Last week, a Twitter friend – Chris Augeri – asked me what I thought about “QR art,” specifically, QR codes that are actually designed. That is, QR codes that incorporate some sort of color and/or graphical element that makes it look a little bit more pleasing, perhaps enticing, than a black and white box. Something like this:
My response was that I think QR art is an exercise in design futility. At least right now. I don’t think that the way the QR code looks has any marked difference in how many times it’s scanned.
I think people will scan if they a) like the brand/organization and are just generally interested in what they have to offer or b) perceive that there is some value behind the code. That’s pretty much it. Not because what the QR code looks like. Because of what they can get from it.
So, I offer this up to you. Are you more compelled to scan this?:
How many times have you scanned a QR code and felt jipped once you discover the content “behind the code?” All too often, I just get directed to the brand’s homepage, and more often than not, a non-mobile-optimized homepage, where I am left to fish around for whatever it was that I thought I would get by scanning. Sure, there are some instances where I get directed to the right page or a coupon or simply just a video, but even then, I am almost always underwhelmed by the entire experience.
When I talk about experience, I’m not really talking about the experience with the technology (although I tend to really gravitate to new, emerging technologies). I’m talking about the brand experience, one that manifests itself from the brand’s story, and is told across various channels, and more and more, through various technologies.
The story is the thing, not the technology.
And unfortunately, I’ve come across so many examples of QR codes, in particular, where there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to using the QR code.
I do think QR codes can be an effective enabling technology. I just don’t think brands/marketers/communicators have quite figured out how to best utilize them to truly drive consumers deeper into the (brand’s) story. In my opinion, they shouldn’t be used just to duplicate an experience that you could otherwise get by simply going to a website, YouTube channel, Facebook page, and/or the like. They should really “unlock” information/content/offers that can’t be accessed in any other way. They should extend the brand’s story in some way. That’s when they’re used “right,” to the fullest of their ability. That’s when they start to add value to the consumer. That’s when consumers will associate them with exclusive information, not just a new way to get driven to a brand’s homepage.
Last night, I saw an effective use of QR codes and it originated, from all places, a TV screen. Before last night, I really saw no value in using a QR code from a digital screen (TV) to another digital screen (mobile). In large part, because I had never seen an effective execution. I think a real strength of QR codes is bridging a non-digital screen (in the real world, like a print piece) to a digital screen (mobile). But last night, I saw one that was effective. And it was effective at extending the brand’s story. The fact that it originated from a digital screen to another digital screen was overshadowed by how it was actually used to unlock exclusive information and drive me deeper into the story.
GoDaddy.com has always done a good job of generating interest in their “story,” even though it is one that has very little tie into the actual benefit of the brand and one that is intended for a very specific audience. But they’ve stuck to their story, and I’m sure the numbers would show they’ve been quite successful because of it. Well, last night, in middle of the football game, I see a QR code in a prominent position on the TV during a GoDaddy commercial.
It’s another provocative commercial, of course, one that builds to an incomplete point in the story. You’re left wondering what comes next and the only way you can get it is to scan the QR code on the screen.
So, I did.
And I was directed to a mobile-optimized site where the rest of the story was front and center.
So, I watched it and got the rest of the story. The payoff is what you would expect from any of these commercials. It’s kitchy and a bit silly.
But I think, fundamentally, they’re onto a really effective method of storytelling, which is intentionally breaking the story up across different channels and points in time. They want to drive you to the site and they’re using this story to do it. Arguably, quite effectively.
So, could they do this same thing with a URL? Yes. In fact, this is the same commercial that played during the Superbowl. I didn’t see it at the time, but I’m almost certain it did include a URL vs. a QR code.
That’s the lesson here. It’s not about the technology. QR codes can be seen as a more convenient URL. It’s about the story. The story is where the value is. The story is going to create fans. The story is the backbone. When the story is put front and center, technology merely enables a better or worse experience.
So the next time you want to plop a QR code on anything, be it a print piece or a TV commercial, think about the story that you want the consumer to experience and answer this question – is this QR code driving them deeper into that story?
If you’re just merely sending them to your website for “quick access,” then it doesn’t really matter what kind of technology you use. You’ll probably have better success just including the URL.
First, know that I am a devout player of Fantasy Football. With the season fast approaching, the leagues that I am in have been completing their drafts over the past few days. This year, my neighborhood league was pulled together at the last minute and we were trying to get a draft going this past Sunday morning.
Well, this weekend, I was at my in-laws and we were scheduled to drive back to Dallas on Sunday morning. Staying longer at my in-laws in order for me to do the draft, in the confines of their home with the luxury of wireless, unfortunately, was not an option. Not because I have any ill feelings toward my in-laws and we HAD to leave, but because with 3 kids, it’s critical to travel during the window where they’re the least unruly. So, it just so happened that travel time and draft time collided.
What to do?
Well, at first I just resigned myself to the fact that I wasn’t going to be able to participate in the live draft with my comrades so I custom-ranked my players in order to let the computer pick wisely for me. But that didn’t really sit well with me because one of the funnest parts to playing Fantasy Football is the draft. There’s strategy and trash talking and fun to be had during the draft. The computer gets none of that.
The next option was my iPad. I could use it in the car as long as I got my wife to drive. She was down and I was in. This was perfect, I thought, and actually a new experience. And one that I could give play-by-play to my wife because, of course, she would want to know everything about my draft. Well, there’s a thing with the iPad called Flash and when something, like a Fantasy Football draft widget operates on it, it might as well not exist. It was the first adverse Flash event I’ve experience on my iPad and I did curse it.
Now, really, what to do? I could try to call my picks in, but that just wouldn’t be viable for me or the person receiving my calls. Despite my good nature, I wouldn’t want any part of that, being on the receiving end. I reached the point that I just knew the computer would have to do the work for me and my season would be left up for chance. Hardly any control to defend my Neighborhood Champion title, which brings a good amount of street cred with the other dads. It was turning out to be a bummer.
But then….I looked down and saw my phone. My glorious phone. My phone that has an Internet connection and isn’t an “i” anything. Thank you, Google. I opened up the browser, went to the site, tested my system and viola, it worked. I was in business.
Now, I’ve recently written a number of times about the noise that we have to wade through to get to the quality content and experiences that are of benefit to us. I look at smart phones the same way – they are equipped with a lot of noise. I don’t download many apps on my phone because, honestly, it’s too overwhelming. The main function on my phone is text messaging. The second is the actual phone. The third is email. That’s about it. And I’m perfectly fine with that. (My kids, however, use more of the power of my phone than I do.)
But not today. Today, I rejoiced in the power of my phone.
So, the lesson here is – if you have a smart phone, it is powerful. Possibly even more powerful that you ever thought. It is a true enabler of so many things, be it a Fantasy Football draft, showing your mom pictures of kids through Facebook, or controlling a game on a billboard in the middle of Times Square.
Embrace the phone. Everyone, embrace the phone. It can open up a whole new world.
Is there more noise out there than quality content? Or is it just harder and harder to find the quality content, given all the creators and channels to consume it on? These are more rhetorical than not, especially since these questions have surfaced in different forms over the past few years. But each day, it becomes easier and easier for anyone to create good content and distribute it across many different channels. (What was once intended for Twitter can now be seen on a billboard in the middle of Times Square.) And with that, it becomes harder and harder to focus on and find the quality content. That is, the content that I want, need, and like.
As one of my colleagues recently said to me, we don’t need more platforms to consume and share content on, we need 1 tool to shut out all the noise. So, there you go, inventors – an identified and growing need.
When I think of content – either producing it or consuming it – it’s not about the type of content that is most important to me. Meaning, just because it’s video content (dynamic, moving, all that), does not mean that I will consume it. In fact, that’s really the least important factor. It takes much more than that to make me stop, consume and ultimately, interact with it. Here’s what’s important to me, in order:
What is it about? The subject matter is the key. If it’s about Dave Matthews Band, I’ll consume it. If it’s about baseball, I won’t. However, if it’s about the Texas Rangers, I will. It’s important to understand the generality and specificity of your audience/community when planning content.
Who is producing it? Where is it coming from? Take the examples above – if Dave Matthews Band is producing the content, I want to see it. It’s about them, by them. If my wife forwards me a piece of DMB content, I want to see it. It’s about them, by them, yes, but in this case, passed on to me by someone that I trust, especially about “quality” content pertaining to DMB. If someone close to me – be it friends or family – sends me something or posts something, I want to make sure that I consume it. If it’s someone who I think is credible on any particular subject, I’ll consume it. Otherwise, it’s harder and harder for me to even give it a chance.
What type of content is it? I think too much emphasis is put on type of content above all. Not that great looking content isn’t compelling enough to get me to consume it, but it’s certainly much harder if it’s not something I care about – and even more, am passionate about – or it’s not coming from someone I trust.
Maybe the type of content is enough to get my attention, especially when I’m out in the real world. But if it stands any chance of getting me to actually spend time with it, much less do something with it, it takes much more than that.
So, whether your making content for a website or a OOH digital sign, what drives your content creation? The answer could be the difference between noise and consumption. Maybe even action.
The more technology is introduced into our physical worlds, especially on account of brands, the more critical that supporting campaigns will become. It’s not enough just to introduce a new machine, system, or even engagement based on a new technology and expect that the mass will conform, use it, and god forbid, actually like it enough to use it over and over. It has a much better chance of succeeding – given the assumption that the machine, system or engagement is technologically sound – if brands use other channels, communications, and ultimately dollars to raise awareness and drive engagement.
I’ve written before about Coke’s new touchscreen soda fountains – the ones loaded with 106 flavors. They’re pretty cool machines – efficient, easy to use, and a little fun, but they sure do take up a lot of room, especially given the fact that they only service 1 person at a time. These machines are a fairly drastic departure from something (the “standard” soda fountain machine) that has been around for years and that the public is conditioned to use. These machines provide a new way to accomplish a pretty important task, one that is taken thousands of times per day.
Now, on one hand, I don’t know if the public cares enough about how they get their soda when they’re out and about, and even further, if they would ever care enough to form an opinion. If I didn’t geek out about things like this, I wouldn’t. But on the other hand, one thing that I’ve learned over the years is that, despite what I care about, there’s someone out there – and usually a group of people – who have their own likes and dislikes and care about things like soda fountains. So, there’s a faction of public opinion at play here that could ultimately surface in one way or another.
Now, the truth of this is that, unless public opinion was/will form into a complete backlash against these machines, they’re not going anywhere. They’re only going to be distributed to more movie theatres or restaurants as time goes by. So on some level, the public is going to have to deal with this new way of getting soda from a fountain, regardless of what they actually think of them.
Here’s where Coke is really good. They recognize the need to gain support of this new way of doing things. So, the first step is to raise awareness, but their approach is to not raise awareness of the machine itself; it is to raise awareness of the benefit that the machine provides. This one machine can give you any flavor out of the 106 in its system and/or any combination thereof. No more being limited to the top 6 in its lineup because that’s all the “standard” fountains had room for. Yes, you could make a cool suicide (mixing all the flavors into 1 cup) then, but now, you can make an AWESOME suicide. Seriously.
Enter the creative campaign that they’ve launched – in the social channels and on mobile – to support (and gain support for) these new machines. Their Coca-Cola Freestyle application on Facebook gives users the ability to (virtually) mix any drink they want from the myriad of flavors, give it a special name, and share it with the world.
Trivial? Perhaps. But it’s fun. And it doesn’t take a lot of time, and it’s super simple to use, and it’s catchy enough to get other people interested. After I made my own drink, I posted it on my Facebook wall and a couple of my other friends got involved and made their own drink, too. Right now, the page/application is at 41,000 strong. Modest numbers, but I think this campaign is centered around deeper engagement, given that someone has to download an app and make a drink to really get involved. There is a barrier of entry, so to speak, that takes more active participation than say, a standard tabbed page in a brand’s Facebook presence. So, while raising awareness to as many people as possible (quantity) is key, creating a relatively deeper level of engagement (quality) could be more important to Coke. The campaign shouldn’t be judged by number of fans/likes alone.
In addition to their Facebook application, they’ve also created a mobile application – a game called PUSH! + Play. This game’s engagement is different than the Facebook application. This is a memory game where you’re introduced to the heap of flavors (still driving the benefit) and you have to “playback” the sequence that the computer gives you, in as fast of a time that you can.
The game is fun, too. I actually think it’s perfect for a train ride or a waiting room or even on your way up/down the elevator (because everyone has to be doing something at every waking moment, even when riding the elevator!) It’s casual enough to get started immediately and engaging enough to keep you playing over and over, to best your time and move up the leader board. (Leader boards are an effective “sticky” tactic. I think it’s one of the better improvements that Foursquare has introduced, but that’s for another post.)
It’s not all fun and (casual) games with the two of these applications. Yes, they do a good job of engaging you, but they also do a good job of informing you, too. They allow you to see where these machines are located near you.
For me, personally, these wouldn’t drive me into a new place, but they would drive me back into a place that I have frequented before, perhaps sooner than I had planned to. It elicits the response, “oh yeah, that will be cool for the next time I’m there.”
All of this to say that Coke is being purposeful about how they’re introducing this new way of doing things. I think this is what we can all learn from, especially in the “new” Out-of-Home space where technology is transforming our physical worlds into new things everyday – it’s important to compliment new machines, systems, and/or engagements (and content) with some sort of supporting campaign. Generally, the public will adapt to whatever is introduced, but the adaptation can be helped along through other efforts, like social and mobile engagements. Or print pieces. Or TV spots.
Too often, brands, marketers, and communicators of all sizes, struggle with cross-department and channel coordination. An easy way to bridge the gap is to ask, “What else are we going to be doing that helps this succeed? Is it a campaign? Is it a supplemental piece of content that someone might see outside of this particular activation? How is this going to be experienced elsewhere?”
More and more, the public consumes and shares media across various channels. This presents great opportunities to introduce and immerse them into the new “thing” that we want them to be aware of and participate in/with. And if we do it right, gain support, enough to accelerate change.
So, what do you think? Does Coke’s cross-channel support work in this case?
Isn’t it something when a CEO of a company resigns and the entire world takes notice? When Steve Jobs unexpectedly resigned this week, it pretty much rocked a large sub-culture of our population. My first reaction when someone read the headline to me was, “wow,” with the disbelief and wonder that I reserve for pretty major news. This wasn’t just any CEO stepping down, this was an icon of the past decade, at least. One who has completely changed the game in design, technology, and entertainment – pretty much pop culture as a whole. Jobs and Apple have also made an indelible impact on the digital signage industry – and, in turn, an impact on me – with their products and thinking. So, for today’s Friday 4-1-1, it’s only right to give it up to the man who is responsible for some of my children’s favorite vocabulary words (iPod, iPad, mac – seriously.)
The mac mini – when I was creating the Intellibooth software, one of our challenges was also finding the most appropriate hardware. We ended up using mac minis to house and run the software, primarily due to its small footprint. We could work it into any fabricated structure pretty easily and beyond that, could ship many of them in an efficient manner. In addition, we could load our Windows-based application onto it, plug all of our peripheries into it, and in a pinch, switch them in and out if anything went wrong. In short, this one little box enabled us to focus on what we really wanted to focus on – creating the front-end experience – so we could make a business of that instead of messing with the hardware game.
The iPhone – in early iterations, the phone was more of a novelty than anything else. Yes, it was powerful, but no one really knew how to unlock the potential, both from a developer’s standpoint and a user’s standpoint. The possibility of integrating digital signage communications with mobile phone communications would probably not be at the stage its at right now without the introduction of the iPhone. It did change the landscape of phones, but it also changed the landscape of “out-of-home” in a literal sense. Now, it’s possible to interact with the places and things around us – not to mention, physical screens outside of our homes – in (very) large part thanks to the iPhone.
The iPad – did you hear about the restaurant that is now using iPads for their entire customer experience? Menus, out. Credit card machines, out. It’s all iPads. Here are the two major impacts that this device has on the digital signage industry, in my opinion – 1) the more people get used to using a “high technology” (and touchscreen) device like this, the more they’ll feel comfortable using other unique touchscreen devices and 2) the more people get comfortable operating on a non-tethered device, the more they’ll feel comfortable using a “foreign” device outside of their homes.
iOS – perhaps the largest contributor to interactive Out-of-Home signage is Apple’s operating system that is founded on gestures like swipe, tap, and pinch to actually navigate through the experience. These gestures are commonplace with the “average” consumer today, thanks to iOS. This type of touch and gesture control – and the comfort level using your fingers to control something this way – is a foundational element to interactive signage. Apple has made it infinitely easier for the industry to work through any intimidation barriers that might be around.
“Uh-huh” – the brand is iconic. To build something like this is what all brands and executives hope for.
“Duh” – have you ever heard that old adage, “it’s simple to make something hard, but it’s hard to make something simple”? Well, that’s what Apple has done throughout the years. Part of their beauty is in their simplicity. The digital signage industry, particularly as it relates to interfaces and experiences, can take many things from Apple. When it’s simple to use, it’s enjoyable. And joy has to be present for any positive experience. Thank you, Steve.
I talked to one of my friends in the industry the other day who recently switched agencies. This transition period and adjusting to the new agency has been a little bit difficult for him. He’s used to working with some of the major brands out there. With his new agency, he’s sacrificing the big brands for a big opportunity.
He told me about an exchange he had with his mom. It went something like this:
FRIEND:
I don’t know mom, it’s just different. We do different things and work on different brands. And these brands…they’re just not….cool.
MOM:
Well, you know, you’re job is to make them cool.
Leave it to a mom to put the much-needed perspective on the situation. Your job is to make them cool.
Now, if that doesn’t get you out of bed in the morning and motivate you every day, you might be in the wrong business. Regardless of the brands you’re servicing, you have the privilege to shape the work day in and day out. You can push to make the work – and ultimately, the brand – cool or you can continue on and be victim to the perceived “un-cool” state they’re in.
What gets you out of bed in the morning? And more importantly, are you listening to your mom?
I want to introduce you to Breakfast, NYC. A wonderful little agency in New York who fancies themselves as “toy makers.” And these toys are the kinds of toys that are right down the 11th Screen alley. (These are the same folks who made Nike’s talking/thinking bike, Precious.)
We’re officially living in the future. Yes, the one you picture in your head when you combine all those images of eye-scanners and Rosie the Robot. But the reason you didn’t sit at the kitchen table this morning and get the weather from your cereal box is simply because the cereal company didn’t even know to ask. Or did they?
We’re BREAKFAST, and we spend our days wondering why a Gap store still works the same way it did 40 years ago. We’re here to help people realize it’s ok to ask for things that sound like science fiction.
It’s time to stop going on as though flying cars and telekinesis headsetsdon’t exist, and time to make the real world as advanced as the virtual one that’s changed our lives in a single decade. Perhaps you’ll come for a ride with us.
Cool, right?
Anyway, the toy that caught my eye last week was Instaprint – a little box that you mount on a wall to print out Instagram pictures. (If you’re not familiar with Instagram, it’s an iPhone application that applies fun filters to your photos in an instant (hence, the name.) The cool thing about this box – aside from the simple fact that it can print out loads of pictures – is that it only prints out pictures that are tagged a certain way, based on the actual location and/or event where it’s placed. And the only way it can print is through communication with your mobile phone. So, essentially, what you have is a hyper-targeted, highly personalized and social take on a photo booth. Operated entirely through mobile. Check it out:
The digital signage industry is wrestling with mobile’s place in the “Out-of-Home” ecosystem. Meanwhile, you have other agencies who have absolutely no affiliation to the industry, made up of really smart and creative people, who understand mobile’s place in our real & virtual world. And how integral and powerful it can be. Regardless of any physical screen.
I don’t know about you, but one of the things that gets me up in the morning is the ability that I have each day to make “stuff.” Now, I don’t make toys like Breakfast. That’s not really the point. The point is that each day we all have the opportunity to shape and mold something in our own way. Our contribution to this wild world.
Last week, I read an intriguing article by Garrick Schmitt of Razorfish, titled How Demand for Physical Experiences is Transforming our Physical Spaces. In it, he points out how the entire physical world around us is becoming a screen and that consumers’ expectations have reached a point to where that physical world should be turned on in some form or fashion. This is a viewpoint that I have mostly gotten behind many times on this blog. I say mostly because of those consumer expectations. I’m not sure that, even now, in August 2011, consumers expect the physical spaces around them to be turned on, and even more, transformed into interactive experiences. I don’t know that average consumer capacity is ready for that. What do you think?
Part 2
Guess when that article was written? 2 years ago, in September 2009. Awesome. In my opinion, Schmitt has always been on the forefront of these technology-led experiences in the real world around us. This is case-in-point.
I remember back during that time, it was around the time that I was leading the software development at imc2, for our interactive Out-of-Home solution. I always admired how Schmitt recognized the potential – and future demand – for these types of experiences.
Time is a funny thing, especially in regards to technology adoption. At the end of the day, that’s what we’re talking about here. Consumer demand is directly tied to their comfort level with any particular technology. We’re just now seeing smartphone use creep their way up to the majority. Smartphones have been around for years. But just now, after all these years, the average consumer is not intimidated by them. They know how to work them and, even more, know how they can make their lives better. It also helps that everyone can now afford them. Kinect is another great example. I wonder how comfortable people would have been with the idea of gesture control, at such an immersive level, two years ago?
Part 3
In the article, Schmitt points to “Out-of-Home” examples that are driven by enabling technologies (mobile and RFID) and people themselves (social media).
I think it’s easy to think about touchscreen-this-and-that when you think about the world around us being turned on. But, as shown in the Schmitt article, and in some of the more recent engaging examples, actual public touchscreens are not part of these experiences. The place or the thing is the canvas and the interactivity is controlled outside of it, either through mobile phones or computers.
The effective thing with all of these examples – and the thing that I think we can all learn from – is that consumers want it all, in the most convenient way. What I mean is, consumers want information and connections and whatever else they deem valuable. And they’re always going to be driven by what they’re comfortable with because it’s usually the easiest. They’re used to being on computers, connecting with other people through their social networks. They’re used to navigating to whatever they want on their mobile phones. Are they used to walking up to a touchscreen and interacting with it?
As you can see, the experience spans the front of an entire NYC building. It’s obviously noticeable. Consumers are enticed by it. And, by the looks of this video, comfortable enough to go up and play with it.
Having lived and worked in NYC, to get anyone to stop and interact with a storefront, is a feat in and of itself.
Yes, people can also interact with this experience through their mobile phone. But this is largely a public-facing, touchscreen experience. And it doesn’t seem like anyone in the video is a) intimidated or b) unaware of how to use it.
Is this indicative of Anytown USA?
Part 5
QR codes. What can be simpler? In the past year, they’ve gone from nothing to everything, at least in terms of visibility. My wife knows that “those are the things you can scan with your smartphone.”
They’re a great bridge between the real world with the virtual world and quite effective of turning those places/things around us “on.”
They’re everywhere now.
But the question is, despite their simplicity, why am I the only one who I ever see scan them?
Part 6
Simplicity and comfort are not the only two linchpins to this demand that we all know is coming. You can bring up the Minority Report analogies all you want, but this is not a far-fetched representation of our future world. Glorified, perhaps. But not unrealistic.
Two years ago, all of these interactive Out-of-Home activations were novel enough to garner attention. Are we still in that novel stage?
Part 7
Value. That’s really the question, right?
In this constantly-on physical world, what’s going to be noise and what’s going to be valuable?
I saw this in the mall the other day and I thought it was pretty good. Here’s what I like about it:
It being on a digital screen, there is a timer to indicate when the QR code will disappear.
I think context is critical with any new technology. Generally, the more context you put around a new technology, the more you’re knocking down the barriers of people using the technology. While I still don’t understand the benefit of QR codes on digital/moving screens, if you’re going to put them on digital/moving screens, including a timer is perfect context.
The problem to this experience is that, even with a timer, it wasn’t on the screen long enough. I walked up when there was 10 seconds to go and I couldn’t get my phone out of my pocket and open up the QR code reader application in time to scan the code. And I sure wasn’t going to wait through this compelling content (below) to scan the code. So, overall, this isn’t a strong showing of mobile/DOOH integration.
And one more thing, I never see anyone standing in front of these digital screens at malls. And for that matter, I never see anyone scanning QR codes. Other than me.
