If the execution of this is actually as good as it looks then this is a great example of new technologies providing engaging branded experiences for consumers (unlike, say, a superfluous QR code in the corner).
Tagged
advertising
video
Hard to argue with comms like this…
Link
The topic of QR codes came up at a recent workshop I attended. Some of the participants suggested that implementing campaigns with QR codes suggested it improved perceptions that the brand was ‘cutting edge’ even if the QR code was hardly ever used. The others laughed at lack of utility QR codes and how useless they are.
Both are wrong.
QR codes have unfairly been derided in the comms world. They were conceived by a Toyota subsidiary for industrial inventory management and have been successfully used to track automobile parts for over a decade. QR codes are neither innovative or useless in their original context, nor are they inherently innovative or useless in a marketing context.
The failure of QR codes in the comms world has been by the marketers, not the technology. A QR code is not a compelling innovation. It’s not an innovation innately suited to advertising strategy. It’s certainly not an innovation likely to generate excitement in and by itself.
It’s a barcode.
There are some great examples of QR codes being effectively implemented and improving the user experience, such as Tesco and the Wealie app. What connects these examples is that the QR codes have been implemented in situations where users are not required to change their behaviour. In South Korea, Tesco has a fake supermarket “shelf and product” interface for mobile shopping, with QR codes attached for the scanning of products to be added to carts. Wealie takes the usual ‘loyalty’ card system and removes the annoying stamp and card system. In these contexts, QR codes actually represent a valuable proposition. Most importantly, the QR code is essentially a mechanism for streamlining an existing behaviour, and not the strategy that underpins the experience itself.
Putting a QR code on outdoor and print ads asks users to change their behaviour. People aren’t used to stopping at a magazine ad, pulling out their phones, scanning a barcode etc. That’s a both an effort and a cognitive behavioural barrier to overcome. Furthermore, early marketing adopters regularly used QR codes to link through Youtube videos in lieu of any other compelling reason to include a QR code (to improve perceptions of brands as innovative). This situation undoubtedly requires more effort, breaking the flow of a behavioural pattern, than makes the “payoff” worthwhile.
Providing access to a website or video isn’t exciting - URLs can do that, and there’s been no significant demand by consumers for a new technology to replace URLs. What can QR do? Take an existing experience and make it better by leveraging that QR can offer – better tracking, more portable, ability to store (lots of) information, quick access to that information etc.
Unfortunately, QR codes now have the stigma of being a low value proposition. They’re a joke, best summarised by this tumblr. Wven a useful, innovative QR campaign has the deck stacked against it thanks to the ghosts of hundreds or poorly conceived earlier QR campaigns. If your campaign does succeed it will be because of the value it adds for the user – not because of the novelty in using QR. And if doesn’t, don’t blame the technology. Or the user.
Link
I posted the bottom video a couple of weeks ago. It’s a fantastic piece of comms from Mercedes. I said:
[This ad] took the difficult task of communicating an abstract innovation and makes it salient in very playful and engaging way without diminishing the value of the innovation. Great idea and great execution.
I’m posting it again to compare it to the top ad from HTC, which I saw today. Both are advertisements for new product innovations that improve the product in (largely) invisible ways, but the strategy behind and execution of each ad couldn’t be more different. It’s a great example of comms appealing to reason vs appealing to emotion - and you surely won’t be surprise to learn that the latter is more successful.
The problem that both ads faced is how to sell an innovation that is largely embodied in the process when the output of that process can’t really be shown (close ups of a new phone casing or engine won’t really cut it). In response to this challenge, HTC has seemingly said, “we can’t show the outcome of this process itself so we’ll explain it to them - let’s get technical!” Mercedes, on the other hand, said, “we have to figure out a way to visualise this outcome - let’s get creative!”
The HTC tries to wow you with how complex the process is, not the outcome. For an ad that starts out by labelling the company customer-centric, it spends a lot more time telling the audience how complex this innovation is and not much about how this actually impacts their lives. In fact, it has this to say about the outcome: “Does your phone really need the same technology used by NASA for satellites? Maybe not.” So it’s asking you to get excited about an engineering process that is really advanced, the outcome of which will totally over-serve your needs. By the end, it’s hardly offering a valuable proposition for consumers.
Added to that is the fact that the product is barely seen, and the only people the ad shows as being excited are slightly awkward product engineers with imperfect English (one of whom can’t maintain eye contact with the interviewer or camera). It’s an ad that doubles down on scientific discourse as a selling point at the expense of social proof. It tries really hard to tell you why this innovation is exciting without actually showing you why – almost like trying to sell my oxygen by having scientists explain photosynthesis without conveying any tangible, valuable benefits.
Mercedes is the total opposite. It doesn’t try to explain anything, instead it offers up a visual metaphor, triggering the visual part of my brain and creating much stronger associations with the product. Mercedes accepts the limitations of this visual metaphor, but they don’t feel the need to chip away at the impact with technical qualifications or explanations – it just lets it do its thing.
Add to that the much better choice of music and the fact that it shows the “product” out in the open, interacting with crowds of people who are getting excited, and you have an add that’s a lot more emotionally compelling with a lot stronger social proof.
Mercedes appreciated that an idea is best communicated in a simple, engaging form that wisely trades off some of the undoubtedly impressive mechanics behind its new fuel cell for a stronger impact. HTC didn’t get it. I’d like to say that’s because each ad is going for different markets, but both seem to be geared toward the broader consumer market. I can only put the complete failure of the former down to poor strategy and poor execution.
video
Wow. Took the difficult task of communicating an abstract innovation and makes it salient in very playful and engaging way without diminishing the value of the innovation. Great idea and great execution. (HT @voriol)
quote
When goods were scarce and people bought what they could get, it was hardly necessary to understand consumer psychology. But in an age of prosperity, when supply outstripped demand and countless indistinguishable goods were competing for buyers, companies had to rely more heavily on branding and advertising. There was a clear need to improve upon existing campaigns, which often simply announced the benefits of a product with grand promises and sparkling smiles…
quote
So one of the big reasons why online advertising has done so well is simply the negative one: online micropayments were a disaster, and never took off. But they’re much more compelling as a business model, and there’s a decent chance that at some point in the future the financial system as a whole is going to get its act together and put together something which actually works and which people are happy to adopt…
It’s the measurement fallacy: people tend to think that what they can measure is what they want, just because they can measure it. And it’s endemic in the online advertising industry.
video
video
Social campaign from AT&T. Haven’t had enough time to digest this. Will probably score some “mad clicks” even if it has no long-term value.
video
This is such a great advertisement. Not only does it show off the class and elegance of the product, but it physically engages the viewer. If you’re like me then you’ll quickly find yourself breathing in sync with soundtrack, and you’re left holding your breath when everything but the subtle heartbeat drops out.
