2D Barcode Strategy

Recently, Charles Schwab launched a print campaign which promotes the fact that nearly half of the company's clients have come through referrals. The company ties the advertisement's theme with the QR Code featured in the ad, by providing access to over 500 client reviews when the QR Code is scanned. While the premise of the campaign makes a great deal of sense, and is somewhat original, the execution could have been better. Let's take a closer look. 


First, the code links to a page on the desktop version of the company's website, not a mobile site. As we know, this does not make a great deal of sense and does not follow 2D best practice. And, if that were not enough, what I don't fully understand is that the company offers account access via mobile (from the company's website: "Access your accounts on web and mobile platforms. Manage accounts, track the market, and trade on our award-winning website and on mobile devices."), but not the link from the QR Code. Why not? One would assume that if the company offers account access via mobile then they would be savvy enough to link a mobile-based interactive technology (i.e., the QR Code) to a mobile landing page/website but, perhaps, I assume too much.

Second, when the reader of the advertisement links to the client review page, the first review that's offered is dated May 21, 2011. Nothing more recent than that, why not?


Beyond the client review aspect of the campaign, let's focus on the QR Code itself. Although the code scanned successfully, it boarders on being too dense, which is a result of generating a code based on a long URL, not a shortened one. The shorter the URL the cleaner the code, and the cleaner the code the easier it is to scan.

Also, notice the instructional copy under the code ("Scan to see what Schwab clients are saying."). The company tells readers to scan, but with what, how? With the vast majority of consumers still unaware of what a QR Code is, why chance it? What not more fully explain the code and what do to with it?

Again, great idea to promote real customer reviews, but the execution stumbles. 

2D Barcode Litmus Test: FAIL

Not sure who authored this article, which appears on Mobile Commerce Press, but let's get one thing straight: the SnapTag code developed and marketed by SpyderLynk is not a QR Code. SnapTag is a proprietary two-dimensional code format that offers some of the same functionality and works in a similar manner as does a QR Code, but it is not a QR Code.

Also, digging a bit deeper than the article, how confusing is this? When I search on the term "snaptag" this is one of the results I get:

QR Codes for Business : QR Tags With a Code Ring : SnapTags (this is the title of the landing page)  
Get unique QR codes for business marketing with cutting-edge SnapTags. These eye-catching QR tags combine your company logo with a unique code ring. 

If a SnapTag is a proprietary code technology, why is there any need, or interest, in referring to QR Code technology? And, why is the term QR Tag used to make it sound like QR technology is part of SnapTag when, in fact, it isn't?

Mashable just published an article by Dan Wilkerson titled, "5 Reasons QR Code Marketing Is Broken (and How to Fix It)". In theory, great topic for an article. In reality, it does little to tackle the issue. Below is Mr. Wilkerson's article with my comments in bold: For years now, marketers, businesses and, well, everybody have touted QR codes as the next big thing. That’s largely because QR codes offered a glimmer of the future, a way to bring physical interactions into the much more malleable (and trackable) digital space. But despite the overwhelming push by marketers to stick a QR code on anything they are publishing, marketing, and eating (yes, eating), there’s been increasing skepticism about its real-world use.  

Mr. Wilkerson, can you please be more specific as to who "everybody" is with respect to touting QR Codes as being the next big thing. Are any of these people the same as those who are "touting" augmented reality, near field communications, digital watermarks, etc.? Also, are they simply "touting" QR Codes as the next big thing, or are they explaining that QR Codes can serve as one more channel by which a company can engage with its audience and thus increase its odds of success (i.e., product sales, lead generation, etc.)?

The skeptics have some pretty good facts on their side. In 2011, a Forrester Research study pegged adoption of QR codes by U.S. adults at 5%, up from a meager 1% the year before. Then, in April, a Temkin Group study found that only 24% of U.S. adults are using these codes, a statistic that is a little encouraging but still tepid. These figures coupled with some serious dismal marketing anecdotes might make you think QR codes are ineffective, and you’d be right. Here’s why.  

Mr Wilkerson, an increase from 1% to 5% is still an increase, no? How is this a negative? Did anyone promise more? And, why should a number like 24% been seen as "tepid?" Yes, it's less than 50%, but it's more than 1%. Given the amount of time that companies have been using codes in earnest, about two years, I would say that's not too poor of a showing.  

1. Worthless Content
From a marketing perspective, QR codes offer obvious value and they’re easy to create, cheap, trackable, and open up a world of possibilities for consumer-product interactions. From the consumer side, however, the value is not as clear. Scanning a code is cumbersome and costs the consumer time and effort. Plus, its value is unknown. Worse still, 90% of the time it’s a link to a website not optimized for mobile. Now you’ve frustrated the consumer and wasted their time, which creates negative sentiment. This is why you must provide the consumer with a valuable reason to scan the code. Consider a significant discount, the first chapters of a book, a free drink at the bar, even a space-specific YouTube video. What you don’t do is use it as a link to your website or Facebook page. That will only annoy your customer.  

Mr. Wilkerson, right here it points to your not understanding what mobile barcode technology/marketing is all about. The scan resolve content can be jam packed with value, but if the call-to-action and messaging in the advertisement do not allude to that then the code itself is worthless. See the difference? Sure valuable scan resolve content is needed, but before that the proper messaging needs to be in place to drive interest in the content.  

2. Consumer Awareness
The biggest problem that QR codes have is that consumers consistently have demonstrated that they don’t have a clue what they are. An ArchRival study of college students found that out of 534 of our nation’s best and brightest, 78.5% didn’t know how to scan a QR code.

Mr. Wilkerson, for a variety of reasons, people have questioned the ArchRival study and its findings. 

Marketers are so excited by the potential and intrigued by the concept that they’ve totally forgotten that consumers are not marketers. Marketers watch ads, click sponsored tweets, and yes, scan QR codes because they have a natural curiosity and passion for brand marketing. But the average consumer needs a marketer to outline to them what action it is they are supposed to take. When it comes to a QR code that means tell them what it is. Consider including a simple list of instructions with a recommended app spelling out how to use the code itself. If you coupled that with compelling content, you’ll introduce consumers to the concept of QR codes as well as how to take advantage of them.

Mr. Wilkerson, here I agree with you. Instructional information will spur adoption.  

3. Value as a Medium
The other consideration that is often ignored is the intrinsic value of the code as a piece of media itself. More often than not, QR codes are used as a simple link to a company website or specific landing page. The thought process being that it saves users the trouble of entering a complicated URL. This would be true if all a user had to do was wave their device over the code. However, let’s consider the user’s side of things. In order to scan a barcode, a user has to: 1. Get out their phone; 2. Unlock their phone; 3. Boot the app; 4. Get the code in focus and scan it. This is assuming they already have an app that scans barcodes. For most users, it’s faster to just search Google for whatever the code is giving them a shortcut to.

Mr. Wilkerson, let's see if I follow you correctly. In order to save scanning time, a user can use Google, as such: 1. Get out their phone. 2. Unlock their phone. 3. Boot Google. 4. Correctly type in the words or URL address to be searched on. 5. Find the most relevant search result and touch it. 6. Arrive at the final destination. Wow! That was a time saver. How can it possibly be easier to enter a deep webpage URL or a specific landing page URL (i.e., more than just company name.com) than it is to scan a code and go there directly?

To address this issue, use a six-to-ten-second guide as a rule of thumb for determining usefulness. If you’re not saving your target at least that much time, scrap the code.

4. Location, Location, Location
Location is another important consideration. QR codes are showing up everywhere, on everything, with seemingly zero thought about context. (For some interesting use-cases, check out WTFQRCODES.) For instance, besides being impossible to scan, QR codes on highway billboards are dangerous and waste valuable visual real estate. A shortened URL, especially one created with a vanity URL shortener, would be easier and more effective. Likewise, QR codes on company vehicles don’t really make much of an impact either, and those are mostly going to be parked directly outside of your business anyways. And QR codes on subway ads are useless too since there’s no data connection for users to load your page. The examples only get stranger from there. The best solution is to walk through your implementation in a real-world scenario to make sure it will actually be useable.  

Mr. Wilkerson, I agree, location/placement must be considered...and considered from the user's perspective, not the advertiser's. But, who here can fix the problem, or is responsible? Creative, the media buyer, both, neither?

5. Aesthetics
QR codes are ugly. Worse still, they’re indistinguishable from codes used for industrial purposes. So a code on a product can be misinterpreted as a tracking barcode instead of a marketing outlet. The good news is they don’t have to be ugly. With a little Photoshop, you can round off the corners of the ugly blocks, giving a sleek feel to the code, and it will still scan. You can also generate codes with up to 30% redundancy, meaning you can remove 30% of the code and instead put your company logo or information about what it unlocks directly into the code. Use a URL shortener to make the code even more manageable and trackable in tools like Google Analytics. There are some limitations to this, since certain parts of codes are integral and can’t be deleted, but it really opens up the creative opportunities for some awesome design work. Better still, you can delete portions of the code to shape it into something else entirely, like a letter in your brand name, or even your logo. The gist is you can make it pretty.  

Mr. Wilkerson, I agree, QR Codes need not be ugly. If given the proper thought and consideration, QR Codes can be an extension of most any corporate brand standard. Also, the use of shortened URLs can make a vast difference in code appearance and its ability to be scanned.

So now you know why your QR codes are a failure and how to fix them. Of course, many are quick to point out that NFC devices are on the horizon and will probably displace these ugly little blocks. Given the encouraging uptick in adoption and the low cost of implementation of QR, however, there’s reason to believe that they will become much more relevant before NFC is fully implemented. The guidelines above will help you make the most out of that opportunity.  

Mr. Wilkerson, not really sure who is making such bets on NFC, regardless, QR Code technology is here and it has been proven to work (i.e., to be an effective and efficient means by which a company can engage and interact with a consumer, provide information, spark a conversation, generate leads and win new business). And, while your "guidelines" may help some, what they fail to do is place QR Code technology in a strategic light, meaning that there is much more work to be done with respect to strategy than merely implementing a code. As with any other marketing element or channel, codes must be understood strategically, as well as tactically and, when that happens, success will follow.

Not to be outdone by Nellymoser, ScanLife just released their Q1 2012 ScanLife Trend Report.

Here too, the numbers are positive with respect to number of scans and number of codes being placed in the wild, etc., but here's a question which ScanLife's research, nor Nellymoser's for that matter, seems to answer or touch upon: Of the companies that make use of mobile barcodes, action codes, call them what you will, how many can say with certainty that their campaign goals, especially as they may relate to the code used, were achieved?

Beyond the "simple" reporting of scan rates and code placements, I am most curious to know, from a strategic perspective, how well are codes delivering. Any one care to wager?

Nellymoser released a new study on the use of print to mobile actions codes, and the year over year numbers are impressive. For example, the percentage of magazines with at least one print to mobile action code went from 78% in Q1 2011 to 99% in Q1 2012 (Nellymoser tracks the top 100 magazines in the country based on circulation in order to compile the research).

As welcomed as these numbers may be, my question to Nellymoser and others is, from one month/quarter to the next, how many advertisers are consistently using print to mobile technology in their campaigns? To me, it would be more telling if any one advertiser used a code from one advertisement to the next, from one month/quarter to the next, as opposed to a simple one-off use of the technology. Based on what I see in the marketplace, it seems more of the latter (i.e., one-off campaigns).

Buick has launched a new print campaign, which features a QR Code, to help promote its eAssist technology.

Before commenting on the campaign itself, it's interesting to note that Buick has used print to mobile technology before, specifically Google Goggles. So, the question can then be asked, why make the switch now? Were there not enough scans through Goggles? Did the technology falter in some way? Or, was there something else that caused the switch?


When the reader of the advertisement scans the QR Code, they are linked to a short video which describes the company's eAssist technology in detail, which is great, but then the interactive/brand/product experience stops dead in its tracks. Why? When the video finishes, there is no link to the company's corporate website or a product page, and there is certainly no motivation or incentive for the reader to continue the information gathering and/or shopping experience, because there are no links to a dealer locator, a purchase discount offer, a post-sale services offer, etc., etc. Why bother trying to warm up a sales lead and then let it go cold again...on purpose?


I see this time and time again with barcode-based advertisements and it makes very little sense. If used in any shape or form for lead generation purposes, the scan resolve content, as well as the desired consumer response, should be taken into consideration, just like any other lead generation campaign. 

While the company's marketing team probably spent a good deal of time considering and researching alternative print to mobile technologies to replace Goggles, they really should have spent time developing a cohesive and measurable strategy, and how the use of a code was going to help accomplish the strategy and its desired objectives. (They did have objectives set didn't they?)

2D Barcode Litmus Test: FAIL

Recently, I met with the CEO of a company that sits at the forefront of print to mobile technology (i.e., mobile barcodes, digital watermarks, augmented reality, near field communications, etc.), and is well-respected for the campaigns they produce on behalf of their clients, as well as the market/industry research they conduct and publish.

During our meeting, I asked the CEO who he felt was the person (title) most responsible for making the strategic and/or tactical decision(s) to use print to mobile technology in their advertising, and he said that he simply did not know. He said that it could be anyone from the chief marketing officer, to the creative director, to the person in charge of mobile, to an interactive manager, etc., etc. From his perspective, it seemed as though there was no one person (title) responsible for making these decisions. While the CEO's response may surprise some, or many, it did not surprise me, because my experience has been very much the same. I have spoken with dozens and dozens of companies about their print to mobile campaigns, and I am at a loss to say that there is often one person (title) that seems to be in charge when it comes to managing the campaign (i.e., development, implementation, strategic planning, user experience, etc.).

Because there appears to be such a black hole when it comes to who's in charge, I thought to conduct some quick and dirty research via a poll on LinkedIn. In my 2D/QR Barcode Strategy & Creative LinkedIn group, as well as several others, I asked the question: Who in the company (the brand, not the agency) is in charge of making strategic decisions when it comes to making use of mobile barcode technology? I then offered the following response choices: chief marketing officer, creative director, digital/interactive director, media planner/buyer, other.
 
After keeping the poll active for a week, only about a half dozen people responded so, unfortunately, there is no way to draw any real and meaningful conclusions, which is disappointing. But then, one may ask, does it really matter who makes these decisions regarding the use of print to mobile technology? Perhaps it doesn't but, in my mind, there seems to be some sort of connection between, who's at the helm and why print to mobile campaigns often fail. Maybe it's just me, but knowing that the technology and its best practices have been in the market now for over two years in earnest, why are brands still getting it wrong? The use of the technology should be relatively simple and easy, but for many there still seems to be a struggle. Maybe it's less important to know who the actual person (title) is behind a print to mobile campaign than it is to know that there is at least one person responsible for pulling the campaign together from all points. Maybe the team approach does not work here and it needs to be left to just one person (title) to run the campaign from end to end and start to finish. But this person needs to understand the technology, its best practices and how it integrates with other elements of the company's marketing mix and/or marketing goals.

What's your thought?

This post is about marketing strategy and the user experience, not about mobile barcodes.

Last week, I was on a mission to have the brakes on my car replaced. Here is how the story unfolds.

I knew Saturday would be the day to bring the car to a local service station, wait an hour or two, and have the brakes replaced, so on Wednesday, I started the process of checking on-line to see which companies in the local area were offering service and/or parts discounts. While conducting my research, I found Firestone. They were offering a discount, as well as a mail-in rebate, so after some quick comparisons, I decided to bring my business to them.

On Firestone's website there is a scheduler function where a customer can select the day, time and location that they would like to bring their car in to have it serviced, how convenient. No phone call or email necessary. So I made my two selections (my first time preference and my second time preference on Saturday) and put the thought of having to get the car repaired out of my mind.

By Friday afternoon, I had not received an email or phone call from Firestone confirming the time of my service appointment on Saturday, so I called the local service station. When I mentioned to the representative that I scheduled a time (Saturday at 7:15AM) on-line, he said that they did not get their update from the website yet (it was already late Friday afternoon mind you) and, in actuality, it is always better to schedule a service appointment directly with the local service station anyway. What? Give that to me again?

In essence, what the representative told me was that the time I spent filling out the appointment scheduler on their corporate website was a big old waste of time. Thank you. What a great way to be introduced to a company whose products and services I have never used before. If it weren't for the service discount and mail-in rebate I question as to whether or not I would have brought my business elsewhere.

So, why the customer experience disconnect? Why wouldn't the local service station have gotten my appointment selection as soon as it was entered on their website? Why should there have been any delay? If it's all a matter of timing appointments and having people show up at the right time, etc. wouldn't this be a critical step in the process? Also, why no confirmation email or phone call from the company a day or two ahead of time?

It's sad to think, and I hope I am not jumping to the wrong conclusion, but it almost seems as though the on-line scheduler is merely for show. Yes, the service station took my car at about 8:00AM, the revised appointment time that I made when I called the local station directly, but the user/customer experience disconnect should not have happened in the first place.

Long story short, the car was fixed and I was on my way. In the future, will I refer people to Firestone? Maybe. Will I go back there myself? Maybe. Not the type of answers I would assume the company's CMO would want to hear, but then why no email or phone confirmation or the forwarding of my service appointment to the local station in a time appropriate manner? Now, if they even realize it, Firestone has to work that much harder for my business.

Bottom line...marketers, as well as developers and people in creative, should walk through the customer/user experience themselves and ask along the way, is this the best way to deliver the product/service/application experience and to showcase the brand? Are customers really benefiting or receiving value this way? If not then it should be back to the drawing board. Make sense?

Recently, I came across QRinkle, a relatively new QR Code platform/product, which was created by the full-service advertising agency Bozell and is currently in beta.

Similar to many other QR Code platforms/providers, QRinkle offers a variety of tools to help users manage their code-based campaigns more easily and efficiently, and the platform's five main tool sets fall under these categories: generator, analytics, expiration, collaboration and A/B testing. Not much new with respect to code generator, analytics and expiration dates but, what is different, and which I have yet to see from other platforms/providers, is the ability to easily conduct A/B split tests.

For the same reasons that an advertiser would employ A/B split tests to determine the effectiveness of direct mail and email campaigns, as well as web-based landing pages, home pages, banner ads, etc., A/B split tests also make perfect sense for QR code-based campaigns. In fact, I have been an advocate for A/B split tests for some time and consider them to be a 2D barcode best practice.

In using the A/B split test function within QRinkle, what happens is that the user generates a QR Code, which is based on two URLs. When the code is scanned, the consumer has a 50/50 chance of linking to one URL or the other; the link is totally random and chosen at the time of scanning. QRinkle then reports back in real-time the number of visits to each URL. When this scanning functionality is coupled with QRinkle's analytics package, advertisers are able to get a much more meaningful view and understanding of the consumer and, from that, can better tailor future QR code-based campaigns.

As advertisers continue to pay attention to and make use of 2D technology, it stands to reason that their approach to the technology should become that much more sophisticated over time, and this is what A/B split tests can provide, regardless of whether or not they come from a company like QRinkle.

2D/QR Barcode Strategy & Creative is a LinkedIn group, which serves as a forum for people across the country, and around the world, to share news, case studies, creative ideas, opinions, insight, etc., about all things related to mobile barcodes. If you are active on LinkedIn and have an interest in mobile barcodes, or just marketing in general, I invite you to join the group and add to the discussion.

Eataly, the Italian food and drink emporium in the heart of New York, makes use of QR Code shelf talkers throughout the store to help shoppers learn more about the various products, and there are many, on display.


This particular shelf talker is in the beer section, and what I like so much about it is that, when scanned, the QR Code brings a shopper to a third-party website, beeradvocate.com, to read and learn more about the beer on display. Sure, Eataly could have linked the scan to their own website and offered more information and possibly some reviews, but they are not true beer experts, not like beeradvocate.com. Whether this was done intentionally or not (i.e., linking to a third-party expert site for reviews and commentary versus not having to produce one more page or additional content for their own site), the tactic works well because, in my mind, it helps to raise the level of the "conversation" and moves a shopper that much further along the purchase decision path.


Having seen shelf talkers before and in a variety of settings, I believe it serves both the company and the customer well, when and where appropriate, to be able to tap into and make use of the thoughts, comments, opinions, reviews, etc. of an objective third-party.

2D Barcode Litmus Test: PASS

This Verizon out-of-home billboard, which features a QR Code (see lower left-hand corner), was spotted at a near-by shopping mall. In viewing the placement of the billboard and the way the code was generated, my question to the company's marketing/creative brain trust is, what were you guys thinking?


For starters, the billboard is located on the third floor of the shopping mall facing outward into an open-air space (unfortunately, we have seen placements like this before). So, unless a shopper is able to levitate in mid-air, or decides to inconvenience themselves by having to stand next to the left-hand side of the billboard and reach over the railing with their phone, hoping they can position their phone correctly and not drop their phone, can the code be scanned. Not a very practical way of thinking about, planning for or initiating the user/brand experience.  


Of course, one could ask, can't the code be scanned from where I took the picture? No it can't, and for one simple reason, the code is way too dense (see image above) and cannot be scanned from such a distance and/or angle. Instead of using a URL shortener, Verizon decided to use the long URL for the scan resolve landing page, which consists of over 200, yes 200, characters. Why the company chose to do this without realizing the outcome (i.e., a code that is too dense and difficult to scan at distance/angle) is anyone's guess. Granted, this particular billboard is probably one of many that may have been placed into the market but, why choose this media location knowing that an objective of the campaign is to have consumers scan the QR Code. Or, am I presuming too much and code scans were not an objective? Couldn't the company have created two different billboards, one with and one without a code? Or better yet, create one billboard, but make sure the code is large enough and simple enough (i.e., not overly dense) to be scanned at a distance and at an angle. It's not rocket science.

Enough about this campaign, we need not get into the scan resolve content.    
   
2D Barcode Litmus Test: FAIL

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...the analysis of mobile barcodes in the wild. It's been a while since my last campaign critique, and this one from Liebherr, the German kitchen appliance manufacturer, looks promising.


This print advertisement was found in the April issue of Architectural Digest and, when the QR Code is scanned, it leads the reader of the ad to a mobile website. Once on the mobile site, the reader can access a product catalog, the pages of which are completely mobile optimized, a dealer locator and a handy tool to help determine the best refrigerator for a kitchen space.  


Simple? Yes, but the site delivers plenty of information for those who are interested in learning more about this not-so-well-known appliance manufacturer.   

In seeing that the mobile site is in beta, the company may wish to consider adding widgets (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, email, etc.) to each product page or the site in general, so as to enable social sharing. Also, why not display customer reviews or even professional chef endorsements for the products, as these go a long way in the consumer decision-making process.

With respect to the print ad, it would not hurt to have an intriguing call-to-action next to the code, in addition to code scanning instructions. And, if the company wants to generate a little media/social buzz from the print ad, what about developing some sort of contest, the prize of which is a new Liebherr kitchen or professional cooking lessons or a trip to Germany or something else of interest and value.
 
2D Barcode Litmus Test: PASS

From one market research study to another, from one industry trend report to another, the results are in and they are all very consistent: the ownership and use of mobile phones, specifically smart phones, is on the rise globally and there are no signs which indicate that this will stop or reverse itself any time soon. No surprise, I know, but what's a marketer to do, as it relates to the mobile channel? Does he/she all of a sudden decide to integrate mobile-based technologies and/or products (e.g., banner ads, coupons, SMS, mobile barcodes, visual search recognition, near field communications, digital watermarks, augmented reality, etc.) into his/her marketing mix, or does he/she simply do nothing and wait for the various components within the mobile channel to develop and mature that much more?

For many marketers, making this decision is a real dilemma, and rightfully so, because there is, or can be, a lot at stake. Should investments be made today knowing the pace of change? What is the competition doing or not doing? What are consumers demanding or wanting? Is there in-house expertise and capacity to effectively manage this new channel? The list goes on, and not only is it a question of deciding whether or not to integrate mobile into the mix but, what happens once a decision to move ahead is made? It's really a two-fold dilemma.

On the one hand, if a marketer decides not to integrate mobile into their mix then they stand a very real chance of alienating the ever increasing number of consumers who choose to make mobile their first screen, in addition to possibly loosing ground to the competition. On the other hand, if a marketer decides to integrate mobile into their mix then they stand a very real chance of expanding their reach and holding their ground versus the competition. But, what about the dilemma's second fold? Great that a marketer decides to embrace mobile, but how do they go about choosing which type of mobile-based technology(ies) and/or product(s) to use and have integrated with the rest of their marketing mix? In my mind, this is the real question that a marketer needs to ask and be concerned about, meaning it's less about "if" and "when," but more about "how."

How a marketer may choose to integrate mobile can be a daunting and complex exercise, all for the simple reason that there are so many options available to them. For example, with mobile barcodes, a marketer can choose between open-source codes (e.g., QR Codes or Data Matrix Codes) or proprietary codes (e.g., Microsoft Tags or SnapTags). If the open-source route is chosen then a marketer needs to decide in-house or out-of-house with respect to code generation, management and tracking. If in-house, are the resources available to do an effective job? If out-of-house, which vendor or platform to use? And, the same can be considered or asked if choosing SMS, augmented reality, visual search recognition, near field communications, etc., because for each technology or product there is more than one provider/platform.

So then, back to the original question, what's a marketer to do with respect to the mobile channel? In my mind, the answer is to take action, some action, because the pace is too fast and the opportunity costs are to great to merely sit on the sidelines. By taking "some" action, I am referring to action that is calculated and cautious, as opposed to random and with no fore thought.

The steps below, which are in no particular order and are by means all inclusive, may help a marketer make the decision as to whether or not mobile is for them and, if so, how to prepare for including the channel into the mix.  

1. Determine goals and objectives for the strategy or campaign and understand how mobile may help to achieve those goals and objectives
2. Understand internal resources, capabilities and limitations (e.g., personnel talent, budgets, equipment, etc.) and be prepared to align them accordingly
3. Understand what's necessary to obtain buy-in from senior management on down
4. Understand the target market and other key demographics and how they may or may not react to mobile
5. Learn about different mobile-based technologies and products (advantages/disadvantages, strengths/weaknesses, costs, requirements, best practices, etc.)
6. Learn about individual vendors/platforms and what they have to offer with respect to product, service and, perhaps, training and support
7. Examine real-life case/user studies and/or third-party research reports
8. Determine if mobile can be supported like other channels for the long-term 

With these steps serving as a guide, once a decision to include mobile has been made, a marketer can then start to pick and choose which mobile-based technology and/or product makes the most sense. And, from here, it's important that marketers keep in mind the need for experimentation and analysis. Chances are the first implementation of mobile will not be exact, so it may be necessary to make adjustments along the way, and this should be expected, not feared. Just think of the learning curve when it came to the Internet, email, direct mail and most any other marketing medium or channel. It may take time to master the mobile channel, but the more research and thought that goes into making the mobile decision up front the greater the chance for success in the long term.

To expand on the comment made above, while the first attempt at mobile (i.e., the integration of a particular technology and/or product) may go south and not live up to expectations, this should not deter a marketer from either realigning the expectations and trying again, or from trying another mobile-based technology and/or product all together. For example, if mobile barcodes don't fit the bill then, perhaps, mobile coupons might. If augmented reality doesn't work as planned maybe mobile barcodes do. As with everything else marketing related, mobile is a matter of trial and error. Learn from past experiences, campaigns, strategies, etc., and try to make the next one that much better, stronger, more relevant, more meaningful, more valuable, more consumer focused.

In summary, the mobile channel might not be for every marketer and every business, but serious thought and consideration needs to be given before it can be simply written off as a way to engage and interact with potential and/or existing customers. As mentioned above, more and more consumers are using their mobile device as their first screen, not only for web browsing, but for activities as important as search, payments, social sharing, email, coupon redemption, calendar and address books, photo storage, directions and location, tickets and, least we forget, making a phone call.

The other day, an article ran on MarketingVox titled, "The Final Word (Maybe) On Whether QR and NFC Really Work for Consumers."

The article opens with this paragraph: "There has been plenty of doubt cast on whether consumers are as enamored with QR Codes and Near Field Communication technologies as marketers are. Now, an experiment underway in Reading, England may deliver the final word."

Question to our players at home, in the world of marketing, since when is one research study enough to be or set the "final" word?

The article continues:

"Outdoor media owner JCDecaux and planning and buying firm Kinetic have partnered to install 325 poster sites in the area, which is near Heathrow Airport to the west of London, according to Screen Media magazine.

The point of the four-week test is not to see if the technologies work—by now we know they do—but if they really engage consumers.

During the trial, 12 brands–Test the Near Future, are EA Games, H&M, ITV2, Lucozade Sport, Lynx, Magnum, Mercedes, Morrisons, Toni&Guy, Universal DVD, Universal Special Projects, and Vaseline–will take turns to providing content for consumers to download  using NFC contactless technology, or via a QR app if their handset does not support NFC.

Clearly, the participating brands are hopeful the test will yield positive results. Richard Brooke, Unilever UK’s communications and buying manager, told New Media Age that 'This trial is a test-bed to understand the way in which we can use smartphones to open up new ways of enabling brand interaction. If the trial proves that consumers enjoy this interaction, it could shape the future of marketing.'"

It's great that firms wish to better understand consumer perception and reaction to mobile barcode and NFC technology, but I wonder how much attention will be given to the scan resolve content, calls-to-action, incentives, offers, promotions, etc. to be found in these test campaigns. Will the scan resolve be relevant, meaningful, of value and benefit to the consumer? How will this be judged and factored into the study? Will the researchers conduct qualitative-based interviews with the consumers in the area to learn why they did or did not choose to scan, or just work off of scan rates? Also, will demographics and phone ownership information be tracked and studied, as well as previous scanning experience?

While the study will be conducted over a number of weeks and across dozens of poster sites, is this study somewhat flawed/one-sided in that maybe consumers would rather scan a code in the comfort of their home or office when reading a magazine or a product package, etc., and not out in public?

Lastly, it will be interesting to see if this research supports the scan trend reports we have seen from the various code providers and research firms, all of which show a continued increase in scanning.

If you are a media buyer tasked with researching and purchasing space for an interactive advertisement which makes use of mobile barcodes, digital watermarks, visual search, augmented reality, etc., here's a clue...find a location that has Internet connectivity 24/7. Failure to provide consumers with the ability to interact with the advertisement, when they want to, will only lead to unfulfilled expectations and possibly a negative impression of the brand, product or service. Additionally, if there is difficulty scanning a code and linking to the intended content the likelihood of a consumer socially sharing the advertisement and/or experience will decrease.

Just a thought (read: best practice) to keep in the back of your mind. 

Over the past couple of weeks, wtfqrcodes, a website that posts images of some of the dumbest and most ridiculous commercial uses of QR Codes yet to be seen (even more so than what's found on this blog) has been gaining a lot of attention, and rightfully so.


While a website like wtfqrcodes may poke fun at what could be/is a very useful technological application for enabling consumers to engage and interact with a brand or product, my question is, where is the accountability? Who's ultimately responsible for allowing these campaigns to come to the fore? (And, my thoughts don't stop here, because I continually ask this question for just about every automotive and beer commercial on television, but I digress.) Is it the CMO, creative director, digital director, interactive director, mobile director, media buyer, etc.? Is it the brand, the agency or both? Or, is it a matter of there being no clear delineation of responsibilities when a 2D-based campaign is decided upon and tasks (e.g., code generation, code testing, campaign design, user experience, etc.) simply fall through the cracks?


Another aspect to all of this, and this is something that I have written about before (read article), is the apparent lack of campaign goals and objectives. For me, it is very easy to see that, for a great number of 2D-based campaigns, there couldn't possibly be any goals and objectives or concern about ROI, as it relates to the use of the technology and/or the advertisement as a whole. Without goals and objectives, a 2D-based campaign, or even a traditional campaign, is doomed from the start and, I believe, most would agree that goals and objectives are Marketing 101.

Getting back to wtfqrcodes...I wonder if a site such as this will scare brands and/or agencies straight on how to correctly and effectively make use of 2D technology. Time will tell. Stay tuned.

As companies start to add the Pinterest icon to their other social site icons (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Flickr, Google+, etc.), whether it be for marketing collateral, advertisements, packaging, in-store signage, event signage, etc., might it also make sense to add the Pinterest icon to their mobile barcode-based campaigns (read: enable Pinterest interaction via the code scan resolve)?

Just a thought. You're welcome.

Hawaiian Airlines has launched a new out-of-home campaign using a designer QR Code. This billboard was found on the side of a New York City telephone kiosk.


While it may make sense to customize a QR Code with a corporate logo and/or colors from a brand management perspective, I am not in love with the application here. The airline's logo is the same exact color as the remainder of the QR Code, which does little to help the logo stand out and be noticed. Also, it does not help to use a color for the QR Code which closely matches the background color of the billboard itself.

With respect to scanning the code, why should the reader of the billboard scan the code? There is no call-to-action, no offer, no incentive, no description informing the reader about where the scan will take them. We know calls-to-action, offers, incentives, etc. work and serve a purpose in other marketing mediums, so why not here with a 2D-based OOH advertisement?


One aspect of the campaign that I do like, is that the scan resolve points to a landing page that speaks directly to a New York audience. The scan resolve page has a headline which reads, "Aloha, New York!" and the body copy on the page talks about a new route between New York and Honolulu and how a Hawaiian vacation starts at JFK Airport.

As great as it is to see a landing page that is highly relevant to the targeted audience, this campaign suffers in that the landing page is not optimized for mobile, there was no offer or incentive being made, there is no compelling reason to share the campaign socially, the landing page content, as relevant as it may be, could have been a bit more interesting/sophisticated/descriptive, need I go on? In summary, a lost opportunity to deliver more and get more in return.

2D Barcode Litmus Test: FAIL

Valiant Entertainment, the character-based publishing and licensing company, recently announced the placement of a  QR Code on the front cover of its upcoming X-O Manowar comic book, which is scheduled to be released in May.


When the reader of the comic book scans the QR Code, he/she is linked to a 47-second You Tube video, which depicts the mouth of X-O Manowar talking about the upcoming story. Once the video starts to play, the reader is supposed to hold their smartphone over the highlighted area on the comic book's front cover, so it appears as though X-O Manowar is actually speaking.

Is this an original use of QR Codes? Not really, as this technique has been seen before, but I'll tell you what it is, it's first mover advantage. Valiant claims this to be the first use of QR Codes, in this manner, within the comic book industry and, if that's true, then more power to them and the media attention they can garner from it.

From a public relations perspective, being a 2D technology first mover or creating a truly innovative 2D campaign can do wonders for an advertiser with respect to generating media attention (and subsequently consumer attention) and, I believe, this is often overlooked from a strategic perspective when advertisers consider using 2D technology. If there is a story leverage it.

Back to the scan resolve content for a moment. While I know what the code has been set up to do, I wonder why the company stops there. At the end of the video, there are no links to share content, learn more about the comic book's main character(s), where to purchase, etc., etc. Why not enrich the brand and/or character interaction that much more?

Could the company offer more in the way of value and benefit via the QR Code, sure, but I believe the PR angle wins the day.

2D Barcode Litmus Test: PASS

Icelandair has a new out-of-home campaign which makes use of a QR Code. This billboard was found on the side of a New York City phone booth kiosk.


When the consumer scans the rather dense (I'll get back to that in a minute) QR Code, he/she is brought to a page on the desktop version of the company's website titled "Netclub Signup." Once on the page, the consumer is prompted to provide an email address in exchange for the latest travel fares and special offers. Gee, how original. How meaningful. How valuable. How boring. Is this the best the company can come up with? Sure, it's one thing to request an email address and try to build a list, but it's another to truly engage with a potential customer and attempt to win them over and earn their business. I see none of that here, do you? Also, why not optimize the mobile experience and send the consumer to a mobile website?

Beyond the scan resolve, I question the call-to-action, which reads, "Sign up for the latest fares and special deals to Iceland and beyond from Icelandair." Does the company really believe they are going to drive traffic with a call-to-action as basic as this?

With respect to the QR Code, why generate a dense code, one that is potentially difficult to scan, instead of a more simplistic code? Instead of using a 132-character URL address to generate the code, the marketing team could have shortened the URL to just 20 characters (give or take depending on the shortener used). The look of the code would be cleaner and the scan success rate would be higher.

Lastly, to know the uniqueness of a travel destination like Iceland, I would think the company's marketing team and/or its agency could have developed a more fun, different and engaging campaign that would accomplish the objective of building a list and that much more. Heck, at the very minimum, develop a campaign worth sharing with others.

2D Barcode Litmust Test: FAIL

Since the beginning of the year, I have noticed more and more Twitter hashtags being used in various advertising channels (e.g., print, out-of-home, television) and I wonder, will this interactive marketing tactic fare any better or any differently than mobile barcodes?


From a fundamental marketing perspective, hashtags and mobile barcodes serve very much the same purpose, meaning they are both tools (tactics) by which an advertiser can use to engage and interact with a target audience. Additionally, they both enable consumers in the target audience a means by which to share the brand, product, service and/or user experience socially with others. While some might believe the similarities end here, I don't believe they do and here's why. Just as with mobile barcodes, there are a number of nuances or obstacles, call them what you may, with hashtags that need to be addressed in order for them to be a truly effective marketing tool. Some of these nuances/obstacles include the following:

1. Consumer Adoption. The majority of the American public are not registered users of Twitter so, by default, they probably have little or no idea of what hashtags are, how they are used and what they represent. Even of the registered and active users of Twitter, not everyone is familiar with hashtags. Question: How or why make use of a marketing tactic that only speaks to a select few?
2. Education. Of the hashtags that I have seen in advertisements, promotions, etc., none have been displayed with educational copy to help consumers learn about hashtag "technology" and how to make use of it. Question: If a large portion of the consuming public has limited or no knowledge of Twitter hashtags then is it the responsibility of the advertiser to educate potential users?
3. App Use. In order to interact with a Twitter hashtag, a consumer needs to first download an app to his/her mobile phone and then launch the app to reply to the hashtag. Question: Is it up to the advertiser to suggest which app to download and how to interact with the hashtag?
4. Connectivity.  Many of the hashtags that I have seen have been displayed on out-of-home billboards which are located in areas with no Internet connectivity (e.g., subway). Question: Does it make sense for advertisers to assume that consumers are going to remember the hashtag, so that the hashtag can be accessed or interacted with at a later point in time (e.g., once out of the subway)?
5. Call-to-action. A fundamental aspect of advertising and promotion is the call-to-action but, with the vast majority of the hashtags that I have seen, not one has had a call-to-action or descriptive copy informing the consumer what the hashtag represents. Question: Would hashtags be more effective with a call-to-action? Is a call-to-action even necessary?
6. Expectations. As with other forms of interactive advertising and/or media, consumers expect certain results to happen. Question: With no call-to-action, no descriptive copy, etc., how does an advertiser plan to manage consumer expectations involving a hashtag?
7. Post-interaction. After a consumer Tweets to the hashtag, what happens then? Question: How does the advertiser respond to consumers taking the time and making the effort to spark or share a conversation about their brand, product or service via the hashtag? Should there be any reward for replying to the hashtag?
8. Metrics. As with most other forms of advertising and promotion, ROI is being scrutinized. Question: How does the advertiser monitor, measure and assess hashtag ROI and plan for next steps? Does it make sense to test hashtag copy?

Do any of these comments and/or questions sound familiar? Many of them should, especially if you work with or have considered mobile barcodes for your marketing and advertising.

While the use of hashtags may make perfect sense from one brand, industry, audience and/or objective to another, in the long run, I do not believe they will fair any better or much differently than mobile barcodes, as a marketing tool or tactic, primarily for the reasons cited above. By this, please do not misinterpret what I am trying to say. Just as with mobile barcodes, there is certainly a time and place for hashtags, just as long as they are correctly formulated, implemented and monitored.

Please share any insights that you may have on hashtag marketing.

Recently, I saw this "interactive" print advertisement for Beauty Bar and, while clever, I am not really sure what to make of it.

Printed in the center of the page, on the woman's face, are the following "interactive" instructions: 1. Go to beautybar.com/now on your smartphone browser. 2. Place smartphone here. 3. See today's look applied. Simple, right? Wrong. I followed the instructions and attempted to "interact" several times, but nothing appeared on the screen. Frustrated, I went to my laptop and typed in the URL address given in the instructions. Here, I was able to see what I should have been able to see on my smartphone, which was a rotation of six different images of the model in the print advertisement, where each image portrayed the model in a different look (i.e., different makeup). 


As I said, a clever use of a smartphone, but too bad the interactive experience never materialized as intended. But, even if the experience worked, I wonder how the company would enable the reader of the ad to read and learn more about their products, purchase the products and/or share the content/mobile experience with others. Also, where would the value and benefit have been for the reader? Was a purchase discount being offered, exclusive content, anything?  


Questions to the marketing/creative team: Did you consider using a mobile barcode or a digital watermark?  Did you find codes or watermarks too involved or too costly? Did you actually test the resolve mechanism?  Was this developed in-house or via an agency or vendor? Were any objectives set for the campaign?

Question for the players at home: Do you believe we see more of this interactive strategy or does it fall by the wayside?

While this is not a true 2D barcode campaign, it strives to be interactive, but fails. Sorry.

2D Barcode Litmus Test: FAIL