from, particularly when brands want to place these codes/use this type of technology on their packaging. Consumers are smart, but they need as much awareness of these new entry points as brands can give them.
I was at the store this weekend and although I wasn’t in the market for Bud Light, I had to stop and take a picture of the box so I could get into this experience.
When I found a box that could be “activated” (only found on 12-pack cans), I didn’t have to mess around with it to know what to do. Everything was prominent, clear and actionable. They included imagery of the enticement (the Playbook) front and center, the call-to-action was large enough to notice and read, the “code” was prominent, and the directions were clear.
I don’t know that you could do a better job in executing the basics.
As soon as I texted the picture in, I was led on this adventure which I still can’t determine whether it was annoying or smart. The 1st text I received was to verify my age (smart).
The 2nd text was when the true brand experience, in terms of content, started. The options were plentiful – watch this week’s “play”, see more plays, see recipes, tailgating tips, or “Behind Enemy Lines” trailers. And, if I wanted, link directly to the Facebook page. (First impression – smart).
I thought this was excellent in terms of the brand’s story – they clearly have a lot of content to offer in this experience. However, I felt like there were so many options that I might lose out on some of the content. I watched the video first and was completely underwhelmed. It rendered horribly on my phone and seemed to start & stop abruptly. There was no “wrapper” at the beginning and end of the video – when it stopped, it just stopped, and popped me back out to my text message. I watched it again, just to see if I missed anything. I didn’t. I commend them on making these videos unique – in style (graphical), in tone, and in content – but I found the combination to verge on silly and void of value. Nonetheless, I couldn’t stop my brand experience here, so I texted in “A” for more plays.
And what do you think I got? Even MORE options – 3 individual plays and then an option for even more plays. (Annoying, now.) So, I closed my eyes and picked one. And I got back another underwhelming video and just two, simple options – go to Facebook or back to the dreaded multi-option menu. (Less annoying.)
It was at this point that I shut my phone down because I had enough of the mobile experience. It didn’t prove to be valuable to me (in fairness, I wasn’t anywhere near a grill or a football game or any environment this seems intended for) and I was down the path so far that I didn’t know what would be required of me to go back and experience other, non-play-video content. So, I just stopped. I figured I could get a better experience in front of my computer. Sure enough, that was the case.
When I got home, I opened up my trusty computer and went straight to the Bud Light Facebook page. Since I wasn’t a fan, the default for me was the Playbook tab. (In executing initiatives for clients, this is something standard that we do, too – default to the campaign-specific tab until someone “Likes” the brand. At that point, the default page is the Wall.) Right there, front and center, was another image of the code and more call-to-action/instructions. Now, I felt like the experience was back to being smart – seeing this front and center creates another level of awareness that the boxes are interactive and reinforces the ability to get the brand on-the-go. It’s also another opportunity to show how easy it really is.
Quite possibly my favorite element of this page is the ability to see all of the videos that I felt like I missed whenever I took a certain path through the mobile experience. Seeing more videos didn’t change my opinion of them, but it gave me satisfaction in the fact that I now knew the entire “playlist” and wasn’t missing out on any content.
The rest of the page and the different types of content is good. There’s coaches “tips” (for tailgating and grilling) and tailgating/game-watching recipes and an interactive poll – all different types with different levels of interactivity. There really seems to be something for everyone, regardless of the amount of time someone has to spend with the brand at any given time.
In my opinion, the best part about this whole experience, from an outsider’s point of view, and it’s really smart – it’s all centered around a content strategy that releases new content every week. The content well is continuously being filled, if you will. This is an element of the campaign that truly enables a deeper experience with the brand because a) it keeps content fresh and b) the consumer can receive the “fresh” content through multiple channels. They don’t need to be in front of their computer to keep up with the brand. They just need to be part of the experience and it doesn’t matter if they’re in their home or not. In fact, this particular campaign seems to be primarily targeted to those hard-core football fans who would take many Bud Lights out to the game and tailgate, and it’s there, at the game, outside of their home, that they engage with the brand and this content.
Content is key. Simple as that.
This is just another example of how technology enables an otherwise static, 1-way push-message THING (a box) to become an interactive, 2-way communication VEHICLE. It’s an illustration of the “new” OOH that I talk about – more and more, we’re seeing the places and things around us having the ability to be “turned on.” And what this does, not only in reaching consumers where they are, when they want it, how they want it, it changes the game in a profound way because it moves something that has always been used to create awareness to something that can now be used to create engagement. And that, my friends, is what it’s all about.
Thumbing through the latest Sports Illustrated (print edition), I came across 4 different ads that included some sort of enabling technology – technology that enables a static experience to become interactive. 2 of the ads used QR Codes, 1 of the ads used a Microsoft Tag, and the other used Google Goggles. They’re all based on the same premise – bridging the offline (real-world) with the online (virtual world) – but technically, the technology is a little different – QR Codes and MS Tags are 2D Barcodes and Google Goggles is an image-recognition technology. It’s the difference between the information/content being stored in the code vs. in images in the ad. For all intents and purposes, I consider them both effective technologies in merging offline (non-digital) with online (digital). Interestingly, though, I think image recognition technology like Google Goggles would enable a better digital to digital experience. I’ve never understood putting a 2D code on a digital medium to drive to another digital medium. But if I could take a picture of the image on the originating digital medium to drive into another, ideally deeper digital medium/experience, I could see the value. Anyway, it was interesting to see so many different interactive ads in the same place and it allowed me to compare and contrast them in a way that didn’t seem so disparate (like others that I’ve done here).
First, I should point out that I’ve never seen this many interactive print ads in the same publication to date. At the beginning of the year, you would’ve been hard-pressed to have found 1 interactive ad like this in 10 publications. As the year has gone on, it’s not unusual to find 10 publications with 1 interactive ad each (some brands are using these consistently in their print pieces – Ford and Asus, to name two). Over the past couple of months, I’ve noticed a couple in each publication, but never FOUR. I really think this trend is going to continue growing into next year and we’ll see the majority of these ads including some sort of technology like this that enables a deeper, interactive experience with the brand. It’s a no-brainer, in my opinion. However, I do think it’s going to force brands to think about the entire experience rather than just plopping a code onto their print pieces, as it seems is the case more often than not now. The brands who will be successful in using technologies like this are those who put the experience first and let it lead the technology vs. putting the technology first and letting it lead the experience. Overall, when looking at each of these 4 executions, it seems as if the latter is more of the case.
Before I get into dissecting the experiences, I do think it’s important to acknowledge these brands for using these technologies. There are at least 20 other advertisers in this same publication who aren’t using anything other than a URL (if that) to drive consumers deeper into the experience. The catch here, though, is that consumers are smart – when they start using these technologies and scanning codes/images, if they don’t see value on the other end (it can come in many different forms – content, offers, coupons, connections, etc…), they’re going to equate them with being invaluable, and once that happens, it will be hard to change their behavior and get them scanning again.
So, let’s get into it – the biggest consistency was the inconsistency. From the directions that they do/don’t give on the actual print piece to the site they send you to to the content on the site to the extensions beyond the site – none are the same. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – no two brand experiences should be the same – but I do expect some level of standardization on what I believe to be elementary components of this type of experience.
Let’s start with the ads themselves and two things right off the bat – 1) how prominent is the code/ability to know that the ad is interactive and 2) how clear and useful is the call-to-action/instructions?
The 3 ads that include codes, you can clearly tell that they include something unusual-looking that you can probably do something with. (Unlike Stickybits, I think the form factor of both QR Codes and MS Tags are different enough that consumers stop and actually look to see what they’re all about. They might know that they have to do something with them, but they’re not exactly sure what they are and/or how to use them – this is a start. They know that they can take an action.) The ad that included Google Goggles, however, made it difficult to see that there was something interactive about it. Google’s Goggles logo is small and within the context of the ad, it gets lost. So, here, advantage to the 2D codes.
But it doesn’t stop there. Perhaps the most important component of using this technology is the instructions. It’s simple people – don’t get cute with instructions. Say what to do and how to do it in the simplest, most clear terms. Don’t make consumers guess at what they’re supposed to do. Tell them exactly. There’s nothing useful about enabling interactivity if the user can’t figure out how to actually interact with it (same can be said for not knowing what to do with touchscreen experiences). I found all 4 of these to miss the mark on instructions, some a little less drastic than the others. Google Goggles was the clear winner here – their instructions were the closest to being simple and clear.
The only thing they’re missing here is being clear that Goggles is an application. They make the assumption that users will know what “Google Goggles on Android” is, and besides that, they completely ignore iPhone users. I think it’s best to approach these directions with an ultra-conservative mindset in these early stages – be explicitly clear with them. Approach them like no one knows anything about anything. (Then, don’t make them into a book.)
Coming in a close 2nd is Lane Furniture and their MS Tag. One of the clear differentiators, to me, between MS Tags and QR Codes is Microsoft’s proprietary technology to scan and read their codes. There’s only 1 type of reader, only 1 place to get it and anyone can use it. This combination makes instructions easy. I don’t think anyone using MS Tags should stray from the, “Get the free app for your phone at http://gettag.mobi.” Simple, clear, and short. Where these guys go a little astray is in their other instructions – “Snap this icon to snag a coupon…”
“Snap?” “Snag?” “Icon?” Talk about colloquialisms. Why use fancy words when normal words will do? “Take a picture of the code for a coupon…” sounds much more clear and to the point, don’t you think?
The other two – OnStar and Axe – failed miserably on the instructions. OnStar takes the casual language to the next level, to the point of being utterly confusing.
“Just snap this QR code with your phone. If it doesn’t have a QR reader, there are lots of free apps to download.” I think the basic concept in anything, particularly instructions, is making it seem simple and not complicated. “Lots of” anything automatically implies that there are more than a couple. If there are more than a couple, I might very well get overwhelmed, and if I don’t even know what exactly a QR code and/or reader is, I might not even know where to start. I think this is a case of wanting to be cute and not having a word editor that says, “we need to cut everything in half.”
Axe, on the other hand, needs a few more words. “Scan this code to watch the video.”
For the experienced and savvy, this is beautiful. Only problem is that there is an ultra-minute fraction of consumers who are both experienced and savvy with QR Codes. I would bet that here, they’re likely just to use the URL to get to the video instead of scanning the code – that would be a great piece of data to see – when presented with 2 options like this, what do consumers tend to do? What do you want them to do? Yes, go to the website, but why put the QR Code on the ad in the first place unless you want them to scan it?
I’m also of the mindset that this sort of technology can become extremely beneficial if it’s the gateway to something (content or offer) exclusive, only to be seen/accessed through this channel. If anyone can see the same content just by going to the website, I think it devalues the experience.
So, now that we’re on content, let’s turn our attention to that which makes or breaks these experiences – the actual content behind the code/image. All of these 4 brands utilized video in their experience. Makes a lot of sense since video viewing on mobile is a) good and b) expected. I think it’s about the type of video that separates these experiences more than anything. And here, Axe is the winner. The first video you see is an edgy, just-what-you’d-expect-from-Axe video.
I don’t think we’re here yet, but before too long, we’ll be talking about how “on brand” these experiences are. It’s not enough to have this type of technology or video content, it’s going to become about how in line with the brand these experiences are. This sort of content from Axe is definitely “on brand.”
While the others – G2, OnStar, and Lane – included relevant video, there was nothing special about their content. In OnStar’s & Lane’s case, I found the videos to be long, boring, and overall, not compelling.
The actual site from which these videos originated from, and the experience through the code to get to the videos was another point of differentiation. On the positive side, they all sent me to a mobile version of a particular website, be it the product website or a YouTube channel. So, I didn’t have to futz around with navigating through a normal website experience on my mobile phone. That said, the only experience I found to be substantial and complete was the G2 experience. It’s the same experience that I highlighted through another ad last week.
In addition to the video, there are:
Product features
Consumer reviews & forums (social component)
Sharability
Email signup
Store locator
Purchase options
It’s really as complete of an experience you can expect.
The OnStar and Axe experiences, on the other hand, were not complete and honestly, pretty underwhelming. They both took me to a YouTube page where the experiences were similar.
The only difference was that through Axe, they asked me to “Subscribe” to the channel first. It was kind of annoying, but from a brand’s standpoint, I think it’s a smart thing to do. It’s a different form of data collection and through the subscription, the consumer experience with the brand doesn’t stop after this particular experience. Every time a video gets uploaded to the channel, all of the subscribers receive a notification and in turn, go watch the video, and you’re they’re that much deeper in the brand’s experience. I think they could have done so much more, though (at the very least, included more of a clear social – other channels – extension).
Lane’s experience included the ability to sign-up for a coupon (which is always a great enticement) via email and aside from the vague (in this case, absent) opt-in language, enables consumers to receive updates and information from Lane beyond this experience.
There are 2 other things about this particular experience that I appreciated:
The ability to find a store close to me. This is a simple utility that offers another channel (the right one, mind you) to drive consumers into the store.
A mobile experience that is only a sub-set of their normal .com website. Consumers don’t need everything a brand offers on their website through their mobile device. Just the right things. Lane has done a good job here.
I think it’s appropriate to say at this point, if you’ve made it this far in the post, THANKS. It’s the longest post ever. I didn’t want to break it up into 2 different posts because the opportunity to view (and review) this many experiences in the same setting hasn’t come along before and I didn’t want to separate any part of my thoughts.
All that said…drumroll please….I think the winner here is G2 and Google Goggles. But this is what I’d expect out of them. It’s their phone and their enabling technology. I’d be surprised and disappointed if it were anything less than this type of experience. The others ranked this way for me:
2. Lane – their offline (on-page) call-to-action was clearer than the other 2 and their online (on-phone) experience was more valuable and simpler.
3. Axe – their experience was the most “on brand” but I expect more out of Axe, all the way around.
4. OnStar – just think they need to spend a little bit more time thinking through the entire experience and paying off their awesome service in a unique way – they can do some interesting things through these enabling technologies, given the capabilities of their own technology.
Again, it made me happy to see so many in one place. I think there is much potential in this sort of technology. Most importantly, it allows for something that would have otherwise NOT been interactive or a 2-way engagement to be so. It’s opens up an entirely new communication channel. But as we can see here, most everyone has a long way to go to make a complete, compelling, valuable experience through this type of engagement.
So, now that I have belabored this in more ways than one, I’d love to hear your thoughts. What do you think???
OK Go continue their adventures in musical innovation, collaborating with Range Rover in the Evoque Pulse of the City project to create an amazing, geo-mapping, street parade in celebration of their home city, Los Angeles.
The band are going to take to the streets with their instruments and, with the help of GPS technology and the Pulse of the City app, will make a giant geo-art OK Go sign, literally branding themselves into the fabric of the city streets.
But that’s just the beginning. Because once it’s done you’re going to get involved too, with your own streets in your own city and your own designs, using the same technology to write, draw, dance and scream out loud the things you want to tell the world about the place you live and love. When that’s done the band will pick the best ones to accompany an exclusive video launching in January 2011.
Keep track of OK Go on Twitter, Facebook and MySpace to find out more details about the event.
As they say themselves, “The idea is that we are using the world as our palette and our GPS devices (mobile) as our brush.”
See, this is another perfect example of the “new” OOH. ”Screens” are all around us and technology enables the real world to switch “on.” Brands are slowly but surely seeing this opportunity, coupled with ideas of super creative people, and starting to experiment with this always-on trend outside of the 4 walls of someone’s home.
I couldn’t help but share my favorite OK Go video, although after today, I’m sure I’ll have a new favorite. For now, this one is awesome:
As I’ve said before here, I think technology has enabled what was once static to become interactive, particularly as it relates to the “OOH” channel, which up until recently has been a static, “offline” advertising and communications channel. On one hand, you have the digital display technology that enables those static ads to become digitized and as a result, more dynamic, relevant, and meaningful (digital signage). Those digital “screens” have become more efficient advertising channels for brands, and can even help push consumers along the purchase journey, depending on their placement in a particular environment. I don’t talk much about that kind of OOH here. In the coming year, I want to put more of a focus on it here, but that aspect of OOH has never excited me to the point that the other aspect has. Which is the other hand – on the other hand, you have various enabling technologies that enable those static ads to become interactive, and as a result, actually engaging. It’s the difference between a 1-way push message (the former) and a 2-way push/pull communication (the latter). One is passive. The other is active. It’s the active that really excites me. So, I’m always looking for examples that do just that – take what was once passive and make active through these enabling technologies.
I’ve noticed many of these examples this year through print ads. Whether it be QR codes or MS Tags, brands have really started experimenting with this type of engagement. By no means has it taken off, but it’s an easy technology to include from a production standpoint, so I suspect to see the trend continue to grow slowly in the coming year. I think we still have a ways to go to reach critical mass, but the consumers who actually recognize these codes and take a picture of them have the opportunity to engage with the brand in a way that they wouldn’t have had otherwise.
I came across another such technology in this month’s Wired – Google Goggles. I learned about Google Goggles earlier in the year, and as an Android smartphone owner, it was one of the first apps I downloaded. But I haven’t ever had success with it until now. HTC “enabled” their most recent ad with Google Goggles.
If you’re not familiar with Google Goggles, it’s an image recognition technology that enables you, as a user, to snap a photo of a variety of things – landmarks, logos, print ads to name a few – and then learn more about them through mobile web without “searching.” As with other image reading technologies (like the aforementioned codes), it’s designed to be a convenient way to get information you want about anything in the real world. They’re an ideal technology to bridge the offline (real world) with the online (virtual world).
This particular experience was a good one. HTC, supported by their friends at Google (it runs the Android platform), really thought through this and actually maximized the full potential of creating a deeper experience. Once the picture is scanned, you’re taken to the G2 mobile site (yes, it is a mobile site) where you can:
view multiple angles of the phone (awareness)
learn about all of its features, mostly through copy – there’s 1 video that takes you to YouTube – not a great experience (awareness)
see news releases (awareness)
see reviews – as of tonight, there are no reviews on the site (awareness)
see Twitter feed (awareness)
see G2 Forums (awareness/consideration)
share with your social communities (awareness/consideration)
BUY – via your phone, in the most convenient store, and/or later (consideration/conversion)
They have designed this experience to mirror an effective e-commerce site and aside from the Microsoft mobile site I recently experienced, this is the best I’ve seen through any technology like this.
Agree with everything everyone said here, but I don’t think the only answer is Google Goggles. Like I said, up until now, I haven’t had a good experience with the application. It’s had a hard time reading the “real world item” and I’ve found QR codes/MS Tags to be more responsive, and ultimately convenient. The one thing about Google Goggles is that it is designed to enable to “wordless search” via image recognition – what happens if you’re a brand and someone takes a photo of your product and through Goggles is taken to a Google search where right there in the first listing is a bad review? It seems like there are elements of the openness of this that could work against the brand instead of for them. What do you guys think? Have you used Google Goggles? I would love to hear about your experience, if so.
First, SXSW. Then, Facebook. Then, NYC. Now, it looks like the holidays are bringing QR codes with them. It’s the time of the year when we receive loads of holiday circulars and it all started this past week. I like these magazine-type circulars. I like looking through them to see the sales and this year, at least, I like to see if the brands are making any effort to drive consumers deeper into the brand experience. Well, judging by what I saw this week, they’re jumping all over the opportunity.
First, it was Best Buy. I opened it up (I take as many opportunities as I can to remind my wife where she can get me an iPad), and the first thing I see is a big, fat QR code staring me in the face. This really didn’t surprise me because I’ve noticed that Best Buy is now printing QR codes on all of their shelf price labels.
Then, it was Target. We’re on the lookout to help Santa, so of course, I had to see what kind of contribution Target could make. And, bam, right there, 3 on 1 page. I started to get real excited at this point, scanning codes, talking to myself, kind of freaking my family out.
And then, because I felt like we were on a roll with finding these little treasures, when I got our Geico newsletter/magazine, I just knew they had to be using them in some way. So, I opened it up, and sure enough, QR codes sprinkled throughout.
This whole 3-day experience really brought to light a few things for me, all of which made me happy:
Brands (and the agencies supporting them) know what QR codes are.
They’re not afraid to expose them to any type of consumer (tech, toys, insurance.)
They’re taking the opportunity to drive consumers into a deeper brand experience.
I think these basic fundamental acknowledgements are important because it shows a level of comfort, from a brand’s standpoint, to introduce these codes to consumers, in such a mass-visibility way. I suspect there is a little bit of experimentation going on, but they’re exposing them nonetheless. Next question is whether or not consumers will know what to do with these. I wonder how far off I really am – along with the general consumer – in expecting these codes to be included in print pieces like this? By the time I got to the Geico magazine, I expected them to include QR codes. And they did.
So, I believe sooner rather than later, consumers will expect these crazy-looking codes to be in magazines like this and perhaps more print pieces than not. By seeing them in this type of collateral and on windows of their local businesses and at airports, they’re going to know that they can “unlock” some sort of information. It’s really the “payoff” now – the content on the other end – that is going to drive expectations and perceived value. The content is certainly more important than the code, but we have to start with the code and getting consumers familiar with them.
We’ve implemented quite a few code-based initiatives this year and have learned from each one of them. Here are some best practices that we follow:
Before creating the codes, understand what you are going to offer to the consumer once they scan the code. Is it going to be a mobile version of your site? Is it going to be a video? Is it going to be a text? Is it going to be a VCard? You must answer this question before you get into creating the actual code.
Creating the codes is the easy part. We’ve used Kaywa and I’ve seen ScanLife a lot lately. It’s a simple process, just follow the directions with whichever service you’re going to use.
Understand where the code is going to be placed, when printed. Is it going to be circular like this? Or is it going to be on a poster? Or is it going to be on a magazine ad? You’ll need to include instructions for consumers to understand what it is and how to actually use it. What kind of piece it’s going to be printed on will dictate the amount of instructional information you can include. At the very least, let consumers know that they can a) scan the code for something else (more content, special offers, etc…) and b) how to do it. This includes telling them what QR code reader application they need on their smartphone and that they need to take a picture of the code.
If you have the means to use/implement a text messaging service, it would give the consumer another way to “unlock” the information without scanning a code. Include this option in your instructions.
Let consumers know – very clearly – what they can expect by scanning the code. This can be a simple text description next to the code.
And finally, if at all possible, make sure the content offered up on the “other side of the code” is appropriate to experience on a mobile phone. If you can help it, don’t send them to the regular .com. Send them to the mobile version of the site or even directly to a Vimeo/YouTube playlist. The more valuable the content on the other side is, the more value consumers will perceive to be behind these codes.
QR codes are an ideal technology to enable the offline and the online to converge. They’re so simple to create, if you have the wherewithal to use them and good content to use, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t include the codes on all of your printed pieces. It’s good to see so many brands using them. At the beginning of the year, I don’t feel like anyone really knew what QR codes were, certainly not the average consumer. But if these holiday circulars are any sign of the times, it hasn’t taken long to learn.
(Full Disclosure – I am a part of the Chevrolet Texas team who executed the following work.)
A couple of weeks ago, I shared a model that illustrates the different components of what I believe to be the “new” OOH. The “new” OOH is less about awareness and more about engagement, specifically on the places and things around us. Technology has reached a point where it can enable anything to become a “screen,” so while I agree that general awareness is still a critical component in any brand’s marketing mix, I think that brands have an opportunity to use those screens to engage consumers, to drive them deeper into a brand experience.
This past week, we had another opportunity to make one of those “things” around us interactive – a car. We’ve done this before for the same client (Chevy) at SXSW. Only then, we placed QR codes on the cars so attendees could learn more about the cars just by scanning the code. This time, we’ve placed a Stickybit on one of the cars.
We’re caught up in the World Series here in Dallas. It’s heightened because the Cowboys are a lost cause and the Rangers have been so bad for such a long time. So, the fan fare down here is through the roof. The Rangers have this inside thing about claws and antlers, so during the Yankees series, we created an “Antler Yourself” site where users could upload a photo and customize it with the antlers of their choice, then send it to all of their friends on social channels.
When the Rangers reached the series, we had an opportunity to extend it in a couple of places and one of the most intriguing was through the use of one of the cars in the fleet. But instead of just advertising the URL on the car, we knew we could extend the experience even more through a technology like Stickybits.
Quick 101 on Stickybits – it’s a bar code-scanning technology that allows people to attach “bits” (content) to any bar code through scanning it on a mobile phone. You just need the app and a bar code. And for those items, like cars, that don’t have bar codes on them, Stickybits provides bar codes that you can put on anything you want.
By attaching the Stickybit to the car, not only are we able to allow people to upload their “Antler” photos directly to the bar code, we’re able to turn the car into a much larger virtual scrapbook. People can send Good Luck messages to the Rangers via written word, or they can attach a video or a piece of audio, they can even attach different kinds of pictures (which we’ve seen, primarily with tailgating photos). As of right now, there are 38 bits attached to the code, which means there are 38 different pieces of content that people can experience. This is much more engaging than just placing the URL on the side of the car, which only serves the purpose of driving awareness.
Technology is giving brands the opportunity to do much more in any channel than they’ve ever been able to do. We’re seeing this specifically in “Out of Home,” in large part due to the capabilities of mobile phones and all of the different apps that people have created. We can now place a code on the side of a car and allow consumers to engage with the brand and each other.
So, while it may only be 38 pieces of content, and the content centers around the Rangers and not Chevrolet, it’s still incredibly valuable to the Chevy brand. They’re bringing this experience to consumers, specifically fans of the Rangers around the most important time in the franchise’s history, that is not only unique, but engaging.
The next time you’re faced with doing something to create awareness, regardless of the “channel” you’re going to use, ask yourself if there’s a way you can turn it into an engagement? Chances are, you can.
Over the last couple of weeks (and year, really), I’ve tried to wrap my hands around all of the “OOH” thinking going on in my head. I’ve put a couple of stakes in the ground along the way. First there was my definition, then there were the basics of displays and their relationship with technology and what those two combined really mean and most recently, I explored the different components of the “new” OOH.
I feel like, conceptually, they’re all pretty close, but they’re not quite there. They don’t tell a complete story. That’s the thing that’s bugging me – the incomplete story. It’s a complex story, no doubt. Media consumption and consumer behavior and “always on” technology have evolved to such a high point that there is no longer an easy formula for moving someone down the decision/purchase funnel. That same technology has transformed the places and things around us into consumption & interaction “screens” – “Out of Home” is no longer just the mass awareness platform that agencies and brands have relied on in their media mix to achieve maximum impressions.
This potential of the “new” OOH is something that I’ve explored since day 1 on this blog, but many disparate thoughts do not a complete story make. I’m a little closer today than I was yesterday.
If you’re a regular reader here, you know how much I dislike the “Digital Out-of-Home/DOOH” moniker. I’m starting to dislike “digital signage” just as much, but unfortunately, these are the two most widely-used terms in the industry. Ask anyone in the industry what they actually do, and 9 people out of 10 (if not all 10) will give you a response with “DOOH” or “digital signage” in it. And if you asked them what exactly that is, I’d put a solid bet on a response that included something like this – “it’s a network of screens held together by digital technology.
Network. Screens. Digital technology.
That’s so 1995.
In all seriousness, here’s my newest stake in the ground (and it’s not groundbreaking, but I think it provides clarity) – OOH, DOOH, and digital signage is Awareness Out-of-Home. Digital signage (technology + a display) has enabled brands to be more effective at creating awareness, with dynamic loop times and dayparting and on-the-fly content updates, but at the end of the day, it’s all about pushing content out to as many eyeballs as they can. It’s about impressions. OOH/DOOH can be an extremely effective channel at achieving those impressions.
Here’s the thing(s) about Awareness though:
Relies more heavily on the channel (or “screen”) than it does on the brand story
The media component is driven by mass reach, not targeted personalization
Brand is at the center, communication is to many
It’s a push message, meaning it’s a “talk-to” communication, meaning it’s a 1-way communication, meaning there is no real brand/consumer engagement
Consumers are guided down the funnel, literally, by screen (the placement of the screen guides the brand story)
The technology is the thing keeps everything connected
So, sure, if you want to talk about networks and technology, er “DOOH” & “digital signage”, here’s where we should be talking. This is what the industry is talking about now – hardware and software and networks and installations and everything else. If you boil it down, it’s all an awareness discussion. This is where my thinking differs from many in the industry (communications, advertising and digital signage industries) that I’ve heard. I don’t see the potential in using the OOH/DOOH channel as an awareness channel. It’s an evolved 1995 discussion, with the introduction of new “digital” display technologies, but it’s just display. Display technologies drive more consumption; they don’t drive more engagement. And this is the big differentiator – do you want to use OOH, even DOOH as an awareness channel? Or do you believe that the places and things around us have the ability to engage consumers where they are and actually drive them deeper into the brand experience? This is the “new” OOH and this is its potential.
Engagement Out-of-Home is predicated on the understanding that a) everyone and everything is connected and b) the places and things around us have the ability to be turned “on.” Everything is a screen, but the screen is not what makes up the network in Engagement OOH, the people make up the network. They are made stronger by technology – enabling technologies here, not display technologies – and brands can and should take advantage of these developments.
Just last week, I gave my thoughts on a similar concept, something that LocaModa and Posterscope call “Sociable Media.” (I spoke to a couple of guys at LocaModa late last week and they provided great insight to their POV.) We’re all talking about basically the same thing, but I think where I differ is that I think Engagement OOH provides a unique opportunity for brands to go beyond just being there and allows them to tell their story in a way that they would not have otherwise been able to tell it – in an individual, 1-to-1 engagement. (And it doesn’t have to be on a mobile phone. It can be on a floor in a store.) It’s less about the technology and more about the interaction. That’s the nut – engagement OOH enables brands to be more effective at driving interaction – not awareness – on everything around us.
As compared to Awareness OOH, Engagement OOH:
Relies more heavily on the brand story than it does on the channel (or “screen”)
The media component is driven by targeted personalization, not mass reach
In one sense, the brand is can be the center, but communicate to one. In another sense, the consumer is at the center and the brand has the ability to engage with them. The key is that it’s a personalized communication
It’s a push/pull message, meaning it’s a “talk-with” communication, meaning it’s a 2-way communication, meaning there is actually real brand/consumer engagement
Consumers are guided down the funnel by interaction
The brand story is the thing keeps everything connected
So, maybe we still need to be talking in 1995 speak. I have a feeling that the industry is going to continue to talk in these terms, at least for the foreseeable future. If you look at social media and the way it had been talked about until the last year or so, it was all talked about differently, too. Now, there are enough buzz words that can make someone feel sick. But whenever I hear “DOOH” or “digital signage,” I always stop and give it pause and really try to determine what people are talking about. And most of the time, they are talking about true “digital” Out-of-Home or true “digital” signage. Interactivity is either an afterthought or void from the thought altogether.
I just look at it a little bit differently. For every action, there is a reaction and we have the responsibility, not to mention the opportunity, to be there and interact and have a 2-way communication so the relationship doesn’t end as soon as they walk away. It gets stronger. I believe that can only happen through engagement.
It’s important to note that I am not a media guy and never have been. I’ve always been an experience guy, so that’s immediately where my mind goes, regardless of the “channel.” I love this space because it truly is a blank canvas, not confined by structure or surface, or technology or medium – only by the limits of our imagination and the strength of a brand’s story. I’m going to be speaking at CETW in a couple of weeks on Incorporating Digital/Interactive Out-of-Home into Campaign Strategy and from my point of view, after we understand who we’re talking to, the very next question I would want to answer is, “is it Awareness OOH” or “Engagement OOH?” What do we want to create? Do we want to push messages out? Or do we want to engage with consumers around our messages? This would tell me what technology (or not) I need – display technology or enabling technology – thus defining what the “true” OOH was.
My story still isn’t complete. It isn’t as focused as I’d like it to be, but I think it’s getting there. I’d love to hear your thoughts, if you care to share them. This is truly an evolving space that requires evolving thought, so in my opinion, the more the merrier.
A little late to the game this Friday, but found a great nugget in this article where small business owners discuss the benefits of geo-location-based services. I’m a big proponent of geo-location apps and like many others, see the natural integration with digital signage. In this article, a couple of the business owners mention a platform called ScreenScape – a simple, internet-based program (software) that allows “anyone” (like small business owners) to operate digital signage. This is the first I’ve heard of these guys, and my question is – can they be the X factor in digital signage adoption? Today’s 4-1-1 is dedicated to one of my new favorite companies (I don’t know anyone there, haven’t met anyone there, but next week, I’m going to reach out to them to learn more about their product.)
1. Advantage #1 – cost. I suppose this depends which side of the fence you’re on – $10/month subscription makes digital/interactive signage attainable for just about anyone now. It makes you wonder how successful they can be based on this model, but there are group licenses available for larger subscribers.
2. Advantage #2 – ease. The platform is Internet-based. You don’t need any special technical skills to work your way around the “administrator” dashboard. And by dragging content here and dropping it there, with the push of a button (and a computer, and a display, and an Internet connection), you’ve got yourself a digital signage solution. And network if you need it.
3. Advantage #3 – flexibility. I’m talking about flexibility with content here. Images, video, text, RSS feeds – you can include any of these as pieces of content that will wind up in the end-display. (The program basically converts everything to a flash file.) There are drawbacks with this, of course. Processor, connection, file size, load on the computer, etc… But look, it’s $10/month so to me, if you’re the right “brand” to use something like this, the value and benefit totally outweighs the downfalls. One of the coolest things about this system – and it’s core to their business model – is allowing the community to share content with each other (they call it “venue networking.”) This is yet another “cost” advantage to people like small business owners who are strapped for money and resources.
4. Advantage #4 – integration. With Foursquare, in particular. On September 14, they launched a “Foursquare widget” that allows the software to integrate and pull in check-ins for the location (where the screen is placed). The widget ultimately allows consumers to see things like who the mayor of the place is, the actual “mayor offer,” total check-ins, and everyone else who has checked in. To me, this feature is critical – to both the brand and the consumer. The consumer gets to see their name in lights (“fame” as Stephen Randall says) and the brand has just given another reason for the consumer to interact with them (via their screen). A simple example:
“Uh-huh” – a year ago, Mashable featured Screenscape in their Spark of Genius series. It’s interesting reading that article now. Case in point that no one knows how to talk about “digital signage” though. The term was not used once in the article and I’m pretty sure it’s been around for much longer than a year. Kudos for flagging it, though.
“Duh” – am I giving them too much credit? Or is there any merit to them giving a shot in the arm to digital signage? I think this is a true “duh” because it seems like to me, as long as the brand has ownership of a screen and a connection, and is in-tune with reaching consumers in new ways, why not? What’s the drawback here?
I think this is beautiful because it taps into what geo-location has tapped into for brands (especially “small” brands) – it’s no/low cost, it’s relevant, it’s engaging, and most of all, it’s a way to connect with people while they’re “outside of the home” on a device that they’re glued to. For $10/month, you can advertise it/them for everyone to see and hopefully, keep them coming back for more.
Good post today by my buddy, David Weinfeld, about 2-D barcodes, specifically how much they’ve been used this year, even citing a ScanLife report that shows a 700% increase in barcode scanning. It’s a big number, but you must consider that it almost started at 0 in January. The number of people who actually use this technology is still small. What I found more interesting in the report was a) 1/2 of the barcode users were 35-45 skewing more male (I found this a high demo – would have thought it would be younger) and b) the most popular smartphone platform among users was the Google Android platform, followed by BlackBerry, then by iPhone. It’s one of the few times I’ve seen anything led by something non-iPhone, particularly with the use of new technology.
This morning, I came across a Microsoft ad that featured one of their Microsoft Tags.
I had high expectations for this experience, it being a Microsoft Tag on a Microsoft ad about Microsoft Office. (I didn’t quite get the 3-D thing on the text – don’t know if you can see it, but I looked past it). What I got was a nice, easy site with videos. My first impression was that it was good, but really, it just left me feeling like it was any other code/scanning experience that I’ve seen.
Then, I looked closer and went through the experience again. I have to say, it’s well thought-out and includes some little things that really separate it from others that I’ve seen. First, the videos are highly produced and there are lots of them! And they’re all sharable via Facebook and/or Twitter. The social integration is smooth and it pre-polpulates an #Office2010 hashtag. Besides that, it gives you a blank field to draft your own tweet. (Having done this before, I’ve elected to pre-draft the entire tweet for the user, including the hashtag, just for the ease of experience. In the end, people are used to drafting tweets on their phone so I suppose it doesn’t make much of a difference). The most important aspect here is that this feature extends the brand experience beyond this particular “channel.”
They extend channels via another feature, too – an email sign up to “receive details on how to get a free trial of Office 2010.” This not only drives the user deeper into the brand, it drives them one step closer to purchase, which is the end goal, right? Smart.
And on top of it all, navigating this mobile site is like navigating any good website on your computer.
This is what I expect from one of these experiences, particularly from a maker of this type of technology. I’m glad I looked again, because it gave me a chance to notice things I should notice. It doesn’t always have to be unique right off the bat, upon first glance. Often times, regardless of what technology or channel it’s in, the elegance is in the details. As is the case here.
700% shows awareness of this technology. That’s a great indicator of widespread adoption. What’s on the other end of the scan, as David and anyone else who’s dealt with/analyzed these technologies says, is going to be the key to real adoption.
Emerging Technology, Out & About 
6 Comments 
