It is simple – if you want to make a touch screen anything, for it to be successful, the experience must be intuitive. And if you want to make it intuitive, here’s a few suggestions:
1. Look at what Apple has done
2. Look at your mobile device(s)
3. Look at your favorite websites
4. Watch children interact with them
That’s right. Children. The key to making successful touch screen experiences might just lie in the children.
Watch how my daughter (6) works through this experience that we came across at the Dallas Zoo:
And, now, watch how my son (3) works through the same experience:
Both, intuitively know what to do – press a picture or a button. In my daughter’s case (who has had computer training), her first instinct is to look for the pointer and drag it to the button or picture. Im my son’s case (who has only had phone/iPad training), his first instinct is to press the colorful thing(s) on the screen. This particular experience was laid out in a very simple format and flow. Simplicity certainly helps.
I found it interesting that they both instantly wanted to interact with these screens. I did see a few adults interacting with the screens, but the children that I saw just wanted to touch it and play with it. I think they might liken anything touch screen to games, but their curiosity drives their wish to interact.
Isn’t it funny that our curiosity becomes much more selective as we grow older, specifically around new technology? How can we capture the curiosity of a child for an everyday, grown-up experience? We have to continue getting creative, continue pushing. But we also need to get back to basics and create things that are simple and intuitive.
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?
With any new technology, there’s nothing better than feedback from the average user. If you’re ever ideating, creating, developing, and/or activating any sort of interactive experience, test with real people, early and often. They’ll give you a better sense of what works, what doesn’t, tendencies, assumptions, etc. than anyone on your team can.
I’ve written about Coke’s 106 Flavors interactive touch screen soda fountain a couple of times here. I’ve observed “average users” using it, but I haven’t ever heard direct feedback from anyone about it.
The other day, I was out to lunch with someone who I would consider to be an average user and they interacted with this soda fountain. Here’s how it went:
He presses the ice button. Fills the ice.
“…..these newfangled contraptions.”
Presses the Coke button, gets 6 different flavors of Coke.
“OK, I guess this is what I do.”
Fills his cup full of Coke.
“There you go. Even I – with limited intellect – can operate this.”
And that was it. So, he operated it without futzing through the experience. He and I were chatting in line, so the operational component of this machine – the waiting for 1 person to fill their soda before we can move closer – was not an issue.
I still think there’s a disproportionate tradeoff between the number of soda choices you get (106) and the number of people who can get ice & soda at a time (1), but based on my testing group of 1, moving through a new experience like this via touch screen technology, it passed with flying colors.
The downfall to a real world 11th Screen solution reared its ugly head this weekend. Unfortunately, it was from one of my favorite brands and a fun, albeit novel, experience: Coke’s 106 Flavor touch screen soda fountain. We were eating at a casual dining restaurant and I noticed that they had a couple of these kiosks. And that’s when I noticed the problem – they only had a couple of these kiosks.
Yes, the footprint of these babies is at least twice the footprint of a regular ol’ soda fountain. So, the restaurant is losing out on precious real estate, especially when they’re trying to jam these into the existing real estate.
While size is an issue, the real problem is that these are just not as simple as the regular ol’ soda fountain. With this big daddy, there’s only one way to get ice and one way to get (any one of the 106 flavors of) soda. And it’s through one dispenser right in the middle of the thing.
At least with the old fashioned fountains, they were set up in a way that once you get your ice, you can move down the line to get your soda. The line has a nice flow to it. Here, the patrons are just forced to wait while the others fumble through the right process (pressing the right buttons) to get their ice, then fumble through picking their selection out of an overwhelming amount of flavors, and then, literally a minute later, might have their own go at it. Unless, of course, multiple glasses are in need of a fill-up, and then there’s a longer wait.
I think this contraption is great. But when I want a soda, I just want the soda. I don’t want to wait in a line longer than 10 seconds for someone to get their ice and move down the line. I certainly don’t want to see them figuring out how to work their way through this experience.
When I first saw this machine, I was at a movie theatre and they had about 10 of them. If we waited in line, another machine quickly opened up. Here at the restaurant, with only 2, it was a different story. The movie theatre experience seemed cool and fun. This one just seemed annoying.
While this new fountain gives me the ability to choose from 106 flavors and work my way through it via a touch screen, it makes the simple process of getting soda more complicated. And that, my friends, is a bummer.
I believe technology like this can make our lives easier. Here’s an example – at least for the here and now – where it’s proved to do the opposite.
I’ve explored many examples of what I would consider to be the 11th Screen solutions here – those that are in some way interactive, by nature, and occur outside of the four walls of your home or office. That’s a bit of an oversimplification, but the result of interactivity outside of your home is bridging the real world with the virtual world. And as you might have seen here, or observed on your own, there are many different ways that the bridge can be built.
I think one of the simplest examples of this bridge is Redbox (the red movie kiosks). I’m sure you’ve all seen many different Redboxes along your daily journey. I probably have 6 of them on my way to the train station to/from work. In many ways, Redbox is the quintessential 11th Screen example. It’s an Interactive Out-of-Home (IOOH) solution that is enabled by touch. You don’t have to own the device to participate in the experience. It’s a solution that has achieved (mass) scale and perhaps most of all, it’s a revenue generator. There might not be a better utilitarian kiosk solution out there.
Recently, I’ve noticed a few additions to the Redbox kiosks near me and I find them fascinating. Because they’re scratching the surface of becoming effective multi-channel devices. They’re only scratching the surface, though, and I wonder if Redbox is at crucial tipping point. With the introduction and accessibility of live streaming through services like Netflix, the act of renting movies is becoming more and more about the convenience than anything else – more than the true cost associated, more than the experience, and more than the physical disk. And while Redbox has served as a convenient and accessible utilitarian device, the game is constantly changing, in terms of technology and consumer expectation. So, these additions that Redbox has introduced and continues to explore are good, but they have some bad and just plain ugly characteristics that they need to address – and in short order – to have a chance in this rapidly evolving technological world of ours.
First, let me start with the GOOD – as I mentioned, I’ve noticed their effort to become more accessible cross-channel. It makes perfect sense because the one thing that everyone carries with them when they’re outside of their homes is their mobile phone. So, they’re likely to have it right there with them when they interact with the Redbox kiosks. Over the weekend, I saw a special promotion on the front of the Redbox kiosks that drove people to use a SMS shortcode for special offers.
This is not a new tactic, but an effective one, especially for a physical kiosk like Redbox. The shortcode promotion instantly provides another channel to drive people back to the kiosk.
In addition to the shortcode, Redbox is using QR codes to make it easy on people to download the Redbox mobile app for iPhone and Android.
There could be a better way to drive people to the apps, but say what you will about QR codes, they provide instant, easy access directly to the app. And I think they’re more actionable than a standard text call-to-action.
Once you download it, the app is pretty handy. It shows you all of the Redboxes in your vicinity and allows you to search movies, which is an important feature since they’re not stocked with the newest releases right off the bat (which I think is one of the major downfalls).
All in all, these two extensions/gateways through mobile are both solid ways to keep people connected to the Redbox experience and drive them deeper in it.
But in my opinion, they are missing a major piece as it relates to connection, which is the glaringly BAD. Watching movies is a social activity. Where are any of the social hooks in the Redbox experience?
In many ways, the Redbox experience is a 1.0 web experience. There are no ways to connect with other people with similar interests, yet the sheer act of watching movies is a shared interest. What would this experience look like if the sign-up mechanism were initiated through Facebook Connect? Not only would sign-up be streamlined, people would have the ability to instantly let their friends/family know what they’re watching, what they like or dislike, and even tell or see others what they think about the movies. And I think that’s just the beginning of something like that.
IntoNow – the audio-recognition mobile app – does a good job of providing a deep experience on a seemingly surface-type of action. There, once you check-into the show that you’re watching, you have the ability to learn more about the show, the actors, the episodes, etc. They include a direct link to imdb.com, which is a deep experience into itself, especially for movie buffs. They’ve gone beyond the audio recognition and incorporated many smart social features, more than just sharing. What if Redbox had some sort of check-in and/or deeper “learn-more” experience like IntoNow?
Maybe Redbox has done just fine the way it’s been operating, in its 1.0 experience. But aren’t we at the point where playing the game has gotten more intense? Aren’t consumer expectations way beyond this type of experience?
I know I want more.
Then, there’s the UGLY. Redbox is an efficient machine. The fabrication and engineering of the box is really top notch. I think it’s a model for so many self-serve kiosks. But in all its glory, what is up with the sun flap?
That is the most awkward piece of fabric that I’ve ever had to deal with – even more than the baby sun shades for your car. If they would just create a simple latch, the process of renting movies in the sunlight would be so much more enjoyable.
The sun flap is an afterthought. And afterthoughts, to me, are short-term solutions. And short-term solutions tend to turn into headaches. This is what I think Redbox is dealing with now. A headache that perhaps they don’t want to get rid of.
But here’s the question – in the game of convenience, why create an experience that might just be good enough? In the end, that’s what I walk away from Redbox with – it’s a good experience.
I don’t know if there’s a single venue in the world that is more digitally turned on than the new Cowboys Stadium, er Jerry’s World. I was there last night for a concert. On our way, my wife asked me, “what are you most excited about – the concert or seeing the stadium?” I smiled. “Both,” I said. Nirvana.
You’d have to be living under a rock to not know about the JerryTron – the world’s largest high-definition display. Or the countless other displays and flashing lights that make it a mini Times Square capsule. Plopped right down in the middle of north Texas. It lives up to its hype, for sure. Especially for someone who notices and appreciates all of this digitalness.
But for all of the technology inside, I was initially surprised by the lack of interactive technology. I walked the entire stadium and while we didn’t explore every level, we got a good feel of all of the different kids of displays. And found only 1 example of interactive technology. This eensy-weensy touch screen in one of the Pro Shops (it was cordoned off last night):
It lets you make a personalized jersey. Quite appropriate and engaging, especially in the middle of a football game when the entire Pro Shop is filled with consumers. I can only assume this takes a little bit of the load off of the sales representatives and the consumers. Even if there’s only 1?!@?
Every other place I looked, I couldn’t find anything else that I could actually interact with. How could this be? Really, Jerry?
Then, I saw the drunk people. One after another, walking through the concourse. Stumbling in some cases. And I understood what kind of disaster anything highly interactive would be.
I think this is a great example of the importance of context.
Interactivity would, no doubt, enable some better experiences. Any time you can give people control of their own experience through technology, be it waiting in line, purchasing something, or consuming content, it’s generally the ideal to strive for. But when alcohol is present and alcohol – not any sort of technology – tends to be the primary element that enhances the experience, then I don’t necessarily think it’s such a great idea. Abuse. Grime. Who knows what else.
On the consumer/fan side – anyone in that state of mind and environment could probably care less about controlling their experience through any sort of technology like a touch screen. In fact, it might have the opposite affect on their experience – it might be more challenging and/or frustrating. They’re just there to have a good time. It’s that simple. So, why do anything that a) could hamper that experience and/or b) is not really needed?
While it’s a simple point of context, I think it’s one that shouldn’t ever be overlooked. Alcohol is the X-factor. In many areas. Even in digital/interactive signage.
So, OK, I see – Jerry did it right again. The the smart solution is to provide 1 eensy-weensy touch screen in a cordoned off area of Technopolis. Nothing more.
Note – Now, interactivity through mobile phones is a completely different story, regardless of alcohol. Everyone was doing something on their mobile phone at some point during the concert. And most everyone I saw had a smartphone. (I didn’t pay close attention, but I certainly didn’t see any flip phones and I saw a lot of iPhones). Opening the digital displays up to user-generated content through their phones might not be the answer. But I think there is opportunity to engage consumers/fans in some way that enables interaction instead of just display. That’s for another post.
Another note – I’m not passing any judgement and/or making any assumptions about anyone’s ability to function with alcohol. This is based on personal experience and observation. Just saying….
Maybe your phone? Maybe the ATM? Maybe the self-check out at the grocery store? Heck, maybe even something like the Kohl’s kiosk?
When I think of touch screen, I think of all of these things. But boiling it down, I think of physically touching a screen to elicit an action. Whether it be for utility or experience, my finger becomes the mouse and guides my path through and experience. The experience is the thing. With expectations of fluidity in movement and functionality becoming higher and higher, it’s less about the touch and more about what it enables. The touch, though, is something that makes the experience instantly personal.
I have this thing about non-interactive digital signage and suffice it to say, I think any screen outside of the home not only has the ability to be made interactive, but it should be. Particularly digital screens. And that doesn’t just mean touch. How easy is it to include an SMS shortcode?
Well, Skittles might have just made the game a little bit easier. They’ve introduced a concept that I think all digital signage content producers should take note of: how to make content interactive via touch without a touch screen. See for yourself. And follow instructions – hold your finger there.
How simple, right?
So far, they’ve released 5 different videos and they’ve been pretty popular in a short amount of time (150K – 1.7M views). They’re short, (questionably) entertaining, and engaging. And that’s the key – they’re engaging.
Throw out all of the challenges like hardware and software – as far as digital signage goes – and you can really start to think about the reality of creating interactivity through a simple concept involving the type of content always running – video.
This is not the end-all solution for all those digital screens, but certainly for many of them within physical reach. There are many other factors to consider when deciding on the actual type of OOH/DOOH solution, I know. The thing is, for an industry that is so technology and advertising-centric – two debilitating constraints in pushing the limits – this is an example of how a basic piece of content, even in the form of an ad, can be manipulated to create engagement. How it can turn an otherwise static screen and message into something that deepens the brand experience and strengthens the relationship. And how creativity in storytelling can break down barriers that technology creates.
After all, it’s the content, not the technology that really drives true interactivity.
So there I was walking through Terminal D of the DFW Airport close to midnight and all I wanted to do is get to my car so I could go home. Then, out of the corner of my eye, I see this – another 11th Screen (IOOH) example – a large display that looked like it was just inviting a touch. So, of course, I stopped, got my trusty flip cam out, and started to poke around on it.
Purpose – This is simply an interactive information kiosk that just happens to be an 80″+ touch screen. It’s designed solely to give travelers all of the essential information they need while they’re in the terminal – places to eat, where to shop, where to get your shoes shined, where the restrooms are, flight information – anything any traveler needs to know. Right at their fingertips. On an 80″+ touch screen. Mission accomplished.
Drama – When does an 80″+ touch screen not create a sense of drama? For the experience, I think it’s a bit like using a bazooka when you need a pea shooter. But the size is the thing that tipped me off to its interactivity. Ironically, I think it’s too well designed because the screen and structure fit right in to everything else in the terminal, so one could easily pass right by it thinking it’s just a big sign. And that’s the biggest problem. There was no clear call-to-action on the screen, nothing really that says, “hey there, why don’t you stop and touch this screen because I’ll give you some great information.” Instead, it’s just a silent 80″+ screen.
Usability – This is a simple experience so it’s usable. Or maybe it’s the other way around? In any case, this was an easy experience to navigate through. It wasn’t deep with content, so after you drill down a couple of times, you’ve hit the end of the path. But the GUI is laid out in a way that allows you to get to other pieces of content in a single press. As far as the functionality goes, I would underwhelmed with this experience. I wanted more and as you can see in the video, I expected it to function different than it actually did. With a large touch screen like this, I expect the functionality to be just as big. Not complex or obnoxious, but in some way commiserate with the size of the screen.
Interactivity – This is a single touch, single user touch screen experience. For a screen this big, they could have planned for multi-user interaction and created a rich experience. As it stands – in its current state – it’s as basic as you can get. The response and its functionality, after you press one of the buttons, is not distinct enough to let you know that something has happened. So, while the screen is responsive to your touch, the action (or seeming lack thereof) makes you think that it doesn’t work.
Information – To me, this succeeds at 1.0 information, but fails miserably at 2.0 information. Yes, it contains all of the information that it promises. But it’s base-level information – the name, the place, and the location. This experience could be made instantly better by integrating LBS (Foursquare, Gowalla) and/or consumer reviews/comments (Yelp?). Our friends at LocaModa would have a field day with this experience.
Personalization – There was no personalization in this experience. I think a social component – check-ins, reviews, comments – could add a welcome level of personalization to this. It would be relatively low user commitment, especially compared to the high level of benefit this sort of information would provide.
Overall, the lack of social integration has been a huge theme in these touch screen experiences over the last year. I am starting to feel like single-source information is not good enough anymore. But these are the things I pay attention to. I’m not sure that the average consumer – or traveler in this case – cares so much about it. Here’s the thing though – when their first impression includes social content, they feel like this is just another extension of what they’re used to when they use their computers or their phones. When it doesn’t include social content, I think we run the risk of not providing the type of value they need (based on their not-yet-completely-understood expectation).
More than that, though – when you’re going to do anything with an 80″+ touch screen, the experience better be 80″+.
Shoe shopping on Saturday at the mall with 3 kids – PAINFUL. I should clarify that – boot shopping for my wife on a Saturday afternoon and taking care of the 3 kids in a crowded section of a crowded store – HEADACHE PAINFUL. My wife found her boots, and in the end, that’s really all that matters. What I found, while trying to keep the clan busy in the shoe section, was JC Penney’s “Find More” touch screen kiosk. Even though it was pretty much hidden from major traffic, it wasn’t hidden from us. It provided a great source of entertainment, and I even had a chance to try to teach my daughter some of the finer points of usability and interface design. It was an awesome conversation.
I haven’t used my scorecard in a while, so let’s dust it off and put this bad boy to the test.
Purpose – Just as almost every one of these kiosks I’ve reviewed here, this is designed to sell products. The kiosk itself does not serve as a self-checkout unit, so if we want to get technical about it, it’s designed to help customers find anything that JC Penney offers and make the shopping experience more convenient. Appropriately named, “Find More,” I suspect anyone who walks up to this kiosk and sees what it is (title is big and bold at the top) and hears the opening V.O. to “choose from thousands of online only products,” will know that if JC Penney has it, they can find it here.
Drama – It’s big and bold so from that standpoint, it’s quite dramatic. But it stands out like a big, ugly piece of technology in an inconvenient location in the store. This is clearly a fine piece of equipment – it looks like it would withstand a tornado, but it is not easy on the eyes. I also think the placement makes it seem like an afterthought more than a purposeful tool for customers. Not only is it away from any aisle, it’s tucked in the shoe department, which is crammed in the first place. The only reason I saw it is because I’m always looking for this sort of thing. Even if I wasn’t, the only reason I would have seen it is because I was sequestered in this particular section of the store. Since they only have one unit, I would really suggest putting it next to one of the escalators or store entrances. At the very least, move it up close to a busy aisle. It’s too good of a tool to be hidden. Insofar as the call-to-action goes, once you do see the kiosk, they’ve done a good job with big moving images and type and they support it with audio. From that standpoint, they did a great job.
Usability – I would say the experience is a mix between an interactive magazine and a website. They have the real estate to utilize more images than words and they capitalize on it. But they structure it very much like a website, with the primary, secondary, and tertiary navigation in clear buckets. I like the way they duplicated the idea of breadcrumbs on the left-hand side of the interface. It makes navigating deep into this experience easy. All of the buttons/hot spots are large enough to press with any size finger and I love all of their instructional copy throughout (ie. – “Touch a Category to Continue.”) They’ve made this as close to browsing a website without duplicating the website experience as you can get, and I suspect that will help them with customer involvement.
Interactivity – This is a single touch experience and the touch screen was responsive. All of their buttons/hotspots were large enough to get me where I wanted to go and I never had to press anything more than twice. They’ve even got the nice swipe capability that one expects from anything touch-related thanks to smartphones. They’ve also worked in a couple of extensions to this experience with the ability to email yourself and print out any of this information right from the kiosk. I would think these features are table stakes by now, but I’ve seen some experiences that don’t include them. So, as I would expect from JCP, they’ve clearly thought this through.
Information – As you would expect, they’ve got any and all product information you can imagine. It’s all hooked to JC Penney’s system, so if this particular store doesn’t have the item you’re looking for, you can see which one does, where it is, and even a way to contact them. They use large images and audio to attract customers to the kiosk, and throughout the experience, they have nice videos that support particular products (a favorite feature of my daughters). I was impressed that the experience was ADA accessible. The one downfall was the absence of social extensions, even a way to get to JC Penney’s FB page and/or Twitter page. Customer reviews should become table stakes before too long.
Personalization – Other than the email and print options, this experience is the same for everyone. They could really make this a special experience for a loyalty program. Everything I said about the opportunities Target has to personalize their kiosks apply here, too.
This is a great example of an IOOH solution, particularly a retail-based kiosk. I think JC Penney is one of those retailers who get it. They understand multi-channel and how important it is to engage consumers throughout their shopping and brand journey. I wasn’t surprised to see this in the store. I’m looking forward to seeing how this experience evolves because although I think they’re doing a great job with what they have right now, I think there are many easy opportunities that they are missing.
Have any of you seen this kiosk? Would love to hear your thoughts, too!
I’m partial to touch screen kiosks, having spent a good portion of my previous life developing solutions for them. I’m also partial to clean hands. I’ve got this thing where I try to notice what I’m touching and if/how other people touch it, too. Bathroom doors are a perfect example. I don’t touch bathroom doors – I use a paper towel to protect me from the germs. This is one thing I don’t like about touch screen kiosks. I’ve ridden in 4-5 cabs a day while I’ve been here and I can see the filth on all of the touch screen monitors. I use my knuckles, not my fingers, then I promptly wash my hands (and knuckles.)
So, what do I see today? A touch LESS kiosk, of course. Brought to you by Simbioz, another EQUIPMENT provider (both hardware and software).
Awesome, right? The content (which they do not produce – they take existing content from the brand) looks great in their interface, and it’s a flashy one at that. In the end, it’s just a template that they can place content in, but it’s a well thought-out and a very nice-looking template.
The actual kiosk itself has two cameras mounted in the top corners that detect the user’s movement and controls the screen accordingly. My inclination was to touch the glass every time, but once I got the feel of how close I needed to be, I controlled it by simply touching the air in front of it. No nasty film. No necessary washing hands. None of that. Swipe away and be engaged. I really like this one.
