This morning when I was buying my train pass, I witnessed the collision of enabling technologies. Normally, this would excite me, seeing more than 1 enabling technology in a solution, something that equates to an Interactive Out-of-Home (IOOH) technological explosion. But it didn’t.
There’s my kiosk (enabling technology #1).
It’s a friendly kiosk. Easy to use. It’s always done exactly what I wanted it to do. In fact, I’ve got it down to where I can execute my transaction in a matter of seconds now. Just what I want from a utilitarian kiosk.
But I noticed something different about it this morning. Something I’ve never noticed before.
That’s right. A QR Code (enabling technology #2).
My kiosk just became a little bit more interesting. So I read (squinting – white type on light blue background is hard to read and I have pretty good eyesight) about what it offered.
Learn more about using this kiosk.
Hmmmm.
So, let me step outside of myself – someone who knows a) how to make myself around most any type of interactive technology b) what QR codes are c) how to use them and most basically, d) how to use this kiosk – and get this straight. I walk up to a touch screen kiosk, something that might be a little bit confusing and intimidating, even if I’ve used an ATM before. And for the sake of this example, let’s just assume I get frustrated and don’t know how to make my way around it, I can now take out my smart phone and scan a QR Code to solve my problems?
Huh?
If I don’t feel comfortable using a basic kiosk, how in the world am I going to feel more comfortable scanning a QR Code on my smart phone to get a quick tutorial?
I. Don’t. Get. It.
Well, I had to scan the thing. So, I did. In scanning, I had to crouch down low enough to get a good shot of it. In doing so, caught the attention of everyone else walking by me, I’m sure, wondering, “what is he doing?!?! With his phone, taking a picture of that kiosk, bent all the way down like that?!?! Better him than me.”
I think this is a good lesson in placement. If you want people to use anything like this – any sort of code/image recognition – it’s best to put it in standing range. People feel much more comfortable being discreet when they are doing something that no one else around them is doing. Or rather, people don’t want to do anything extra to draw attention to themselves, especially if no one else is doing the same thing. Simply, don’t make them crouch or bend down or stand on their tippy toes to take the action.
Anyway, after scanning the code, I was led to a simple page with a video and social sharing features.
While ultra low-fi, I actually think their concept is pretty smart. If you strip everything away, their purpose is to give people more information about how accessible, easy, and versatile their kiosks are.
Noble. Useful. I’m assuming they spent quite a bit of money making enhancements to the new kiosks and they want everyone to know.
But is the best answer really to put a QR code on a low part of the kiosk?
And even more, to be vague about actually getting that information?
On one hand, I love them because I think they’re a great enabling technology – a technology that bridges the offline world with the online, which is essential in driving any level of engagement when connecting with consumers outside of their homes. They’re efficient, convenient, and potentially rewarding. That is, they’re easy to use and they can unlock rich content.
In theory.
This is the hate side of the equation. Bad QR code executions are commonplace out there in the real world. Brands don’t know where to put them – should they go on TV or other digital screens or just be confined to print materials? Brands don’t know what content to put behind them – should they just unlock a website or an entry form or some sort of rich, multimedia content? But most of all, brands don’t seem to understand consumers’ awareness and comfort level with them – should they include instructions or an alternate way to access the information or just leave it to consumers to figure out how to use them? These are all general statements, I know. Yes, I have seen my fair share of quality code-based initiatives over the past 1.5 years, but they pale in comparison to the poor executions.
I believe now we’re seeing something that normally happens with any sort of technology that doesn’t wash out to the ocean of nothingness – on the consumer side, there is an awareness with what the technology is, and on the brand side, there is a drive to understand how best to use the technology to impact behavior. This adoption/impact wave is a long one. Right now, we’re just seeing brands actually understand how to best use social media to build relationships and impact consumer behavior. And social media (er, web 2.0) was introduced 5-6 years ago. That’s not to say QR codes will take 5-6 years to figure out, but adoption of technologies and new ways to utilize them do not happen overnight. They also require a fair amount of deliberate thought. They’ll hardly work if they’re just thrown out into the world for everyone to figure out.
This is what I’ve seen more often than not with QR codes.
So, it was refreshing to actually see a brand utilize traditional media channels in their marketing mix to raise awareness of their QR code campaign. A couple of weeks ago, I saw this Macy’s commercial on TV.
I did a double take. I had to rewind it to make sure I was seeing this right. A brand devoting a national TV spot to their QR code campaign? Brilliant.
I think the true brilliance is in the spot itself. It doesn’t just highlight the technology, it explains it. It explains what it is, where to look for it, how to use it, and most of all, what consumers can expect to get out of it. It also doesn’t limit this content to QR-code-only access. Have mobile phone? Can text? Then, not to worry, you can still experience this same content.
Now, when consumers go anywhere near Macy’s and see one of these pixilated stars, they at least have a better chance knowing what it is and what they can get out of it – two critical pieces needed to drive adoption and result in success.
And they’re not just focused on TV. They’re using many channels in their ecosystem to introduce, educate, and drive engagement with this star. Like on their Facebook page:
On their windows:
And of course, in their store:
This, along print ads and even their staff wearing lanyards that explain what the program & code are, show how deliberate they want to be with this campaign.
Who knows if it will work? And more, who knows if QR codes, as a technology, will endure time and actually become adopted by the general consumer. In 5-6 years, we’ll know, right?
But this much is certain, and has endured over time – whoever reaches consumers at the right time with the right content will win.
The problem is – we’re living and consuming media in an evolving world, where consumers are on the go, out & about more than ever, technology is not the barrier it once was and everyone is connected. The rules have changed. Now, the right time to reach consumers is different for everyone. And it’s typically when they’re not in the confines of their homes.
Traditional broadcast channels like television are still great awareness channels, regardless of what you say about DVR. Non-traditional, emerging channels like Out-of-Home (OOH) and mobile are more and more becoming great engagement channels. Everything needs to work together. And Macy’s – much to their credit – has recognized this and is actually doing something about it.
I know the jury is still out on QR codes so I’d be interested to know if you think even a full-out marketing blitz like this will move the needle, in terms of QR code adoption and engagement? What do you think?
These guys are at the forefront of using emerging technology to connect with consumers.
First, they created real-life LA Story talking billboards through the use of RFID.
Then, they created a real-life/virtual world game of chase through the use of Augmented Reality.
Now, they’re taking a simple approach – yet just as unique – with QR codes. Only to drive to a different Augmented Reality experience.
How would you launch the all new, bigger MINI Countryman? How about a big QR code? Like bigger than anything in the ad.
Here’s the thing about MINI – from my perspective, nothing is a mistake. Or an afterthought. It’s all purposeful. Here, they didn’t just oh-by-the-way-stick-a-qr-code-in-the-bottom-corner-of-the-ad. They made it the ad.
And it works.
And for those who don’t know what this is, they give directions. And for those who don’t want to scan the code, they give another way to get to the information. And for anyone else – those who wouldn’t even want to take part in the complete experience – this campaign, this app, and ultimately this brand is probably not for you.
These guys are smart. They’ve gotten some insight that their target audience has a high propensity to engage through various mobile technologies – even more, that their target is not constrained by location, they like to be on the go, and are early adopters. Can you imagine this out of the MINI owner? I can.
And to their credit, MINI goes full tilt.
I think there are many ways to connect with consumers when they’re out and about, not in front of their computers. More and more, this is a mobile world, and I’m not talking about a mobile-phone world (although we are) – mobility is a way of life. So, being able to connect with consumers while they’re on the go, in various ways – especially through enabling technologies like this – will become more and more critical for brands to figure out.
MINI’s making it easy for everyone else.
Take note.
This is interactive out-of-home. Where experience masterpieces happen.
Over the past year, I’ve kept up with a few brands that I feel have done a good job of utilizing the OOH channel, particularly the “new” OOH channel – where offline is purposefully merged with the online and enabling technologies are at play. One of these brands is JC Penney.
I’ve featured them twice here, and I’ve been impressed with the initiatives they’ve executed in this space. To me, the fact that they use mobile and interactive Out-of-Home (IOOH) shows they understand all of the channels at their disposal and more importantly, that they know this is becoming more and more a preferred and effective way to reach consumers.
So, when then news about their SEO practices surfaced yesterday, I have to say I was surprised. My initial reaction – without asking any experts on SEO – was from the POV of a general digital marketer. How can a company make a decision to utilize emerging channels – mobile and IOOH – but not have a complete grasp on one of the basic (yet complex) fundamentals in their media mix? Or in simpler terms, how can they focus their efforts in building large, in-store touchscreen units rather than getting their SEO right?
It makes me feel – again, upon first blush, and not having any insight into their operation – that someone there doesn’t have their priorities straight. How could this be?
So, I dug a little bit deeper. And in what I read (here and here), the blame seemed to be put more on Penney than not. But did they really know? Or is everyone doing it, just in subtler ways? How can they not have an SEO expert? I started to get more and more interested the deeper I got into it. So, I asked our SEO guy – Ryan Smith – who is also actually one of the cinematographers in our office. And here’s what he had to say, just by me asking, “what do you think:”
Don’t mess with Google, it isn’t worth it 98% of the time.
We MUST be able to counsel our clients not to work with shady SEO companies, they will tell you they can provide results and then go out and buy links to do it. A brand could get burned like this very easily with very little knowledge of what was actually going on. I believe that this was the case for Penney, they can’t even get the URLs of their core pages right.
Many SEO’s have often pointed out major hypocrisy of how Google hands out penalties. Major brands have been given passes because they are “vital” to results. BMW could do anything because if they weren’t in the SERP for “luxury car” Google users would think less of Google. So I think this says that Penney’s must have been pretty blatantly buying links on a large scale and that Google doesn’t view Penney’s as important to their results. Also maybe they found a brand to make an example of to get everybody on the straight and narrow without damaging their results.
Penalty was confined to several non-branded keywords, if a lesser brand had been buying links on that scale they would have gotten blown out completely. They still rank fine for anything with JC Penney in the query.
This is clearly a manually applied penalty and Matt Cutts said as much. I can’t remember another time Google pointed to a specific penalty and admitted it was manually applied. Mostly in the past they have stood on everything being algorithmic to the point that it insulted the intelligence of anything that could fog a mirror. Interesting they chose to point to manual on this one all of a sudden, might be a bit of branding change from we have the best results because of our algorithm to we have the best results because we work hard at it.
JC Penney spends between $12 and $40k a day on Adwords, according to Spyfu.com. Don’t ever let anyone tell you Adwords has a direct link to your organic rankings.
Good stuff. I could probably expand on each one of the points above, but I don’t want to get into SEO-specifics here.
My personal takeaway is this – it’s less about JC Penney knowing whether or not this was going on (but seriously, how can a company of this size not know what’s going on on this scale, especially with their monitoring and even warnings???). It’s more about the seeming oversight of not having an SEO expert in-house/on-staff in some form or fashion – someone who would have directed, caught, and presumably fixed the tactics. And more importantly, someone who is accountable.
This is one of the hurdles this (D/I)OOH channel/industry faces – a consistent champion, from the agency and brand side, who will be accountable. Right now, I feel like the (D/I)OOH industry is fed by brands/agencies who are risk-takers. This is still an emerging/experimental channel, not a tried-and-true one like online paid/organic media. But the problem is, when there aren’t specialists who can take responsibility of those tried-and-true channels like SEO, when will there ever be specialist who can champion channels like (D/I)OOH?
I know I’m being a little dramatic, but it does give me pause, especially when looking at a brand holistically, not just in the interest of one channel over the other. I think it’s our responsibility, as marketers/communicators, to understand how each of the channels work together – especially when emerging channels like (D/I)OOH & mobile are at play – and then provide counsel accordingly. As much as we can. We must do this. Our executions, particularly in the emerging channels, will be made stronger and more credible. And that’s what it’s going to take to become sticky, when reaching consumers while they’re out and about – strong stories from strong brands. Who consumers can trust.
In an effort to understand how brands are utilizing the Out-of-Home channel in their initiatives – specifically the “new” OOH channel, where they’re creating experiences between the real (offline) and virtual (online) worlds – I’m going to focus on paying special attention to a select number of brands and their cross-channel efforts. Some of these brands are going to be personal favorites of mine (see Coca Cola), some will be those who I’ve seen utilize this “new” OOH channel in unique ways. They’re all leaders, in some sense, in recognizing the power of reaching consumers when they’re out in the real world, literally outside of their homes. This is not a new target for brands, but today more than ever, technology and consumer behavior has reached a point to where this kind of engagement is critical. The “new” OOH is not made up of networks of physical digital screens, rather it’s made up of people, and the places/things around them, as they all have the ability to be turned “on” and connected.
I wrote about Budlight’s Playbook initiative late last year, after I’d seen a TV commercial touting a scannable image on their packaging with the ability to unlock certain pieces of content. It piqued my interest so I went to the store and found a box with the image, scanned it, and was immediately driven into this Playbook experience.
That day, I experienced quite a bit of content by simply scanning the image, but by taking that action, I also ended up in their communication stream. Since then, I’ve received a few text messages, but not as frequently as I’d expect, and certainly not in line with the expectations they set me up for when I originally scanned the image – which was a “new play every week.
But the thing I wanted to point out today happened on my commute into work this morning. I have a short commute to the train station, so my time with Howard Stern/satellite radio (so glad he re-signed for another 5 years) programming is at a premium – I always hope that I’m not going to be in the car at the same time they run their very few commercials during his show. This morning was unfortunately one of those times. Before I could change the station, though, I heard him reading a script for a commercial, saying something about “unlocking special content by scanning an image on their packaging”, and thought, “I know exactly what brand he’s talking about – Budlight.” Lo and behold, sure enough, he paid it off by saying something about experiencing “Bud Light’s Playbook” and directed everyone to “look for the image on the side of the box” or “visit Bud Light’s Facebook page.”
I smiled to myself because this was yet another channel I uncovered in their marketing mix, specifically surrounding this Playbook campaign. And to top it off, they were reaching me when I was in my car, not in front of my TV or my computer, not inside my house. I was out and about, going through my daily routine, and was made aware of a) the product (no duh!), b) the Playbook campaign and the accompanying content and c) the most important thing, the ability to interact with an otherwise non-interactive thing – their box.
That’s the thing here – it’s not about them advertising on the radio or on The Howard Stern Show (although I think it’s a VERY smart buy), it’s about their commitment to this new type of engagement (via this enabling mobile technology) and making sure their consumers know what & how to interact with it. The image scanning technology won’t work if people don’t know what it is and/or how to operate it. If it doesn’t work, no one will experience the brand through this channel.
As I explore the different ways brands are utilizing this “new” OOH space, I think it’s important to recognize every channel they’re using in the ecosystem. OOH – whether in the traditional sense, even throwing the word “digital” in front of it, or this “new” one that I talk about – is only one of them. It can be made infinitely more powerful by using other channels and telling a consistent story across them all. As we’ve seen with Bud Light and their TV commercials, radio spots, online and mobile properties, they’re spending an incredible amount of time and money supporting this campaign, and at the heart of it all is this new type of engagement that allows consumers to experience the brand through a regular, everyday object – the box that holds their beer cans.
But here’s the real thing – unfortunately, the most important aspect to this whole experience – the payoff/promise at the other end – is now no longer available. As I look at the Facebook page, searching for anything around the Playbook, I am at a loss. There’s no mention of anything Playbook-related. So, the commercial, along with my previous experience, hooked me, and drove me to look for something that wasn’t there. As is the case with any sort of interactive technology when you’re out and about and it doesn’t work, here it is now – I feel jipped. Totally let down. This ended up being a huge waste of my time and as a brand, that’s the last feeling you want me to be feeling.
This is the final part in a multi-part series this week on Mobile Scanning Technologies. I think these types of technologies are powerful in the “new” OOH because they bridge the offline (real-world) with the online (virtual world). And the “new” OOH, to me, is all about connecting others with the places and things around them AND each other.
For the 2nd time in this Friday-series, I’m late. I’m sorry for that. My wife is leaving for a 2-day trip today and I’ll be playing Mr. Mom, so last night was all about the two of us preparing for completely different weekends. The only time I could really find to write is in the quiet hours of early morning. So, here we are.
While I certainly haven’t covered everything about code/image scanning technologies this week, I hope that I have covered some main topics that you find helpful – there was exploring their value, there were a couple of recent examples, and then there was looking ahead to what the future my look like for them. The only big thing I think I missed were some best practices of using and implementing these types of technologies into campaigns. I have documented best practices from my POV before, though, and if you’d like to see them, check this out. In the end, I hope you have enough information to know what they are/what they do/how to use them (from a user’s standpoint) and things to think about/practical execution guidance (from an implementor’s standpoint). There is lots of information out there on the interwebs about these technologies so all you really have to do is pull up your handy Google page and go to town. To make things easier for you, I thought it would be helpful to share some of my favorite places to get this type of information in this week’s Friday’s 4-1-1. Without further adieu, here it is, Resource style.
1. Socialwayne.com – I briefly met the author of this blog, Wayne Sutton, at SXSW last year (he was on the Chevy Roadtrip that I was working on), and I’ve followed him ever since. He’s put a lot of thought and focus on QR codes this year and always has insightful posts about them. He creates and doesn’t just talk, which I appreciate greatly. His latest post on these technologies is called, “10 new QR Code generators with analytics to bridge the mobile social online worlds and increase consumer engagement” – the title truly says it all and it’s worth checking out.
2. 2dbarcodestrategy.com – I don’t know how I feel about the author because I don’t see much engagement from him on the blog and/or on his Twitter channel, but he’s a machine in showing examples and providing some good thought behind 2D codes. His blog is laser focused – it’s only about 2D codes and he posts almost every day. If only he would engage with his audience.
3. pongrblog.com – I virtually met these guys earlier this year and once I found out about them, had to check them out. They started out as a pure image-recognition technology and now they’ve turned it into a image-recognition, social, mobile game. It’s very interesting. You can see all about them here.
4. Microsofttag Twitter feed – I’m a huge fan of MS Tags and think they’re the type of 2D code to use in place of QR Codes – there’s only 1 code & reader, they work on every phone, they look better, and overall, have consistently worked for me. In terms of the information they share, I find their Twitter feed to be active, engaging, and informative (they aren’t active bloggers.)
“Uh-huh” – early on in the life of this blog (and periodically throughout), I introduced a term – “enabling technologies.” Basically, these technologies, to me, enable an otherwise static display or article to become interactive. In this case, both of these technologies – code scanning and image scanning – are enabling technologies. Without them, the experience couldn’t be had. My view of “OOH” includes two different types of technologies – 1) display technologies (that just make something “digital” – 1 way) and 2) enabling technologies (that make something “interactive” – 2 way) and moving forward, this concept will be even more critical to the direction I want to go next year.
“Duh” – there are many more resources that I’ve found helpful throughout the year. There are smart people out there who explore these very things and unfortunately, I’ve only listed 4 above. I’m giving myself the “duh” this week because I’m sure to have left off some great peeps.
So there it is kids, the wife is up and is about to leave and the timing is perfect. Here’s to a stress-free weekend. (BTW – the kids are still asleep so this is probably about the closest to “stress-free” that I’ll get.) :)
This is Part 2 in a multi-part series this week on Mobile Scanning Technologies. I think these types of technologies are powerful in the “new” OOH because they bridge the offline (real-world) with the online (virtual world). And the “new” OOH, to me, is all about connecting others with the places and things around them AND each other.
What’s their true value?
Yesterday, I posed this fundamental question I’m often faced with when exploring two powerful enabling technologies – code & image recognition.
Today, I’m going to share a couple examples I found in the latest edition of Wired. As if I was setting up the comparison myself, there they were, 2 different car companies, using 2 different types of technologies, in the same publication. In terms of industry and target, I couldn’t ask for a much closer sample from which to compare.
Ford is no stranger to the interactive print ad space, having used Microsoft Tags (code recognition) for the better part of the year. Now, GM, (specifically Buick) is in the game, bringing their own ads to life via Google Goggles (image recognition). As a deeper exploration of yesterday, the question here is, “do they deliver value?” And more, “is one more effective than the other in doing so?”
When looking at these types of experiences, there are 2 components that are critical to their success and effectiveness:
1. The point from which the interaction originates – in this case, the printed advertisement (offline)
2. The destination where consumers are driven (online)
Both are factors in how “valuable” the technologies are in the brand experience.
Right off the bat, I notice a benefit that addresses the main question yesterday – “why not use a URL instead of the code?” In the Ford ad, they use both. This is smart and a solid approach. The code takes you to an Edge-specific site and the URL takes you to a Ford-specific site. By including both, they’re a) able to offer up two different paths and b) something that can’t be overlooked, they’re not confusing the consumer by including two different URLs and/or two different codes. They each have a purpose.
This is on top of the sheer value of making an otherwise non-interactive piece of collateral interactive. From a consumer’s standpoint, if they’re in the right mindset, this technology enables a unique, immersive experience from something that’s never generated an “experience.” And that’s a key differentiator here – the experience – you just don’t have the same experience typing in a URL on your mobile phone as you do scanning a code or an image. I would argue that in this day and age of consumption and connectedness, experiences are more and more important for brands to create. Those experiences can be created in many different ways, and one of them is through technologies like this.
After the code/image is scanned, it’s important to pay off the experience with compelling content. This doesn’t mean that the content needs to be flashy or moving, it just needs to provide value.
While the Ford Edge site offers more content, I would say both of these brands do a good job of providing the right content. “More” does not necessarily equate to “right,” but “right” equates to “valuable.” Regardless of where the consumer is in the purchase funnel, both of these sites give them enough information to get further down the path.
For awareness – the sites give them basic information.
For consideration – the sites give them access to a deeper level of information.
For purchase – the sites give them the ability to connect with dealers.
The debate can be had to whether or not Ford’s “more” content is more valuable than Buick’s scaled-back content, but the important thing to recognize here is that there is content for everyone. When looking at these two examples through this lense, I walk away with an important insight – it’s OK to present fewer options of content, just as long as they’re the right options. And the brand’s objectives will dictate that.
So, I think that both of these brands bring value in their respective experiences. I don’t think that one does a better job than the other in using these technologies. Ford has had more time to test this type of technology and content with their audience(s). But both provide a level of utility through a unique experience that wouldn’t otherwise be had.
So I ask, what’s NOT valuable about that?
Thoughts?
(Disclaimer – GM is one of our clients, but I had nothing to do with the Buick piece featured here.)
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???
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.
I appreciate drawings. I’m a big visual thinker. And particularly at work, I draw more than write. I’m not a good artist, but I don’t think it takes a good artist to draw effective models – I like to think I make by pretty good. Anyway, I’ve been working on distilling my thoughts into something that is easy for people to understand what this space is all about. Here’s where I am:
Basically, I believe that all OOH solutions are made up of 3 main components:
1. Equipment
2. Place
3. Content
The Equipment really speaks to the “How” the message is delivered. It has 2 components: hardware and software. I know there are many other pieces included in those two (network, installation, maintenance, etc..), but in the end, you’ve got hardware and software that need to run the actual solution. It’s as easy as that.
The Place is the actual location the solution will be seen in – the “where”. From my standpoint, this is a strict media play – it’s either “Paid” media (you have to buy placement) or “Owned” media (you own the place where the solution will be seen). Again, I think pretty easy.
But the final component – one that is easy in concept, but hardest to execute in my opinion – is the Content component. Content is the “what” part of the solution and there are different pieces that make up the “what,” most notably Planning and Strategy. These two pieces are critical to storytelling because it provides the proper context in which to tell the story. Not necessarily what story needs to be told, but who exactly you want to tell the story to and how.
And around everything, there is an Execution piece. There will likely be multiple players in the game that are responsible for executing their component. This model helps identify what kind of players those are so you can create your own OOH solution.
Where this gets interesting, and I have to thank one of my partners-in-crime here, Matt Dickman, for seeing this – it’s the intersection of these components and what they really define. The result of “How” + “Where” is “Environmental Design.” What is this installation going to be in the place where it’s going to be seen? What opportunities do you have based on where it’s going to be seen? How much does that dictate what exact equipment is used?
The result of “Where” + “What” is the Consumer “Experience.” This is how the consumer is actually going to experience the solution. My experience is different if I’m in the middle of Times Square experiencing a billboard than it is if I’m in the middle of a tradeshow booth experiencing a kiosk. More, if I know where this story is going to be seen, I can optimize it to create the best “experience.”
And the result of “What” + “How” is the type of “Engagement” that the consumer is (or is not) involved in. This is where enabling technologies come most into play. What equipment do I need to absorb (and hopefully, literally, engage with) the story?
These results are the deeper components of the solution that I feel need to be thought about if you really want to maximize your OOH solution. These are the components that really define what I believe to be the power and potential of the “new” OOH.
So, that’s where I’m at. What do you think? Would love to hear opinions!
