First, it was a talking, feeling, thinking bike, now it’s a tree. Thanks to Happiness Brussels, we are now able to hear and see this tree’s thoughts and feelings. Aside from the fact that this is yet another example of how (enabling) technology can turn any real-world object into an engagement mechanism (this is true 11th Screen stuff here), the purpose behind the initiative is meaningful – to create a discussion around climate change. This, just as Nike’s Precious Bike did, illustrates the power of anything and everything “Out of Home” as a conduit to drive consumers deeper into a brand/discussion. As I’ve maintained here, the “new” Out of Home is not Digital Out of Home, it is utilizing the things and spaces around us to engage consumers and drive them deeper into the brand experience. While this execution is technically a “push only” execution on the surface, it is designed to facilitate discussion across multiple social channels, and it is in those channels that 2-way (push/pull) communication occurs. OOH is just one channel in the communication mix. Facebook, Flickr, Vimeo, Soundcloud, and Twitter are other ones. .com is another one. They’re not hard to make work together, it just requires forethought and planning. If you’re able to do that, these are the types of solutions you can make. Complete. Not silo’ed.
It’s Friday and time for the 2nd Friday 4-1-1 series. This installation is all about mobile, particularly the specific enabling technologies associated with mobile that have an opportunity to make brand interaction richer & deeper when coupled with OOH/DOOH/IOOH. If you’re a new reader, I think there is a difference between what makes “digital” Out of Home and “interactive” Out of Home – “digital” is made possible through display technology, “interactive” is made possible through enabling technologies. These technologies enable deeper interaction with a brand and its OOH/DOOH installation. You can think of it like this:
Enabling technology (and there are many of them) + OOH/DOOH = IOOH (Interactive Out of Home)
Display technology + OOH = DOOH
My premise is “Digital” Out of Home cannot be made interactive without any of these enabling technologies. So, today, I’ll focus on 3 mobile enabling technologies – augmented reality, geo-location, and of course, QR codes. Here’s the 4-1-1:
1. Facebook Places Propels SCVNGR to 100,000 Downloads in 48 Hours – reality check, first of all – the “general” consumer doesn’t use geo-location apps like FourSquare, much less a new app like SCVNGR. The penetration numbers for “digital” users who use geo-location apps are low (~4% according to Forrester). However, I believe there is loads of potential for geo-location apps like FourSquare, Gowalla, FB Places, and SCVNGR (and the others). These apps really enable a feature that I believe is core to a brand’s success in the new “Out of Home” space – reaching consumers where they are (out of home) and driving deep(er) engagement with the brand. There are few brands who have really figured out how best to do this, but there are many who are experimenting. As far as SCVNGR goes, their platform is really based on the idea of a Scavenger Hunt – users go around to different places (called “Treks”), when there, they have to complete a challenge, get rewarded via points, and then ultimately get rewarded with badges. For brands, this platform is significant because it’s a built-out mobile platform, specifically intended to provide challenge-based scavenger hunt game-play experiences. Yes, you can pretty much do the same thing with FourSquare (you have to work through FourSquare) and Gowalla (users themselves can set up “trips”), but they weren’t built for this very thing (neither of them are based on “challenges”). In my opinion, it’s a better way to reward consumers who are loyal enough to your brand to go through a challenge-based scavenger hunt (again, outside of their home) vs. just checking in repeatedly at a single place.
2. Four Seasons Joins Geo-Social Gold Rush With California Campaign – I’ve put together a number of campaigns with Gowalla – it’s not the Austin-based connection that I am high on with them, it’s really the experience they provide vs. FourSquare. (In fairness, if I could put together any geo-location-based campaign, regardless of budget/time constraints, I would probably look at using both of them, but Gowalla is easier/more accommodating to work with. FourSquare has sheer numbers, Gowalla has a more engaging experience, particularly on the brand side, in my opinion.) So, it was nice to read about a brand like Four Seasons hopping on the geo-location bandwagon. Again, this is yet another example of a brand driving engagement with consumers while they’re out and about, going through their normal day-to-day activities. Who would have ever thought that just by “checking in” some place through your mobile phone, you could get rewarded with a hotel-stay voucher.
3. Toys “R” Us Unveils Multichannel Mobiel CRM Tactics – here’s my QR code example this week. Only problem with this is that it’s launching in Hong Kong only. At least right now. Solid concept though – targeted at their loyalty card holders, those loyal consumers can unlock exclusive content through these “R” (what Toys R Us is calling them) codes and from the sounds of it, with each scan, can earn more “loyalty” points, which is of benefit to them with real-world merchandise. QR codes are commonplace in that part of the world, so I suspect this is going to be widely used. Hopefully, the campaign will make its way here and even more hopefully, US consumers will actually know what to do when they see this weird code in front of them.
4. Augmented Reality Campaign for Lustucru Pasta in 500 Supermarkets – pasta + a martian + tomatoes + Augmented Reality = AWESOME. Forget about checking into places, whoever thought they could play a game with a martian just by purchasing a box of pasta? Augmented Reality has come so far in a few short months. Now, instead of needing a black-bound box that serves as a marker and a webcam, all you need is an AR application on your mobile phone. It’s really unbelievable. For this, though, I guess the question is, “does this drive more sales?” Don’t know. After I play the game, would I want to play it again? Does it build? Is there anything deeper? If so, it could be the reason that I’d want to continue buying this pasta when I need pasta. If not, on the surface, it’s a good engagement, but what does it do to achieve longer-terms goals? It makes me smile, though. Check it out:
“Uh-huh” – Reggie Bush hit the Holy Grail by combining geo-location (FourSquare) with social media (Twitter/Facebook) and the real-world (with StickyBits). This is the perfect combination of driving Reggie Bush-brand engagement through the use of various mediums/channels, including a strong OOH play. Basically, Reggie used FourSquare like a scavenger-hunt service (should have used SCVNGR!) so that fans could find autographed footballs around the city of New Orleans in anticipation of last night’s opening NFL game. They could then attach messages to StickyBits for Reggie. Great cross-channel program.
Before I get into this week’s “Duh,” I’ll say this – I think that “OOH” as a media channel has changed drastically in the past few years. My definition of “OOH” is “anything that the user doesn’t have to own to have an experience with.” In these cases, a user needs a mobile phone, but the point in which that experience originates is always OOH and from something that they don’t need to own – checking in at a location doesn’t require you to own the location, using a QR code doesn’t require you to own the QR code, and even playing a game from a box of pasta doesn’t require you to necessarily own the box of pasta. Lines are certainly more grey than they used to be in terms of “OOH” and it’s in this grey area that I believe lives the 11th Screen.
Now, my “Duh” – it’s not an example this week, it’s a piece of advice based on a few experiences that I’ve had this week. Slow down. Life and work move very fast and most often, we make decisions in split seconds. Those decisions can have a profound impact on other people and your own work (substitute “life” with “work” if you want to). There is nothing wrong with slowing down, taking a deep breath, having a think on it, and then moving forward.
I hope you guys have a great weekend. Would love to hear anything you’ve got to say about any of this. Just shout!
In an effort to write more regularly, I’m going to implement something that every other blogger on the planet does – a regular series. It’s called the Friday 4-1-1. And here’s how it breaks down:
Each week, on Friday, I’ll highlight 4 stories/events/implementations that I’ve seen during that week and give my impressions. On top of that, I’ll highlight the best “uh-huh” (rockin’) thing I’ve seen and the worst “duh” (what were they thinking?) thing I’ve seen. And we’ll see how it works. So, here we go.
1. Interactive Technology to Enhance Museum Experience – an affiliate museum of the Smithsonian, The Northwest Museum of Arts & Culture in Washington state, is piloting a “Passport to Discovery” project that sounds a lot like the myLOC passport system (set up in the Library of Congress). Solid idea – make the user’s experience smarter each time they visit, based on their actions/interactions from the last visit, but my question is – how much of a pain is it to keep track of a passport-like tchotchke? I would either lose it, forget it, or be annoyed that I have to sift through my catch-all drawer every time I need it. Tie this into the one thing that people keep track of and don’t leave home without – their mobile phone – and you have something.
2. Google Introduces Branded Map Icons – simple – brands can now “brand” their locations into Google maps. For OOH/DOOH/IOOH, brands can benefit in a major way. They not only benefit from the brand recognition when Google maps is integrated into a digital/interactive sign, they benefit from the native functionality that allows users to automatically click-through to details about the brand. I’m big on driving deeper brand experiences through all mediums, particularly OOH/DOOH/IOOH, and this is an example of an API unlocking that feature. This feature has been available before now, but for a brand, there is a big difference from their location being tagged by a grey dot and being tagged by their logo, especially on an interactive sign, when you want to make it as enticing as possible. Of course, this feature is only available to paying brands (using this as a form of advertising). :)
3. Eye Expands Mobile Marketing at Malls, Sans “Big Brother” Effect – this is cool, but I just wonder for the end-consumer, if they make any distinction with geo-location ads. The average consumer probably thinks it’s still creepy, regardless of “how” it’s done. EYE and Ace Marketing & Promotions are working a system based on phone proximity, nothing GPS-related. Here’s where I think digital/interactive signage (I don’t even think you’d need a “digital” sign) serves an ideal purpose – the sign is the bridge between the smart-but-creepy ad and the not-knowing-and-wary consumer. Imagine in a mall, you walk up to a sign that lets you know what to expect on your phone – in terms of store advertisements – just because you’re “in the area.” Viola, without doing anything other than being in that place, you’re pleasantly delighted when you look at your phone and see that Gap is having a sale on jeans. You don’t walk away creeped out. We need as much of this “non-creepy” interaction/advertising as possible right now – it will only help in the acceptance of digital/interactive signs (that have the potential to be very smart).
4. Seahawks Utilize iPad Kiosks for Fan Registration – first, I can’t wait for football to begin next Thursday. Second, anytime interactive technology and football are mentioned in the same sentence, my ears perk up. So, I was delighted to read about the Seattle Seahawks building kiosks with iPads to “register over 20,000 fans” at their training camp this summer. Sounds like they were also able to allow the fans to experience some premier content, which I would fully expect on devices like that. I think this is a great, relatively cost-effective solution to explore when wanting an interactive out-of-home solution. Take a $800 sophisticated piece of hardware & software, build a nice unit around it and you have yourself a feature-rich, well-functioning IOOH solution.
“Uh-huh” – I give this the “uh-huh” head nod each time I see it. Imagine what could be done with this interactive film – The Wilderness Downtown – in an out-of-home setting? Not only would the current iteration be sticky enough for people to stop, interact, and gather around, it sure would be cool to integrate the point where people are interacting with it and the point where they ultimately go (their hometown house). That idea goes against what I said earlier about the “creepiness” factor, but it would be cool.
“Duh” – I don’t know if this is the right word for this category. Nor do I know if it’s a “what were they thinking” category. I just know it’s opposite of the cool, “uh-huh” category. But this week’s installment of the un-cool comes in the form of QR codes. And not one specific implementation. Just as an overall solution. I saw this one and this one, not to mention this one in a magazine I was reading:
Now, look, there’s not another enabling technology that I’ve written about more than QR codes, but the more I learn, read, see, not to mention actually work with QR codes and other mobile technologies, the more I question whether or not the average consumer knows what the heck to do with them. It’s all about the audience – the JFK/Twitter example will probably get more interaction because Twitter, in and of itself, does not attract the “average” consumer, but I just might be at the point of QR code over saturation. Good to see so many examples this year, but are they working? Jury is still way out.
So, there you have it. My first Friday 4-1-1. What do you think?
Nike one-ups the Chalkbot with Precious – the bike with a brain. This “brain,” made by Breakfast, New York is the ultimate enabling technology. It not only merges the real-world (offline) with the virtual world (online), it actually processes data like a brain and then responds (via Twitter) accordingly. It’s pretty amazing what they’ve made.
They’ve explored an interesting angle here, one that is much more in play here vs. Chalkbot – the thing (bike) is the hero, not the person (bike rider). (I also think it’s way cool that they’ve given a voice to Precious on the website, and taken it away (for the most part) from the rider, as you can see by the picture-only blog). This is a great example of the potential of the things and places around us – not people or true “screens” – that can engage consumers in ways we never thought possible. Technology is key to this. And in this specific instance, this brain technology actually enables the messaging to take on a life of its own. These messages are not customized based on the audience, they’re customized based on the messenger, powered by all of the context leading up to each message.
For marketers this is one of those game-changing ideas and executions. A thinking, talking bike? A “thing” that can provide content with a more-than-decent level of context. It truly learns as it goes. This is what gets me excited. This is the potential that I see in this space – those who are effective (will) understand the power of merging offline (which to me, is “out-of-home”) with online to create deep, meaningful brand experiences for their consumers.
And here we are, QR codes again. There’s no other enabling technology that I’ve blogged about more here than QR codes. For good reason – I think they have good potential, but I just don’t know if they make the general consumer’s life easier. So, I don’t know that they’ll ever take off here in the U.S. (And I do have the perspective of actually implementing a program around them for a large brand.)
That said, I read what amounted to a good post this morning on QR codes, but it was another example that supports my doubt. The post was titled, “NYC Garbage Trucks Take QR Codes Mainstream,” so it piqued my interest. But when I saw what it was, I just had to shake my head:
How many people take pictures of garbage trucks? How many people want to get close enough to garbage trucks to take a picture of them? I mean, who came up with this idea? I just don’t get it. What are they trying to accomplish? Apparently, there’s a video behind the code that supports a recycling initiative in NYC, but it’s also going to run on TV. Why don’t they just advertise the details of the TV spot? Or just paste the URL big and bold on the side of the garbage truck that would accomplish the same thing?
I don’t think this is going to take QR codes mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, if Calvin Klein can’t do it with a super-large QR code on the side of a building, I doubt that the city of NYC can do it on the side of garbage trucks.
There is something to be said with delivering (exclusive) content through technology like this. More and more, technologies are enabling brands to merge the offline with the online. (This is the future of marketing, in my opinion.) QR codes are no different. But brands are still a ways away from utilizing these technologies correctly, and to their fullest ability.
What do you think of this garbage truck initiative? Will they bring QR codes into the mainstream?
Build-A-Bear does it again. I know these guys aren’t the only ones doing an effective job of communicating with their customers, regardless of channel (or “screen”), but, it’s worth pointing out, not only when (and how) they use those different channels – the end goal can’t be overlooked amidst the channel tactics: developing meaningful relationships with their customers. They seem to be honed in on what they’re trying to do with their customers vs. what they’re trying to do with their brand. Big distinction and something that I think a lot of brands can learn from. I think, generally speaking, brands get the concept and even strive for this more often than not. It’s about actually doing, making decisions based on what is best for the customer vs. what is best for the brand. They do go hand in hand but in order to do what’s best for the customer, I believe brands have to have a solid understanding of their story, their promise, their value to the customers (even world) – this frees them from doing things just for the sake of doing things. In this position, brands are purposeful and everything they do has meaning. It moves the needle.
So, it was of no surprise when my daughter received a special “gift” in the mail yesterday from Build-A-Bear.
This is right on so many levels.
1. Recognition – by simply saying “Happy Birthday”, BAB is saying, “you’re important to us and we’re thinking about you.” They’ve got this system down so right now, we’re technically important to a computer, but I guarantee you, as soon as we walk in the store with this, we’re going to get showered with the most welcoming and genuine “Happy Birthdays” outside of our family. And to have hooks in place, behind the scenes, to communicate with customers at appropriate times (like birthdays) is just another smart, meaningful, easy way to communicate and build the relationship.
2. Reward – it’s small (only $5.00), but it drives us into the store. Knowing my wife, our daughter will get an accessory with this gift instead of a bear, but in the end, that doesn’t matter as much as the complete impact that this one touch point will have on us. The card is only part of this touch point. The action that we take as a result of getting the card is the other part of the touch point. It’s not without challenge getting customers to do what you want them to do. Reward, even a small one, is a great way to entice them and move them along the relationship path.
3. Relationship – it’s an idealistic way of looking at the world of marketing and communications, but I think there’s 1 easy question for brands to always ask that will steer them in the right direction – “is this going to positively impact our relationship with our customers?” It’s certainly complicated in the world of ROI and KPI’s and budgets and the ever-evolving media landscape, but does it have to be? Build-A-Bear is in the relationship business, literally, and this is probably a huge factor in driving decisions like this.
In addition, they’re also making a concerted effort to drive us even deeper than in store. They’re complimenting the offline experience (card to store) with an even richer online experience (Build-A-Bearville).
This right here is something that I want to focus more on in this forum as we go into the 2nd half of the year – the offline to the online and vice versa. The true power that I see with OOH, interactive out-of-home specifically, is how it can be an even greater bridge between the offline and the online. I’ve talked a lot about enabling technologies that allow people to take something offline and have an online experience, thus experiencing the brand on a deeper level. There are many ways for brands to do this and using the “OOH” channel is one of them. Many brands are doing this. I’m on a hunt for those brands.
But for now, thank you Build-A-Bear for being one of these brands, and on a personal level, this relationship is becoming meaningful, not only with me, but with my daughter, and we’re starting to become loyal. Which is the whole point. :)
We’re at a good halfway point in the year, so I think it’s an opportune time to look back on the first 6 months of this blog and reflect.
All in all, I think I’ve done a fairly good job of finding a relevant and clear point of view. It’s evolved from something narrow when I started to a bit broader now. Most everything has been grounded in OOH – I just look at things with more experience and exposure as time has gone (and goes) on. I’m also surrounded by different people in my everyday life who have impacted my thinking. So, naturally, my point of view will evolve. I just don’t want it to slow me down and/or turn into something crazy and incomprehensible.
I need to write more. I’m averaging about 10 posts a month. I feel like I need to double that so I’m providing a steady source of information. I’ve asked a couple of my work colleagues, all of whom are very bright and have an opinion and aren’t shy to voice it, to provide guest posts on as regular basis as they can. So, hopefully, you’ll not only get more content, but you’ll get more (and different) perspective. If any of you want to provide a guest post, just let me know. I’m open to it.
I haven’t found the secret sauce of doing conferences. Blogging, tweeting, meeting people, and just plain going to the conference is a lot of work and certainly requires some juggling. I’ve provided a decent mix of “live streaming” + my perspective. I feel like I need to focus on getting in front of some of “names” there and interview them (or something.) I can see how that would be valuable. So, any of you names at these conferences, take this as my initial request :)
Other than that, I’m pretty happy with everything. It’s still very new and the test is really going to be sustaining over time. I’m committed to continue learning and doing and writing. I expect big things and as a result, everyone reading this will experience that with me.
I’ve met some really great people through this avenue and that, more than anything, is the thing I’m most proud of. This blog allows for these words to live on until some Y2K catastrophe, but I hope to keep those relationships for much longer.
I thought it would be a fun exercise to share some of my favorite posts. I’ve enjoyed reading back over everything and for those who are new to this blog, it might help you navigate through some of my thinking up to now. To those of you who are not new to this blog and my regular readers (again, thank you guys for regular readership!!), I’d love to hear some of your favorite posts. So here they are, broken down by month (I picked a favorite per month):
January – The 11th Screen Puzzle – this was my 3rd post and really where I felt like I was able to really give everyone a sense of where I’m coming from and what to expect from this blog.
February – Keep It Simple Stupid – here, I showed a few examples of “simple” and effective Interactive Out of Home (IOOH) and an example of not so simple and not so effective. To me, there are many different kinds of enabling technologies that make OOH solutions “interactive.” These technologies are vital, not only for the industry, but for the future of marketing. On one hand, these technologies allow us to merge the offline with the online and on another hand, they allow brands to make “complete” experiences.
March – Facebook + QR Codes + A Good Idea? – a little snarky here, but this was on the heels of doing a big QR code initiative for one of our clients and all I was reading was how Facebook was going to save QR codes. That’s right, I said “save” because here in the US, I think they might have died before they were even born. I personally think there’s value to QR codes, if used the right way + proper eduction, but how many of you have used QR codes and like it? I just don’t know that we, as consumers of information through technology, need this particular technology. Point is – is Facebook going to save them? I don’t think so.
May – Are You an Expert Learner? – I am of the mindset that if you aren’t learning, you’re wasting your time. I don’t particularly care for know-it-alls, but I really like learn-it-alls.
June – Kinect (and others) – “DOOH” Killers? – the launch of Microsoft’s Kinect should really open eyes on what can be done sooner rather than later with human computer interaction. It is particularly compelling for anyone in the “DOOH” (if you’ve read this blog, you know how I feel about that moniker) industry.
I just read a great re-cap post on “super brand’s” use of Augmented Reality from Chris Lake on Econsultancy and it got me thinking. Specifically about AR & QR codes. I call both technologies enabling technologies because they both enable the offline to be merged with the online. And they both enable deeper experiences with the brand. But QR codes – really any barcodes – just don’t seem to have the attraction, nor the experimentation to scale and use that AR has. Why do you think this is?
Aside from the end-visual difference between the two, I think it’s simple – QR codes don’t do for a brand what AR does. In other words – QR codes are just another way to access information. AR is another way to experience a brand. It’s quite a big difference.
At the end of the day, do we really need QR codes? We can duplicate the same experience through advertising a URL or a short code. Some would even argue that accessing a deeper level of information through a URL/short code is a better experience than through a QR code. You don’t have to understand what it is, how it works, download an app, take a picture. Just simply type or text for the information you want.
AR, on the other hand, is an experience unto itself. You can’t duplicate the experience any other way. And because AR is what it is, it allows brands to either create an experience or utility that can show things in ways that no other medium can. And that’s one of the fascinating things to me about AR – it transcends the mediums/screens we use to consume media. It lives, literally, somewhere between your hands in the real world and your eyes on whatever screen you experience it on. It can immerse someone in a brand far more effectively than any barcode can. And depending on the actual solution, it can probably immerse someone more than a TV commercial can, or a website, or a banner ad, or a “static” video.
QR codes & AR both have hurdles for sure. Start with the technology needed and the effort required to access either of them. But because of what each provides, do you think one will outlive the other? Or do you think that they’re both here to stay?
A couple of days ago, I shared my vision of OOH. It’s pretty simple. In my view, OOH is broken down into 3 buckets – categories of displays if you will – billboards, posters & kiosks. They are separated by 3 differentiating factors – amount of information, length of engagement and potential for human interaction.
This view is important to me because of what happens when you start to add technology onto it. What exactly does that technology do? And what is the true impact of technology on this medium? So, first, to show my view on the most overused moniker in the industry – Digital Out of Home (DOOH):
When you add digital to this model, you get the same exact model with just a little different shading. It doesn’t change much other than the fact that there is now some sort of technology applied to the medium. In this case, “digital” is just the addition of display technology. As I’ve said before, display technologies are a finite list of technologies – LCD, LED, projection. All it does is enable a static display to become dynamic. For advertisers, this, of course, has a substantial impact, both with advertising-based displays/networks and non-advertising-based displays/networks. But the true effect on the consumer’s experience isn’t drastically different. When you apply a display technology to a billboard, you get a different type of billboard, but by and large, it has the same effect. Ditto for posters and kiosks. As a consumer, I’m still getting the same amount of information, I’m still engaging with it the same length of time and the potential for my interaction with it hasn’t changed. The primary difference is that it now moves. Is it more effective? Maybe. If I respond better to moving images rather than static display. If the content is compelling. But I don’t think it moves the needle by itself. The true magic happens when you make OOH & DOOH interactive, which I’m calling Interactive Out of Home (IOOH).
Now, not only is the model shaded even more differently, it takes on a completely different form. Interactive billboards become something closer to posters. Interactive posters become something closer to kiosks. And kiosks become something they’ve never been. Interactivity and the technologies that enable it have a profound impact on OOH & DOOH. I call these technologies enabling technologies – technologies that enable personalized experiences from each of these displays. Technologies like touch screens, motion sensors, RFID, NFC, Bluetooth, mobile and its enabling technologies like GPS, 2D/3D barcode scanners and Augmented Reality – the list is certainly larger than the display technology list, but still finite (at least right now. I have no doubt it will grow with time.) But they all drastically effect the experience in the same fundamental way – they enable a level of personalization that is deeper than any of these displays provide in their raw, even digital, forms. This personalization is really the key to effective communication, which is the key to creating and sustaining relationships between brands and their audiences. This is the special effect that I believe OOH, as a medium, can and will have on marketers and consumers in this new day and age, particularly as newer technologies are introduced. But it’s all about the interactivity. A traditional OOH installation can be made interactive, just as a DOOH installation can be made interactive. In some cases, I believe the technology inherent in DOOH makes it easier to incorporate enabling technologies, but this is not always the case. It does not need to be “digital” to include interactivity. A perfect example of this is our QR code initiative at SXSW. A static (non-digital) QR code was added to a static display (car, which in this case, I would consider a “poster” in my model – not that it includes a wealth of information, but a static car like that, in that type of environment, provides a level of human interaction and length of engagement similar to a traditional poster) and with the use of mobile as the enabling technology, attendees were able to experience a deeper, personal engagement with the brand. This is why I think it’s critical to make a distinction between “digital” and “interactive” in this way. Interactivity allows the consumer to experience more information, and engage and interact with it in a deeper way. It is worlds different than just “digital.”
This sort of engagement opens up an exciting and scary world of possibilities. Brands will sooner or later understand that they can (and should) use the spaces and things around us, in our everyday lives, as effective communication tools. It has a drastic impact on them and their ability to touch their audience anywhere they want/need. We’re a ways off though, as you’ve heard me say before. But make no mistake, technology – specifically enabling technologies (not display technologies) – transforms the OOH world into something that has only truly been applied in books and movies. For now, we keep pushing and experimenting.
It’s been cool to see people interacting with the QR codes on the Cruze over the past few days. We’ve seen some good interaction and gotten some good feedback. It seems (and sounds) like people really enjoy interacting with the car in this way. From my perspective – it feels right. These codes, while I think there are too many for people to interact with here, generate a level of interest to an otherwise static, “blank” display, which is important because it adds another element to the car to compel people to actually stop and look. But more than that, the engagement that they enable has been very interesting to watch. People like doing anything on their mobile phone, and we’ve seen that here (especially with the “geek” factor at SXSW) in the booth – they like the immediacy and intimacy of the experience. They like the comfort of their phone. They’re not intimidated by it. As long as they know how to use it, they’re willing to try it. But I’ll say it again – the payoff has to be there on the other end, though. The experience needs to be completed. And here, I feel like we did a good job of completing the experience. Again, I think we could have dialed down the number of codes that we gave people to interact with. I also think we could have done a better job of letting the people know the difference in all of the codes. Upon first look, I’m sure it appeared that they were all the same (except the “Fan-us-on-Facebook” codes), so we could have differentiated them better.
All in all, I’m proud of the experience – I think we did a good job of using the spaces around us (car in a tradeshow) to create a personalized experience through the use of enabling technologies (mobile + QR codes). This is what I look for whenever I observe any OOH/”ambient media”/DOOH implementation – does the experience drive deeper than what the user sees on the surface?
I have to commend the client for getting behind this. Without forward-thinking clients, this type of work will only trickle out into the industry and take a much longer time to gain traction than needed. We need a constant flow that turns into a flood.
What do you guys think of the experience?’ I’d love to hear your thoughts!
