Monthly Archives: May 2012

Why QR codes are never a good idea.

Posted on by
6

This QR code is only here for you to yell at.

If you’re thinking about using a QR code, don’t. There’s often a better way, people. QR codes are not a necessary evil.

QR codes were developed to quickly track vehicles during the automotive manufacturing process. They were an innovative way to use ubiquitous and always-ready scanners with the sole task of quickly tracking consistently tagged automotive parts in a completely controlled environment.

The problem is, things look very different in the sphere of mainstream consumers:

  • Not everyone has a scanner—or even access to a scanner (according to a recent study, only 6.2% of people in the U.S. scanned a QR code on their mobile device)
  • Scanners aren’t always ready to go
  • Smartphones aren’t designed for scanning codes, so while we’ve adapted the technology so they can scan, smartphones are much more capable than this
  • QR codes are used inconsistently—they don’t all do perform the same function
  • Scanning conditions and QR code destinations aren’t optimized for the environment
  • It’s not the standard way to access any kind of information, and QR codes are far and few between

Even still, you might say, “But we’ve adapted QR codes to better uses for brand interactions!” So let me explain why, no, QR codes are not the answer.

QR codes don’t really solve a problem in the marketplace.

The “problem” QR codes try to solve is the process of getting to a digital resource from a nondigital medium. They are a competing technology to manual entry and, the way I see it, not much of an improvement.

Because text entry is standard, it’s expected, and consumers’ experiences using it as a means to information will meet those expectations.

Typing isn’t perceived to be a barrier to information imposed by the brand. But when a brand uses a QR code, they’re making a choice to use a nonstandard method of accessing information, and anyone alienated by that method can rightfully blame the brand.

Unless you’re purposely trying to exclude people from accessing information, you’ll have to provide an alternative way to access it, typically involving manual text entry on the user’s part.

In this case, you’re over-messaging to some consumers (risking confusion and distraction) and sending sending mixed messages to the rest (should I scan or should I type?).

It doesn’t make downloading an app significantly easier—but it does make it a more passive and absent-minded activity.

Using a QR code to launch an app download is an often-cited “best practice” for QR codes, but I’m not convinced.

I’d argue that the extra “effort” it takes to search the app by name in an App Store is better for committing the brand and app to memory and consequently, promotes loyalty of the app. Now I realize that’s a stretch, but it’s a stretch I’m willing to make when QR codes completely strip brand cues from the experience, leaving no possibility that the brand has left the same impression on consumers.

Manually searching for the app is also a much more deliberate behavior than scanning an anonymous QR code, which users do with little thought or intention. While it might make QR codes appear more convenient, is the slight improvement in convenience worth the sacrifice? Don’t you want your audience to be consciously involved in brand interactions?

Yes, you do.

Neither method is completely superior to the other, I’ll concede, but because QR codes might actually prevent people from accessing the content (and because you’ll need different QR codes for different mobile platforms, creating more potential for user error), why bother?

Was the QR code created to launch the video, or was the video created to be launched by the QR code?

Mobile video viewing is quite often not the preferred way to receive marketing information. It requires a quiet environment or headphones, a strong and steady data connection and most importantly, sustained attention. It’s not as easy to consume as, say, reading a blurb. It’s also not as compatible with existing technologies for sharing or reviewing.

If you find that your messaging needs a video or sound clip, you’re probably over-messaging. But if you insist you’re not and still really feel that you really need a video, it’s clearly very important and you shouldn’t make mobile the only way to access it. You’ll have better luck at ensuring the proper viewing environment if your audience can access it from home—unless you’re ok with being responsible for someone’s less-than-perfect experience.

Yes, QR codes can launch mobile sites, but they are the least important part of a mobile presence.

Your focus should be on making your mobile site easy to find and easy to use from a mobile device, not only on making it a little easier for a few people to get to it (assuming they’re in front of a QR code). I should be able to do a quick search in my mobile browser for your brand and be able to find the site (which should be optimized for mobile). I shouldn’t need to scan a QR code.

Ask yourself, “Is it necessary that someone be able to access our mobile site from wherever this QR code is located?” If the answer is no, then don’t use one.

Two of the most common kind of QR codes I see lead to sites that aren’t mobile friendly or a brand’s social media profile. If someone scans a QR code and brought to a site that isn’t optimized for mobile, they will hate you. If someone scans a QR code and is brought to a brand’s Facebook Page, there’s a good chance they’ll also hate you because, be honest, who’s logged into their Facebook account on their mobile web browser? We have apps for that.

Also keep in mind that mobile sites accessed from third-party QR code readers are subject to their banner ads and the constraints of the app’s browsing “capabilities.”

Most puzzling are the mysteriously lonely QR codes with no cues or context to give you any idea what they do.

People don’t know what to expect from QR codes. There are no cues to content or behavior. All QR codes look the same to humans. Will it open a website? Will it open a video? What about an app? What if I want to access this information later on a computer?

If I can’t talk you out of using a QR code, at least provide some direction and context for it. Consumers should (at the very least) know what they’re about to scan.

But even now that you’ve provided context and direction, the instructions on getting a code reader and using the QR code compete with your carefully crafted messaging. If you really want consumers to act on something, then give them one thing to act on. And if you’re going to make that action “get a QR code reader,” then you’re not doing anyone any favors.

QR codes greatly increase the possibility of failure.

The process of scanning a QR code involves many user- and computer-performed steps, which greatly increases the potential for some sort of error. QR codes were developed for use in a tightly controlled environment for a very specific computer-driven purpose. The technology was not designed for situations in which users don’t have scanners, don’t have data service, don’t have the lighting or the placement necessary for scanning, and so on. Frankly, it makes little sense to try to adapt QR codes for your marketing purposes.

When brands use a QR code, they sacrifice a lot of control for the convenience of a very small group of people. QR codes don’t add any more value than they take away from existing ways to get information. If QR codes didn’t exist, we’d still be able to do everything we currently do with them—at least as well if not better.
Ask yourself, “is this the ONLY information my audience needs and is it the BEST way for them to receive it?”

My advice: Don’t use QR codes. And if you do, don’t make it essential for people to use the QR code. It’s a barrier to information that not everyone can get through.

What do you think about QR codes? Are there situations in which they do provide a significant improvement to manual entry? Tell me in the comments.

5 reasons why Google+ was DOA

Posted on by
7

I’ve been dying for the chance to use “Google+” in a sentence, so here it goes. I’ve never been a fan of Google+. And here’s why.

5. Circles

Sure, the idea that you can individually place your friends into separate circles sounds appealing, and users even say they like this feature. But then they go and try to place people in their lives into “circles,” and suddenly, they realize it isn’t convenient, it isn’t easy, and it doesn’t make much sense. People think they want options, but when they get them, they feel overwhelmed.

Google has no idea how people interact. Sure, they like to think that ideally we have “circles” of friends and that each circle is privy to only certain information. And that’s what a logical world is: ideal. But the world isn’t logical, it’s messy with emotion and irrational behavior (that we try to rationalize).

How do I decide who to put in which circles? Do my roommates get their own circle? Do I also put them in close friends? What makes someone a close friend instead of a friend?

People don’t think like this, no matter how much they want to. Google+, please get with the program.

(Besides, Facebook has had this function in lists, which no one really used anyway, even when they were revamped after the launch of Google+. Also, Facebook clearly understands social and still doesn’t insist users categorize their friends the way Google+ does.)

4. Design

Go to Facebook and what do you see? Social content. Your friend’s statuses, comments on those statuses—pictures, videos, everything. When Google+ first launched, its interface was social content competing with contextualizing elements (timestamps, level of visibility, words like “comments,” “shares,” etc.).

Sure, Facebook has these things too—social networks need these things. But Facebook has always downplayed them and let user content shine. They used color, text decoration and placement to let their contextualizing elements support content, not overshadow it. On Google+, books elements looked the same. Same font, same color, close placement. It wasn’t easy to follow, even if users couldn’t quite realize this was why they found Google+ difficult.

On the left, social content in Google+ is almost overpowered by all the nonessential contextualizing elements. On the right, Facebook uses text color, background color and placement to make social content king.

Google+ took the focus away from social and put the focus on classifying. While things have gotten better with the latest redesign, contextualizing elements are still difficult to distinguish from social content. And even worse, Google+ now uses a frame-like interface, fixing the top and left parts of the screen to the window, allowing users to scroll through only a fraction of their browser screens. I see fixed elements caving in all around me and I feel claustrophobic. I don’t like it.

3. Coolness (Hey, I can use that word.)

Myspace was a place for kids to express themselves away from authority. This was the beginning of Web 2.0 and parents had no idea that their kids were up late writing “bulletins” and sharing their interests with mostly strangers.

A big reason why Facebook was successful was because it started out being exclusive to only college students. And because people talk to others like them, it expanded to include everyone in that exclusive group very quickly.

It just so happens that these are the very groups—teens and young adults—responsible for deciding what is and isn’t cool in our culture.

They made Myspace cool, and they made Facebook cool.

Google+ started off exclusive, too…to huge geeks. And let’s face it, geeks aren’t cool. At least not in the mainstream sense of the word. (Trust, I was one.) So by the time the “cool kids” joined, all they saw were posts by their social media friends and Google employees.

Update (November 28, 2012): Google+’s phased launch also seems a poor choice in retrospect. It forced exclusivity for no reason other than to trottle membership. Myspace and Facebook would never dream of that.

2. Language

Google talks to me like I’m a robot. Which is fantastic when I’m looking for a tool to do a task, like read email or create a document. It’s not so fantastic when I’m trying to be social, a completely emotional (read: irrational) behavior.

Hey Google, I’m not a mathematical operator, I’m a person. I interact emotionally, not logically. People like things, they don’t “plus one” things. Calculators “plus one” things.

Twitter got it right with “follow.” That’s something people do. Facebook got it right with “add friend.” People add friends to their lives. Google+ thought it was doing us a favor by letting us add people “to circles,” but there is nothing social about adding your friend to a circle. If anything, it’s antisocial.

1. What’s the point?

Myspace was a place for friends, Facebook is all about making the world more open and connected, and Google+? Well, Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible, and Google+ seems to be about “new ways of sharing the right things with the right people.”

But that’s not social. That’s logic over emotion, which, again, is great for Google’s other tools. But Google+ is no Facebook killer.

And let’s be real—their only mission was to compete with Facebook. (And even if it wasn’t, that’s the perception, and perception is reality.)

To put it simply (or REALLY complex, if you’re not a geek):

What Facebook thinks my thought process is:

“Hey, this is cool! I’m totally sharing this.”

What Google thinks my thought process is:

function share(thing,people) { if(thing=”right thing”,share(thing,if(people=”right people”,people,no one)),nothing) };

Or something like that. Did I miss a parenthesis?

My Google+ advice?

If you’re a person, don’t bother with Google+. I promise you’re not missing anything. If you’re a brand, don’t bother with Google+. It just shows you only “do social media” to “do social media.”

Thoughts?

Reactions to a few Facebook cover photos.

Posted on by
2

Having worked in social media, I’ve seen firsthand how decisions like “what do we use as our cover photo?” are made. And let me tell you, it’s a bit strange. I know I certainly didn’t have a meeting with myself before I added my cover photo. I just found a cool picture from my recent trip to Chicago, threw it up there, and stared longingly at it for a few minutes. (True story.)

But for some reason, brands think the process needs to be more involved. More thoroughly planned. With phased executions and monthly transitions. While I can’t speak on behalf of the brands I’ve chosen to react to in this post, I can most definitely share my internal monologue. This will be fun, guys.

1. Giant Eagle

Image

Woah, Giant Eagle. Calm down. I didn’t realize we knew each other like that. I mean, I was just walking in the door, about to say hi, but you’re already all RAWRRRR BUY FLOWERS NOW! Not cool, Giant Eagle. Not cool at all.

Lesson: No marketing! No calls to action! No promoting of any kind! For Christ’s sake, it’s in Facebook’s policies.

2. Starbucks

Hey, all-knowing siren? Why do I feel like I have spider vision or something. (Is it spiders that have kaleidoscope vision?) I mean, I’m looking right at you, but apparently I’m also looking at palm trees and cups and espresso shots and…are those shoes? I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, Starbucks, but what’s so wrong with making me feel a little more human? Is it too much to ask for one, single, contiguous photo that shows me a bit of who you are?

Lesson: Don’t make this difficult. Put down the kaleidoscope and show me a photo that tells me who you are, what you represent and why I want to know you.

3. Red Bull

Red Bull, I think we should be friends. First of all, you’re totally well liked. Literally. Also, you seem pretty badass. I could use some more fun in my life, so what do you say? You…wanna hang out sometime? I can bring my rollerblades and you can ride your motorcycle and pop wheelies (…is this a thing?) and kick dirt in my face, and I’ll just laugh and pretend I’m not jealous that you’re cooler than me.

Lesson: Show an experience, instill an emotion. Show me something exciting that your brand can be a part of.

4. Walgreens

This is a bit awkward, Walgreens, but…um…I think you’re a little old for me. Let me put it this way: in the 1920s, I wasn’t born yet. Neither were my parents. Or, Christ, my grandparents.

Maybe you didn’t get the memo, but this was supposed to be a cover photo, Walgreens. Did you hear that? Photo? You can totally borrow my reading glasses once I’m finished reading your photo, which, I shouldn’t have to be reading, and you can head on over to Dictionary.com and learn something new. Just give me a few minutes. There’s a lot of text here. Also, remind me to Wikipedia Ivar “Pop” Coulson later. He seems like a swell guy.

Lesson: If you’re not sure what a photo is, consult a dictionary.

5. Oreo

Oreo! How’ve ya been?! Tacky? Yeah, it shows. Listen, I know it’s normal to want to make a big deal about your birthday, but you’re really showing your age here, Oreo.

I can tell you bought into your agency’s half-baked Facebook promotion in honor of your 100th birthday. But I’m going to guess than less than 1% of fans visit a brand’s Facebook page daily. Sorry to spoil the party, but no one’s coming. If you want to reach your fans, engage with them through posts. If you really want to celebrate your fans, surprise and delight them. Here’s an idea: surprise someone on their birthday with an awesome Oreo party or something, film it, upload it to YouTube and let it go viral. If it doesn’t, no one cares anyway.

Lesson: Make it memorable, make it relevant, make it shareable. The less social media you “do,” the better. Let your fans do the social media. Create an experience for them that they can’t not talk about and share with their friends. People talk, dude—give them something to talk about.

What we’ve learned:

  • Follow Facebook’s guidelines. It’s the right thing to do.
  • Don’t overthink it. Just be yourself!
  • Again, don’t overthink it. And make sure it’s actually a photo.
  • One last time, don’t overthink it. Chances are, no one will see it anyway.
What’s your best cover photo advice?