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?
4.17.2012
The User Experience Disconnect
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?
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?
4.12.2012
QR Codes and A/B Split Tests
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
