Let’s pretend, for a moment, that there is value in QR codes. Everyone has their own definition of value, be it to get a coupon or to see product information or to become connected on Facebook. For today, we’ll just presume that the value proposition is met in order for someone to scan a QR code.
Beyond value, I think there are two key drivers or barriers (however you want to look at it) to scanning a QR code:
Convenience
Awkwardness
It must be convenient. This means that it really needs to be right in front of you and the proper size to scan within an arm’s length. I don’t think there’s a scientific formula that defines either; rather, I think you have to use good ol’ common sense. When printing a QR code, test it first. Put yourself in the position of the average person. If it’s not convenient for you, it’s not going to be convenient for anyone else.
The second driver/barrier is awkwardness. I have never seen anyone scan a QR code out in the public. Have you? I think, by and large, there is a sense of awkwardness that the average person doesn’t want to experience/let everyone see out in the open. I think people feel more comfortable exposing themselves to new technology in public places in as private of an environment as they can have.
If it’s convenient, it stands to reason that it won’t be too awkward. Problem is, most QR codes out in the open are not convenient, therefore extremely awkward.
So it was last night. When I was at the fast food drive-in, Sonic. There I was just sitting in my car, waiting, listening to the World Series, not much to do but look directly at this:
This is what everyone sees when they’re waiting for their order at Sonic. Directly in front of them. Windows typically down, no more than a foot away. For at least two minutes.
It is the perfect scenario for a QR code.
I have time (this trumps the value prop to me) and don’t mind doing something like scanning a QR code. It’s convenient. And, given that I’m confined to my car, in my own little stall, I don’t feel awkward doing something like this out in the open.
Lucky for me there was a QR code in the vicinity. Unlucky for me, it was not right in front of me.
It was on the back of the menu board, only visible if you’re looking across your car, and only convenient for a passenger, and extremely awkward for anyone to scan, even and most importantly, the passenger.
Let’s just pretend that there is value in this QR code and I really wanted to scan it. I walked away from this experience not taking that action.
Why?
Simple. Because it’s not convenient and, even more, it’s awkward.
If these are your two guides as you’re introducing any new technology out into the open, into public places, you’ll be just fine.
Time is a funny thing. It keeps going. Regardless of how much value you place in it. Personally, I didn’t really learn the value of time until later in my life. Perhaps some people are instinctually tuned into how valuable their time is. Not me. I like to do many things, help many people, say yes, make time, make stuff. I think there comes a point in your life when you actually start to put a premium on time and therefore prioritize, consciously or unconsciously, all of the things you find yourself faced with.
Technology has a funny effect on time, the thing that keeps going. It seems to make it go by faster. Consumption via all these screens fast-forwards our lives in drastic proportions. Just by the shear rate of life, who has time for what content?
Ah, this pesky, key ingredient – content. What we consume and engage with on a daily basis. What we give our attention to, be it for connection or entertainment or education. TV shows, websites, blogs, videos, pictures, news feeds, texts – the sea of content is deep and easily time-suckable. How do we prioritize what content we give our time to? I think that decision is based on any of these three factors:
We like the subject matter
We like who makes it
We have nothing else to do or have time to spare (this is hardly sticky but it is a reason to consume, to give your time to it.)
These factors are much easier to control on our personal screen. Not so much on a public one. That begs the question – what is the role of digital signage, these public screens?
When I think of the future and how digital signage plays out and how mobile plays out, here’s what I think:
Digital signage won’t go away. It will have its place, but to what extent – I guess that’s the question. Will it be more like billboards, where it’s primarily push? Or will it be, by and large, interactive?
We won’t need digital signs to interact with the outside world because of mobile phones and tablets and their capabilities. Specifically, their capabilities to “turn anything on” and even more, provide personal experiences on a personal screen.
Mobile technologies will have a profound impact on the future of digital signage. It’s just that simple.
Part of the reason is that innovation is happening in mobile in a short amount of time. For the past few years, we’ve all been talking about whether or not this is going to be the year of mobile. Well, if we weren’t there last year, we’re certainly there this year. One of the ways you can see this is through the innovations brought to life in the mobile world. Tablets. Apps. Siri. Near Field Communication.
And while mobile’s innovations might be young, I think you can feel pretty comfortable that they’ll be around for a long, long time. As we can see in the short amount of time, creating these innovations is not confined to a select few Technorati or business minds – anyone can innovate and get that innovation out in the market place. To me, this is one key development and asset that the digital signage industry does not have yet. Innovation is confined to a few companies. It’s closed to a seemingly few, albethem brilliant in their own right, minds. It’s not the open-to-the-masses platform like mobile is. And perhaps that’s the reason its innovations and, as a result, its place in the market, have not developed to the point to where the industry has been expecting and hoping for, literally, years.
Unlike mobile, I feel like the digital signage industry will ask themselves again, in 2012, “is this the year of digital signage?” Maybe they can take a page from the mobile book and strive for open innovation, that which is brought on by the masses, not a select few.
I was hanging out with my step-dad this morning and he shed a little light on the “average” person’s familiarity and expectations with new technology, specifically with mobile technology. He’s a new owner of an iPhone, thanks to AT&T’s $49 deal that came out a few months ago and his computer usage is really centered around email, Facebook, and surfing to camping or backpacking sites via Google. He doesn’t know a lot, but he knows enough to get the information he needs on these devices. The iPhone and its power make him want to explore and expand the way he uses it, but he needs a little bit of guidance. Without that guidance, he falls into what I call, “overload paralysis.” There’s just too much out there, too much to process, to0 much to decide between, too much to search, too much to find out – it’s easy to just shut down and become paralyzed when faced with too much. I feel like this is a common state for the average consumer, and my step-dad reaffirmed my belief.
These types of consumers have different expectations from technology than those of us who are immersed in it day in and day out. And this is what my conversation really shed some light on.
Here’s how our conversation went:
Step-dad (SD): Mike, I’d like to pick your brain a little bit about what apps to download.
Mike: OK, what do you want to do, from the apps?
SD: Well, I just downloaded Pandora the other day and I really enjoy it.
Mike: So, you want music and movies, multimedia-stuff like that?
SD: No, not really. I don’t need to watch movies. But I’d love to know what good apps are out there.
Mike: Are you looking for games? Or productivity things? Like scheduling, notes, reminders – things like that?
SD: That might be interesting.
Mike: What about your bank? Do you have your bank’s app?
SD: Oh, that would be good.
Mike: Facebook?
SD: Yeah, that would be good, too. What about that Twitter? How does that work?
I’ll spare you the conversation there. It picked up a little bit later….
SD: I just downloaded a barcode scanner and I love that.
Mike: What do you scan?
SD: There are these square codes in my camping magazines that I scan.
Mike: You actually scan them?
SD: Yeah.
Mike: What does it take you to?
SD: Like this one here (pointing out one regarding a GPS), it takes me to a website where I get to see more information about this GPS unit.
And then, I let him show me the experience. He knew what to do and actually thought he was really cool, doing this high-tech thing on his iPhone.
I was enlightened. From this one encounter, I learned:
1. There is an awareness of QR codes and what they do, to the average consumer. My step-dad was genuinely interested in them and used them.
2. The expectation that the average consumer has about the content behind a QR code is not in line with mine. My step-dad was fine that he was simply directed to a website (non-mobile-optimized at that). He was able to learn more about this GPS system that he wasn’t able to from an ad in the magazine.
3. A mobile-optimized website was of no concern to him. He knows that he can expand any part of the mobile screen with his two fingers so it doesn’t annoy him that there aren’t any special versions of links or simplification of the experience. In fact, he was able to manipulate the screen – expand and scroll – with (relative) speed and precision.
Overall, there is a belief out there that in this little grey computer box and the little phone in your pocket, there is a treasure to be unlocked. The average consumer just doesn’t know how to unlock it. They’re less concerned about instructions and context and optimization. They’re more concerned about having what everyone else has.
To me, that’s a far different problem to solve than perfecting the experience.
Apple has and will continue to singlehandedly shape the future of digital (and interactive) out-of-home.
They have redefined mobility.
They have created devices that take the intimidation out of touch and gesture. And made them accessible to the average consumer.
They have enabled thousands of independent developers to create content for native mobile devices.
They have created a personal expectation that we can have what we want when we want it.
They have made little bitty boxes that run powerful programs on most any display.
They have set the standard in interface design and functionality.
And now, they’re introducing the idea of always-accessible voice recognition and memory.
They have fundamentally changed the way that people interact with content and technology, the two core components of digital/interactive out-of-home.
So, if you’re a creative, a technologist, a developer, a strategist, a network operator – whatever you are – and you’re trying to figure out this or that for your digital/interactive screen, look no further than the phone in your pocket or the tablet in your bag or the computer on your desk.
On the train, there are 2 screens. There is this one:
And there is this one:
I never see anyone looking at, much less paying attention to, the red, scrolling, digital one. As I look across the train right now, out of 8 sitting comfortably in their seats, waiting for a) the car to fill up or b) us to leave, 6 of them are looking at and giving their attention to the phone one. They don’t even look up aimlessly to the sky to watch the sun peak through the clouds, like I’m half doing. Just head down, sucked to that little personal screen that some people still call a phone.
We are a captive audience here on the train and no one wants to look at the scrolling digital sign. Clearly, they place no value in it, whether it be from the low-fi technology that is too rudimentary for them or the content scrolling across the screen – happy birthday’s to this celebrity or that, facts about diabetes, or this day in history, all fascinating tidbits of content interesting only to who? – or the phone screen is simply too magnetizing to give attention to anything else.
One person plays solitaire. One person reads a book. One person scrolls through their music. I can’t see the others, but I’m certain that they’re all doing something different. This is one of powerful aspects to that little personal screen – anyone can essentially do anything they want to do on it. The experience is theirs. Not a preconceived and served up one. It’s the content they want as frequently as they want it. How can any other screen measure up?
————
In the lobby, there are 2 screens. There is this one:
And there is this one:
Out of 4 people waiting for the elevator, 2 (plus me) look at the large news screen, 2 look at the mobile personal one. The ones looking at the large news screen are just filling time. It’s moving pictures and noise. We’re all half tuned in. I can just tell. And why not? I mean, it’s the same content that each one of us are a) coming from, having tuned into the news before work b) going to, being that the “news” feed on the monitors in our own company’s lobby is literally on news of some sort.
It’s too easy to just pipe boring, meaningless, depressing content across other screens, outside of personal TVs and desktop computers. More screens more places, right? They’re everywhere. Problem is, “more content” is easily overlooked.
As I ride up the elevator, no one speaks beyond, “Good mornings,” and “You doing OK’s?” It’s eyes to the personal screen, that darn magnet.
————
People – including me – say all the time, “people are on the move, now more than ever, so it’s important to hit them where they are, which is less in their living rooms and at a desk and more when they’re out and about, in the real world.” This is one of the profound opportunities that anyone in the digital signage business has.
I wonder if those same people – again, including me – ever think about the responsibility that comes along with that opportunity. The responsibility to not create more noise and distraction. Kinda like solitaire or music.
We’re also in a time, now more than ever, where no one seems to experience boredom or lose themselves in thought. Quiet time, in the auditory and visual sense. Is there such a thing for people now?
These screens are impacting behavior and I have to wonder if it’s healthy. Is “all on all the time” or any variation really healthy for the human condition?
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.
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?
