Let me start by asking you the question, if your best friend jumped off a bridge, would you? Chances are you, and most others, would say "no." Now, let me put a marketing spin on the same type of question and ask, if Competitor A launched a Twitter page, would you? Chances are you, and most others, would feel compelled to answer "yes" but, why? If you were one of the two marketers I spoke with the other day, the answer is simple, because it helps to keep us competitive. When I heard this it struck me because, what does keeping competitive in this time and place really mean? How far does it really get you? In my mind, not much and not very far at all.

If Competitor A launched a Twitter page, then you do, the playing field is level. If Competitor A launched a Pinterest board, then you do, the playing field is leveled once again. If Competitor A launched an iPad app, then you do, the playing field continues to remain level. So, with all of this leveling, what's really going on here? All that's happening is that you are playing catch up to the competition and thinking about strategic and tactical marketing in a very myopic way. Instead of trying to out pace the competition, you're more apt to simply follow in their footsteps and call it a day. And, this is a winning plan of action, how?

The more and more I listened to these two marketers, the more and more astounded I was to know that this is how their company, a major international brand and leader in its industry, operates. It also started to dawn on me that there was no real or meaningful conversation about marketing related goals and objectives. Sure, you might not know the goals and objectives behind a competitor's launch and use of a Twitter page, but there better be goals and objectives behind the launch of your own beyond, we caught up with the competition, now our work is done. In my book, that's meaningless and pointless.

To bring my thoughts on the conversation I had with the two marketers full circle, I left meeting with these two people thinking to myself, instead of working to just keep up with the competition, why not get ahead of them with some sort of strategic partnership or program that the competition does not offer. Think of something so very different and innovative that it turns the tables, or even the entire industry, on end and forces the competition to then play catch up. Maybe this line of thinking is a stretch given the nature, culture and personality of the company these marketers represent, but without stretching for something new, more or different very little, if anything, will change. Sure, in reality, the company will continue to make money as it has in the past, and most would be comfortable with that, but don't be surprised if someday there's a new kid on the block ready to eat your lunch.

In summary, marketers, as well as the executive leadership of an organization, shouldn't decide to implement or launch a strategy or tactic only because the competition does so. Being equal means very little and I would be hard pressed to name a company that has risen to the top just by striving to be equal.

QR Codes to Support

To support a product or service, the experience generated by the QR Code does just that, supports. By support, I'm referring to a company providing existing or prospective customers with additional and/or hard to find information about the product or service via the interactive code scanning experience, and nothing more. This additional information can take the form of deep product/service  information, competitive comparisons, customer reviews, customer service contact details, warranty information, repair information, product recall information, retail location finders, map directions, phone numbers, etc. The goal here is not to promote or sell, but to enhance the overall user/customer experience by providing relevant, valuable and beneficial information.

QR Codes to Promote

To promote a product or service, the experience generated by the QR Code does just that, promotes. By promote, I'm referring to a company providing existing or prospective customers with an incentive to purchase a product or service or, at a minimum, to move further down the purchase decision path via the interactive code scanning experience, and nothing more. This incentive or motivation to purchase can take the form of a mobile coupon, contest entry, limited time offer, rebate, etc. Additionally, the experience can offer product or service information (e.g., features/benefits, storytelling, testimonials, etc.) that speaks to a consumer's needs, wants, desires, emotions, expectations, etc., as all of this plays to the purchase decision. The goal here is not to support, but to truly engage the consumer on such a level that they want to purchase the product or service sooner than later.

QR Codes to Support and Promote

Because it's not a matter of choosing one objective over another (i.e., to choose support over promote or vice versa), marketers need to recognize which objective or objectives they wish to accomplish via a QR Code-based campaign and work towards that end game. Again, it all goes back to strategic and/or tactical goals and objectives, which must be put in place for a marketing campaign, regardless of channel, to work effectively and succeed.

Key Takeaways

Whether a QR Code is meant to support, promote or both, it's essential for the interactive experience to happen in an optimal way and, to make this happen, it's necessary to create and develop a mobile optimized website and/or landing page. No ifs, ands or buts. If a mobile-based technology is being used the website or landing page that's triggered via the technology must be mobile-based as well. If a marketer tries to re-purpose desktop content for the mobile screen then he/she needs to ask themselves an even bigger question, how committed are we to mobile?

Lastly, the thought to use a QR Code to promote or support or both needs to happen whether the campaign is B2C or B2B.

Regardless of which camp you and your agency may fall into, the goal of this article is to help explain the basics of print to mobile technology and, should it be decided that this is a service offering the agency would like to provide to its clients, how best to prepare itself in order to do so.

Before reading further, please know that it is this author's contention that print to mobile technology, when implemented correctly and in accordance with best practices (read that again), can greatly enhance the interactive experience a consumer can have with a brand, product and/or service. And, if the experience is positive, this can then increase the odds of success with respect to product/service sales, the sharing of content, the generation of sales leads, the building of product/service demand, etc. Additionally, it is my view that print to mobile technology has its place and is not for every advertiser and/or every advertising or promotional situation.

To begin understanding print to mobile technology, it helps to look at the phrase as though it were a mathematical equation. Half of the equation is made up of the term "print" and the other half is made up of the term "mobile." Nowhere in the equation is the term "desktop." With that being said, agencies, and the clients they represent, must realize that any print- to mobile-based campaign must be developed with mobile in mind. From end to end (i.e., from the consumer’s first impression of the advertisement to the consumer’s last action or response), the campaign must be optimized for mobile use and consumption. More often than not, forcing desktop content, images, and/or design onto a mobile device is where print- to mobile-based campaigns fail and fail big. Thinking and acting along these lines is similar to trying to place a square peg in a round hole...you can't do it. Or, you can do it by force, but the end result will not be very pretty.

Second to mobile optimization is the need for scan resolve content (i.e., the content that is viewed after scanning a bar code, watermark, symbol, etc.) that is of value, relevance, meaning, and benefit to the target audience. Here, too, many advertisers do not take this into consideration when producing a print- to mobile-based campaign and results suffer greatly. Just like any other form of advertising, a print- to mobile-based campaign needs to resonate, across levels, with the audience.

Third, as print to mobile campaigns are developed, there is absolutely no reason to ignore fundamental marketing principles and best practices. When a bar code, symbol or watermark is used, there should be a call-to-action directly associated with it. Just like a landing page, email, banner advertisement, or most any other form of advertisement would have a call-to-action, so too should a print- to mobile-based campaign.

Another marketing fundamental that seems to be ignored, or forgotten, when it comes to using this technology is testing and experimentation. For some reason, agencies will go to great lengths to test website landing pages, banner ads, emails, direct mail packages, color, copy, offers, positioning, etc., but when it comes to a print- to mobile-based advertisement, all bets are off. Print to mobile-based advertisements can be easily tested, and should be, in order to determine the most effective design, messaging, offer, call-to-action, placement, content, technology type, etc.

Fourth, as with most anything marketing/advertising related, there is a need for establishing attainable goals and objectives and, with this, comes the need to track metrics. While some may be satisfied with the number of scans a campaign may have, there is a plethora of other goals and objectives that a print to mobile-based campaign may have. For example, objectives to track and study might be product sales, leads generated, product inquires, social shares, page views, time on site, geographic location, phone type, etc., etc. Yes, scan rates provide some upfront insight as to how well a campaign may or may not have been received, but there are many other types of objectives and/or metrics to set, track and analyze.

Fifth, print to mobile technology, in and of itself, is not a strategy but rather an additional marketing tactic that can be used to increase the odds of success when advertising a product or service. Nothing more, nothing less. If a print to mobile-based campaign fails to deliver results, chances are it’s the overall campaign strategy to blame, not the technology itself. Many believe that just because they are making use of the technology nothing else needs to be considered or thought out when, in actuality, there are plenty of moving parts, all of which need attention.

In addition to the five points listed above, which speak to print to mobile best practice, there are other aspects which an agency should be aware of so as not to be caught totally off guard if and when a client inquires about print to mobile technology. Because the list of these other aspects can get quite lengthy, I will focus on only a few.

When the topic of print to mobile technology comes up, an agency needs to know that there are essentially four main tasks and/or responsibilities that the agency will need to manage in house or, if not expert or capable enough from a resources perspective, outsource to a vendor(s). These tasks/responsibilities include:

1. Code or symbol generation: the ability to generate codes/symbols and test that they actually work.
2. Code or symbol management: the ability to actively manage codes/symbols over time, whether they are dynamic or static, direct or indirect.
3. Metric tracking and analysis: the ability to track code/symbol use, as well as where the scan resolve takes the consumer.
4. Mobile optimization: the ability to develop scan resolve content that is optimized for mobile viewing and to detect for mobile device.

On the surface, these four items may seem rather simple to grasp and understand, but in actuality there is a great amount of detail that goes along with each of them. Should an agency decide to keep this work in house, and again there is a lot to be considered here, then thought needs to go into how best to package and price the service offering. By the same token, should an agency decide to outsource this work then a great deal of due diligence needs to be done to fully understand the capabilities of the vendor(s).

In addition to the above, another key factor in an agency’s decision to offer and/or get involved with print to mobile technology is the technology itself. Should the agency work with and support 2D bar codes or digital watermarks, augmented reality, or visual search? Should the agency work with and support just one technology or several? This is where an agency (and its client) needs to do a lot of research and ask a lot of questions before simply jumping on the bandwagon. All too often I’ll see one-off campaigns where print to mobile is used once and never again by the same brand (i.e., jumping on the bandwagon), and I believe this has to do with, in large part, how serious and/or committed an agency (and its client) is towards making use of the technology. Of course, I realize there are other factors at play, but I have witnessed a great deal of laziness on the part of agencies and brands with the use of the technology and, I believe, it all reverts back to how serious and/or committed the agency and/or the brand was in the first place.

Lastly, it’s important to note that each form of print to mobile technology has its own set of advantages and disadvantages, pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, etc. and they all need to be weighed accordingly with respect to the goals and objectives of a desired campaign or set of campaigns. Agencies (and their clients) should not spend/waste time trying to figure out which print to mobile technology will win out in the end, because it is not a zero-sum game. Each technology has its place. It is my belief that there will be no single technology winner in the marketplace. Instead of slowing down the creative process or marketing process as a whole, agencies (and their clients) should spend most of their time and energy ensuring that the code/symbol works, the content is mobile optimized, and the entire experience is of value and benefit to the consumer (B2B or B2C). Because, after all, it’s all about the consumer, isn’t it?

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.

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 market? (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.

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.

When thinking about the use of mobile barcode technology, companies need to recognize that there are a number of best practices, marketing and technology related, that have already been established, field tested and proven to work. At the very minimum, companies need to be aware of and understand these best practices before they go about producing their first, or their fifteenth, mobile barcode based campaign.

One of the most fundamental best practices/rules of mobile barcode based marketing is that the campaign, specifically the scan resolve content (i.e., the content that a consumer is linked to once the code is scanned), should deliver value and benefit (monetary and/or informative) to the consumer who has taken the time and expanded the energy to read the advertisement, scan the barcode and take the desired action (e.g., sign up for emails, enter a contest, purchase a product, claim a coupon, offer a review, etc.). In addition to this, the campaign should communicate its message in a relevant, meaningful and purposeful way, as well as provide for social sharing. Lastly, if all of this can be accomplished in a creative, innovative and original manner the better, as this alone will help to attract attention to the advertisement, increase scan rates and drive overall response.

To illustrate the above, here’s a real life case study.

Flatiron Wines and Spirits, a retail wine and liquor store, located in the heart of New York City, has yet to officially open its doors, but has this stopped the company from raising brand awareness, establishing a presence in the neighborhood, building an email list and enabling consumers to share information about the store? No, it hasn’t. How then, might one ask, is all of this being accomplished if the company is not currently open for business? It’s simple, with a mobile barcode.

Located on the front window of the store is a large QR Code (see image below) and above the code is a call-to-action which reads, “Scan this for a special grand opening offer.” When the QR Code is scanned, the consumer is linked to a webpage that explains the special offer, which is a free bottle of champagne with the first purchase of a case of wine. To receive the redemption coupon for the bottle of champagne, the consumer is asked to provide an email, so that they can be added to the company's email list. The website also offers the interested consumer (read: self-qualifying prospect) the ability to learn more about the store and its product offering, and to share this information and/or interactive experience with people in their social network via a Facebook or Twitter page link.

This campaign, as simple as it is, speaks volumes as to how to effectively make use of interactive technology, such as 2D barcodes. The company wins, because it is able to make a name for itself, interact with potential customers, start the process of building loyalty and generate social referrals (i.e., word of mouth). More importantly, consumers win, because they are able to try a new brand/product (i.e., the retail store itself, not necessarily the wines and spirits within) and be rewarded for the effort (i.e., the free bottle of champagne).

Where some companies over think the use of mobile barcodes, others are not thinking enough. In reality, it’s not all that complicated as made evident by the case study above. For advertisers, put yourself in the place of the consumer or prospective customer and ask, what would I want? What would be of value, benefit, meaning and relevance to me, and then act on it, as the campaign is developed and implemented. Lastly, the advertiser cannot lose sight of the fact that the barcode scanning/mobile experience must work seamlessly, from end to end, in order for anything good to come out of it in the first place.

While the information provided in this article is by no means the end all and be all with respect to mobile barcode advertising, it does, however, offer an advertiser an overall frame of reference and a solid foundation on which an effective campaign can be built and implemented.

When I scanned the Budweiser QR Code, I was brought to a page that had a message which read, "Rotate Your Device." I rotated my mobile phone and rotated and rotated, but nothing happened, so I opted to enter the URL into my desktop PC and came to a mobile landing page.

On the landing page, I was prompted for the beer's "born on" date, the date of its manufacture, as well as my birthday. Once the information was entered, I clicked the "Track Your Bud" button and nothing happened. Stymied again. I'm trying to think, what could have happened when I clicked the button? Would the next page tell me the life story of my bottle of beer? Would I care? With respect to the call-to-action/tag line on the beer case, "Great Times Are Waiting," my answer to that is, no they're not, but I am. I'm waiting for the landing page/interactive experience to work properly on either my mobile phone or the desktop. Next victim.

When I scanned the Bud Light SnapTag with the proprietary SnapTag app, I was brought to a page that asked for my birthday and the state that I live in. Once entered, I was then asked for my mobile phone number. Then a message appeared, which informed me that I was entered into the Super Bowl sweepstakes.

After receiving the sweepstakes entry message, I was left on the page with nothing else other than a Facebook page to link to, and that's only if I went ahead a logged into Facebook.

So, what do we have here when all is said and done? The Budweiser QR Code campaign did not work as most likely intended and the question can be asked, how many times is a consumer suppose to attempt to scan a code in order to view the scan resolve content? In my opinion, more than once is too many times. The Bud Light SnapTag campaign did allow me to enter the Super Bowl sweepstakes, but then what? Why doesn't Bud Light enable me to link to other product content and interact that much more with the brand?

In my mind, both of these campaigns point to the value and meaning of a first impression. In the future, if either of these companies offered the chance to interact via a 2D code, do you believe I would? Would you? My guess is probably not and for the simple reason, the first impression made by each of these brands was so lack luster. Coming from such marketing powerhouses as Budweiser and Bud Light, I would have thought a great deal more creativity and thoughtfulness would have gone into these campaigns. Shows you what I know. For each and every interaction between a consumer and a brand there exists an impression. First, second, tenth or more, each impression is just as important as the next and this importance cannot and should not be minimized, whether it's a traditional ad or a 2D-based ad.

As an aside...the other day, I had a conversation with a gentleman in the print/barcode/image recognition industry and, during the conversation, we started to speak about 2D technology and how the consumer market has and will react to it. The gentleman I was speaking with then went on to talk about two ongoing Super Bowl-based SnapTag campaigns (Bud Light, see above, and Coor's), and how these campaigns will spell the tipping point for mobile barcode use and acceptance by consumers. While I could understand what this gentleman was saying in regard to SnapTags being brand-friendly (i.e., the code can easily accommodate a corporate logo and look more pleasing versus other 2D formats), but if the underlying scan resolve content (i.e., first impression) is on par with what I experienced and mentioned above then I do not believe a tipping point will be anywhere in sight come Super Bowl or the weeks after. Without scan resolve content that is of meaning, value, relevance and benefit to a consumer it matters little how brand-friendly a code format may or may not be. With these two campaigns currently running and the Super Bowl just a couple of weeks away, time will tell soon enough.

Stay informed. Looking for the latest digital strategies for iconic branding? Attend the iMedia Brand Summit, Feb. 5-8. Request your invitation today.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As part of the company's "Couple Up to Buckle Up"  2 for 1 travel campaign, Scandinavian Airlines displayed two QR Codes, side by side, on a variety of mediums (e.g., email, banners, print advertisements, etc.). The copy accompanying the QR Codes instructed consumers to scan the left and right codes simultaneously with two different mobile phones and to then bring the two phones together. When the scan resolve video played, the separate left and right mobile phone screens essentially made one split screen, which then enabled the two participating consumers to view the video properly and discover the special 2 for 1 promotional code (see video above). If played individually, the left or right scan resolve video content would be close to meaningless.

Creative? Yes. Original? You bet. Will this campaign generate a great deal of media attention for the company, as well as QR Code (2D) technology? Most certainly. But there's another reason why I love this campaign so much. Research. From what I understand, the company conducted market research and discovered that when couples book their travel plans, they often do it while sitting side by side. So, instead of using a single or standalone QR Code in the campaign, the marketing/creative team decided to use two codes and have them dependent upon one another in order for the message/interactive experience/campaign to make sense. Brilliant.

But, should we be so impressed learning that research data was used to help create this campaign? No, not really, because this is marketing (i.e., research is done, findings are used, campaigns are developed and implemented, response rates measured, and the whole process starts over again). Marketers may see this as fundamental when it comes to traditional advertising, but there is no reason why this should not be the case with respect to 2D-based advertising. The same fundamentals remain.

Although I often site value and benefit as the main criteria for passing my 2D Barcode Litmus Test, this campaign passes on sheer imagination and originality. What campaign will be next?

First, the QR Code is placed prominently in the print advertisement and is accompanied by a strong a call-to-action message ("Bring the holidays to life. Use your smartphone for holiday party tips, special holiday offers, and more."). In addition to the call-to-action, Tervis also listed a URL address for consumers who may not wish to scan and/or don't have a smartphone.

Second, the QR Code is easy to scan and the scan resolve content is original, fun, cleverly worded and unique in design. When the QR Code is scanned, the reader of the advertisement is brought to a mobile web page that displays a window with the following message, "Mingle with these smart people and get the holidays started right. Touch and drag to view the panorama image. OK." The panorama image is of a holiday party and in the image are eight flashing orange touch points, which cannot be missed. Each touch point links to a different page, and the touch points include: holiday smart quiz, holiday gift ideas, product/company information, party excuse generator, how to make a giant 3D snowflake, personality plus (how to personalize a tumbler), exclusive holiday offer and holiday drink ideas.

Third, when just about any of the eight touch point pages are viewed, there is a "shop now" button displayed on the page. This is what mobile is all about. Enabling the consumer to shop when, and where, they want to.

Fourth, on just about every page are widgets to share the Tervis holiday experience/content socially via Facebook, Twitter and foursquare. This too is what mobile is about and/or offers...connectivity. Connectivity between the brand and the consumer, as well as the consumer and another consumer. Lots of companies neglect the social element when using 2D/mobile and it should be part of the strategy.

Fifth, being a holiday-based campaign a promotional discount should have been offered, and it was...25% off certain items.

Sixth, stickiness. This is a term that I very seldom use or write about, but its importance cannot be underestimated. In this campaign, the original panorama image is what's sticky. A reader wants to move from one touch point to the next to the next, etc., just to see what's behind the orange dot and, in doing so, they remain on the site that much longer and the experience between brand and consumer goes that much further.

Seventh, value and benefit are words that I often use to judge a 2D campaign by to see if it is worthy of passing my Litmus Test. In this case, it is clear that value and benefit are being offered to the consumer via the 25% purchase discount, but what's less clear is the value and benefit being delivered by the plethora of content (information) that the company provides in relation to a rather simple product, a tumbler.

As one reviews this campaign, it is easy to see how the company paid attention to 2D best practices and made use of many of them in the campaign. Additionally, it seems as though the company placed a good amount of thought into the campaign from a strategic perspective (i.e., not focusing on the code itself, but on the end to end experience).

Lastly, I spoke with Kathy Greif, Director of Marketing at Tervis, about the campaign and she said a few interesting things. First and foremost, Ms. Greif said, "The overarching goal of the advertising campaign was to increase brand awareness and within that, the QR codes, panoramic experiences and “smart spots” were specifically developed to encourage further engagement with Tervis. The QR code – leading to the panoramic experience – was an excellent, and easy, way to invite consumers to take one step beyond the print and out-of-home ads to learn about and experience the Tervis lifestyle." Wow...there was a goal here. Often times, a goal seems to be missing and why? A 2D-based campaign is like any other...goals and objectives need to be in place. Ms. Greif went on to say that, "it’s critical, and it remains top of mind for us moving forward with the use of QR codes – having a seamless experience end to end is a key usability factor." I could not agree more. There is virtually no reason why a 2D-based campaign cannot work as intended (i.e., seamless). When asked if QR Codes will be used in future campaigns, Kathy replied, "Yes, in fact we are planning an extension of the campaign in 2012. Additionally, our wholesale catalog includes a Point of Sale (POS) sign featuring a QR code which drives to a new brand video. So, while consumers are shopping at our retail partners’ stores, they can scan the code to quickly and easily dive into the Tervis world to learn more about our products and the Tervis lifestyle." What's great here is that the company is thinking across channels. 2D codes need not be just for print.

Congratulations again to Tervis (Kathy and her team) and its agency (Sterling-Rice Group) for a job well done.

Over the past year and a half, I have been actively researching, reporting and consulting on the strategic and tactical use of 2D barcodes (e.g., QR Code, Microsoft Tag, etc.) for advertising, promotion and general business purposes. In conducting this work, I have scanned and analyzed hundreds of 2D barcode-based campaigns, whether they be print, out-of-home, in-store, package, event, direct mail or television and, in analyzing these campaigns, I have found an inordinate amount that deliver a less-than-ideal or a less than favorable 2D barcode and/or mobile experience for the intended consumer audience. In fact, of the campaigns that I have reviewed, the ratio of good campaigns to bad campaigns is approximately 1:3.

If your company makes use of 2D barcodes, do you find this ratio as alarming and upsetting as I and many others in the industry do? If your company doesn't make use of 2D barcodes, and you look at the situation from a pure strategic marketing perspective, doesn't the degree of less-than-ideal or less than favorable campaigns strike you as odd? Odd to the point that red flags should be going up across the board. What if any other marketing-related technology, application, process or vehicle was being used to communicate a message or engage with someone, would you be comfortable knowing that existing or potential customers were interacting with the brand in a less-than-ideal or favorable way? Chances are, I doubt it.

With so much written and discussed on the topic of 2D barcode best practices and the technology in general I am hard pressed to understand how and/or why a sub-par 2D barcode experience can be signed-off on and allowed to see the light of day. If you use 2D barcodes, or even if you don't, can you explain this? I have spoken with a number of professionals across functions and managerial levels, on both the client and agency side, and have yet to fully understand what might be the cause of this. Some have said it's a matter of budget and the allocation of resources, others have said it's executive compensation and objectives and others have said the technology is still too new to fully commit to it. In my mind, and I believe I speak for many others, none of these responses can or should be used as an excuse to develop and execute a strategy or campaign that simply fails to deliver a remarkable, let alone a half-way decent, 2D barcode or mobile experience.

To know that an experience --any experience-- can affect positively or negatively on a brand, doesn't it behoove a marketing/creative team to develop the best possible 2D barcode and mobile experience? Last I checked, no one was twisting a CMO's or a creative director's arm saying, "you must use 2D technology in your next campaign or else." Would you allow other types of advertising or promotion campaigns (i.e., email, web, direct mail, television, print, package, out-of-home, in-store, etc.) to fail at delivering the best for the brand or consumers?

For companies that are using 2D barcode technology, don't your loyal and/or prospective customers demand/deserve better? For agencies that are creating 2D barcode campaigns for their clients, don't your clients demand/deserve better? Between the brand and the agency, there seems to be a gap where no one wants to tread. Why? 2D barcode technology works, and works well when best practices and marketing fundamentals are adhered to and implemented, but, for some reason, brand and agency leaders don't want to recognize this or take the time to understand the technology.

As a marketing executive who has devoted a tremendous amount of time studying this technology, I have one suggestion: The next time your company or a client wishes to use 2D barcodes please take the responsibility of learning about the technology and allocating the necessary resources beforehand, so that only a winning 2D campaign is created and implemented. By winning, I am referring to a campaign that delivers value, meaning, benefit and relevance to the intended consumer audience via the 2D barcode and mobile experience, and that the experience, as a whole, works seamlessly from end to end. After all, isn't this the way you yourself would want to experience the technology, and the brand, if you were to take the time and make the effort to scan a 2D barcode?

Lastly, from a pure return-on-investment perspective, which CMOs are being held responsible for now more than ever, don't you believe a 2D barcode campaign that is given some forethought and executed correctly will derive a greater return or response than a campaign where the thought to place a 2D barcode in the advertisement is done at the last minute, and it's left to chance as to whether or not the code generates any response or return? My hunch, you believe in the former.

If you wish to ask questions or comment about the information and suggestion discussed above, by all means, please contact me.

Respectfully yours,
Roger Marquis
Founder, 2D Barcode Strategy

QR Code technology works. Period. What does not work, as Mr. Cummings points out, and I do as well on this blog, are advertising and/or promotional campaigns that use QR Codes in a very uncreative way (e.g., scans to a desktop website, offers no value, scans to non relevant information, etc.) or in a way that does not allow for the technology to function as it could or should (e.g., placing a code where there is no Internet service, creating a code that is too dense or small, not optimizing the code scan resolve for mobile, etc.). Here, marketers and advertisers only have themselves to blame for poor scan rates and overall response rates, not the QR Code or the technology. Instead of placing a QR Code on an advertisement at the last minute, marketers and creatives need to incorporate codes into a campaign during the early stages of development, and they must do so from the consumer's perspective, not their own. Just these few best practices alone can help boost consumer interaction and response rates. But, as much as I agree with Mr. Cummings, there are some points mentioned in the article that I question.

In the article, Mr. Cummings states that he surveyed 300 people on the streets of San Francisco, and asked if they knew what the symbol was on the sheet of paper that he was holding (the symbol was a QR Code). Of the 300 people, 40% knew that it was a QR Code or some sort of barcode. While Mr. Cummings may find this number to be low or poor, I believe it's quite strong given the relative newness of the technology here in the U.S. Also, if the majority of U.S. consumers still use feature phones then chances are more people would pay less attention to QR Codes and know what they are, because they can't and don't make use of them. So, in that regard, the number looks pretty impressive. Mr. Cummings could have qualified the respondents by asking the type of mobile phone they own, and this would have added another dimension on the results he obtained.

Of the people that said they knew what the code was, Mr. Cummings writes that "it took an average of 47 seconds for them to take out their phone and find the application to read the QR code -- not exactly a 'quick response.'" Perhaps this is not a 'quick response,' but Mr. Cummings takes the term out of context. The term 'quick response' really has more to do with the time it takes for the code to resolve once scanned, not the amount of time it takes to take out a phone, turn it on, find a code reader app, launch the app, scan the code and wait for the resolve. But, even if it did take several seconds to scan the code, it's still quite a feat to be able to transport a consumer from the print world to the digital world in such a short amount of time.  Here too, Mr. Cummings could have asked another question to qualify the responses. He could have asked how many times each respondent has previously scanned a code. For a novice, perhaps it takes more than a  minute, for someone more experienced, it could take less than 20 seconds. Big difference. Also, from a best practice perspective, if the code is fully optimized this should help to reduce actual scan time.

Overall, I agree with much of what Mr. Cummings writes about, but I wonder, instead of querying consumers about QR Codes, perhaps we should query marketers and creatives, since they are the ones that don't seem to understand QR Codes and the interactive experience that the technology can offer. Based on my quick and dirty 2D Barcode Litmus Test, the ratio is about 2 to 1 in favor of failed attempts by marketers and creatives to develop a winning 2D-based advertising campaign. Seems to me these are the people that need to get schooled on the technology, not the consumer, if the technology is really going to take off and become more widely accepted.

As marketers, we know that a brand is an encapsulation of just about anything, tangible and intangible, that a company projects into the marketplace, whether it be a logo, corporate colors, a promotional tag line, a print advertisement, a product or service, a phone representative's voice, a mission statement, a URL address, an in-store display, a customer service policy, a technological application, a shipping box, a website, a public relations statement, a direct mail package or a live event, etc. so, why should a 2D barcode, and the interactive experience that goes along with it, be any different? Additionally, when a brand related component or element is used in an advertisement, the company's brand reputation, credibility, image and value are put on the line so, here too, why should it be any different with 2D barcodes? To illustrate how 2D codes and the accompanying experience is an extension of the brand, here are a few examples.

Company 'A' displays a 2D barcode in a print advertisement, but the code is printed too small and cannot be scanned. The consumer walks away frustrated in attempting to access the code's contents. The result: brand value decreases.

Company 'B' displays a 2D barcode on an out-of-home advertisement and, when the code is scanned, the consumer is linked to a 30-second self-promotional corporate video which, when finished, links to nothing (i.e., no additional product information, no special offer, no information about retail locations, etc., etc.). The consumer feels as though his/her expectations were not met and spreads negative comments socially. The result: brand value decreases.

Company 'C' features a 2D barcode on an in-store product package label and, when the code is scanned, the consumer is linked to a mobile website that provides all of the product and company information that a consumer would want or need, as well as an incentive for purchasing the product right there and then in the store. The consumer is more than satisfied by the experience and spreads positive comments socially. The result: brand value increases.

Of course, these are simple illustrations of what may or may not happen in the real world, but they are not that far off. Companies work long and hard to craft, produce and foster a brand image, and a positive one at that, but all of this can be easily ruined if, when using 2D barcode technology, the code resolves to content and/or an experience that does not offer and/or deliver value, relevance, meaning, worth and benefit to the consumer, as well as a seamless, well-executed end to end mobile experience. It's that simple, or should be.

The main take away for those considering the use of 2D barcodes, make sure that the people involved in the decision making process (e.g., marketers, creatives, developers, etc.) fully understand that it's not just the ad's return on investment that's at stake, but the much larger and more important corporate brand as well.

Advertisers can all look to number of code scans, number and type of pages clicked on, site entry and exit pages, bounce rates, number of products sold, etc., etc., but while the list of metrics may be the same from one 2D-based advertisement to the next, the actual determinants of success will vary, because the goals and objectives of the campaigns will, or should, vary. Here's an example: Advertiser "A" and Advertiser "B" both want to generate B2B sales leads via a 2D barcode campaign. Advertiser "A" sets a goal of 100 leads, whereas Advertiser "B" sets a goal of 1,000 leads. While the same metric may be used to measure each campaign (e.g., the number of leads obtained via the code scan), success can only be measured by the goal that each campaign has set for itself (e.g., either 100 or 1,000).

Or, let's look at it another way. Company "X" wants to use 2D technology to create media buzz about a new product and will be pleased with 10 new press mentions. Company "Y" wants to use 2D technology to sell more products via its mobile commerce channel and will be happy with $50,000 in sales. Two very different uses of 2D, both using different metrics to identify and determine success.

Each 2D campaign will have its own set of criteria or indicators, as well as goals and objectives, by which success can and will be determined, and this can be said of most any advertisement in general. For some reason, however, when it comes to 2D barcode tracking and measuring, a lot of people pay attention solely on scan rate numbers and are not focusing on the more important downstream numbers (i.e., post scan numbers) such as individual page traffic, time on site, social sharing and even, shun the thought, actual product/service sales. Sure, code scans may provide some useful information and answer some basic questions about the target audience, but certainly not all. Advertisers need to dig deeper to find meaning within the results of a campaign and to determine whether or not it was a success.

In summary, with no specific or standard set of criteria or indicators to use to determine the success of a 2D campaign, let alone baseline industry numbers or percentages to act as a guide, advertisers should conduct their own market/campaign research just as they would when making use of direct mail, email, landing pages, banner ads, etc. 2D is no different. Create A/B split tests, measure over time, measure frequency, measure ad distribution or placement, etc., etc.. If conducting this research can be done in-house great but, if you choose to use an outside 2D provider, ask what their capabilities are when it comes to conducting the type of market/campaign research described above.

Beyond the factors mentioned above, I believe there is one overarching reason as to why mobile barcode campaigns often don't deliver and succeed, and this is based on a company's marketing organization and structure. Please allow me to explain.

When marketers talk about or define their role or function within an organization, they often use the term silo to do so. And, as much as marketers may see themselves within a silo, they also use the term to describe sales, technology, finance, operations and other departments or groups within the company. Because each functional area (i.e., silo) has its own set of goals, objectives, projects, priorities and challenges, etc., it should come as no surprise that the lines of communication and/or ability or willingness to collaborate between departments or groups is often weak or, worse still, totally nonexistent. And, as a result of this type of working condition or organizational structure the company suffers, as does its customers. Sound familiar?

Now, let's take this a step further and focus on a company's marketing department. Today, marketing departments are often made up of various groups, which can include on- or off-line direct response, web development, market research, digital advertising, print advertising, television advertising, mobile, out-of-home advertising, search, media buying, telemarketing, events, corporate communications, public relations, call center, customer service, etc., call them what you will. And, as mentioned above, in relation to functional silos, the same can be said for groups within the marketing department, where each group is viewed as a stand alone silo with its own set of goals, objectives, projects, priorities and challenges.

So, when it comes time to develop and implement integrated strategies or campaigns, the strategies and campaigns stand a good chance of not being able to live up to their fullest potential, especially from the very beginning, only because real or perceived marketing silos were present. Does any of this sound familiar?

With marketing silos acting as communication and creative barriers, I believe it's all to easy for marketers, creatives and/or developers to get in their own way when it comes time to conceive, craft and implement a 2D-based campaign, because, at any point in time, who's to say that all are on board with 2D technology, let alone mobile and, further still, best practices. If the people who need to be involved with a 2D-based campaign can't find it within themselves to figure out how to break down the silos, establish a game plan and adhere to it, then I believe it's relatively easy to see where the strategic, creative and technology breakdowns are occurring and what's causing so many ill conceived and poorly executed 2D-based campaigns from the get go. (I also believe there is a great deal of misinformation being doled out by agencies and 2D providers, but that's for another article.)

In thinking this through, and I know I have a leg to stand on based on a recent conversation with the CEO of an established mobile barcode platform, I believe a new best practice should be considered and added to the mix. What if we were to call it "Marketing Collaboration?" The main tenant of the best practice is that in order for 2D-based campaigns (i.e., the end-to-end 2D/mobile experience) to be as meaningful, valuable, beneficial and successful as possible for the company, as well as for the consumer, marketing in its entirety must realize the need for open lines of communication and the sharing of information and resources, and to make whatever accommodations that are necessary in order to facilitate such items or activities.

What's your take? Should this be considered as a new 2D barcode "industry" best practice?

Without my seeing the advertisement you chose or experiencing its scan resolve content, I will wager that, if I were to remake the advertisement, mine would be much better and more effective than the original. Here's why.

Reason #1: Descriptive/Instructional Copy
My advertisement would include copy along side the QR Code or Microsoft Tag, which informs the consumer of the following: type of code shown, where/how to download a code reader app, scan call-to-action, non-smartphone details (i.e., text/short code or URL address information), and where/what the code will resolve to. Does your advertisement have any and/or all of that information?

Reason #2: Mobile Optimized Content
The code in my advertisement would resolve to content (e.g., home page, product page, video, audio, etc.) that is optimized for a mobile platform, not a desktop platform. Does your advertisement link to a mobile site or mobile content?

Reason #3: Mobile Device Detection
When the code in my advertisement resolves, it auto detects the consumer's mobile device and optimizes the scan resolve content for perfect viewing. Did the content in your advertisement's scan resolve appear as best it could on your device?

Reason #4: Value Statement/Offer
As indicated in the call-to-action, my advertisement would offer some form of value or incentive to the consumer for 1) making the effort to scan the code and/or 2) expressing an interest to purchase the product/service. What value or incentive was offered via your advertisement?

Reason #5: Overall User Experience
My advertisement would ensure a highly satisfactory and seamless user experience from end to end, because the advertisement would be developed from the consumer's perspective, not my own. Did your advertisement deliver such a consumer-focused experience?

Reason #6: Social Sharing
Because the power of social networking can never be underestimated, I placed social sharing widgets in my code's scan resolve content. Did your advertisement make it easy for you to share the scan resolve content with your social network?

So, how did the advertisement you selected fair against mine? Better or worse? If better, great, please send it along, I would love to see it. If worse, it doesn't surprise me, just take a look at the 2D Barcode Litmus Test Scorecard on my website and take note of the Pass/Fail ratio.

Although 2D barcodes are still relatively new in the U.S. market, we are far enough along to know that there are a number of marketing and technology related best practices, such as the ones listed above, which should be deployed when implementing a 2D campaign. Of course, not every best practice will be applicable to each and every advertising situation or strategy but, as with most any other discipline that has a set of best practices, the more practices that can be implemented the greater the chance of success. And, the last I checked, I believe this is a goal for which most marketers/businesses strive to achieve.

Since the story broke, the campaign has garnered a great deal of attention in the 2D barcode community, as well as outside, and it has raised some interesting thoughts and questions about how clever the use of QR Codes, in this manner, may or may not be. One camp believes that using codes in this manner makes little or no sense, because the codes are too small and the players are too far away and moving too often to make the codes scanable. The other camp believes that it was never the advertiser's intention to have the codes scanned in the first place, and that it was more a matter of generating some free publicity for the brand. While I can understand each camp's perspective and reasoning, I believe an interesting word/idea is being used here that we don't often see or hear when discussing and analyzing 2D campaigns, and that word/idea is intention.

Developing and implementing 2D-based campaigns that hinge on the idea of intent, I believe, starts to create a slippery slope for advertisers, and here's why. When a consumer sees a 2D code, their reaction is to scan. But, if the advertiser's intention was for the code not to be scanned, and there was some other modus operandi behind the campaign, what does this mean or do to the consumer? What will the consumer think or how will he/she react to the next 2D code that he/she comes across from this brand or others? How does the consumer benefit or win in this situation? What happens to the consumer's set of expectations, as they relate to the advertisement, offer, call-to-action, brand experience, mobile experience, etc.? Sure the advertiser knew what they intended to have happen via the campaign, but no one clued in the consumer.

While there is probably little denying that the company got a great deal of free publicity from this campaign, was that their only objective? If not, what were the others and were they met? To make 2D campaigns intentional or unintentional may be clever at best, but if the idea is to drive business and raise awareness and adoption of the technology, I don't see how playing clever mind games like this really helps. To me, it's kind of like saying, here's the URL for our company's website, go check it out, but when you get there don't be surprised or disappointed if the home page and everything you thought you were going to be able to see, read about and do is not there. Something just does not sit right, or is it me?

Code density refers to the number and size of the black modules that make up a QR Code itself. As more information is embedded into a QR Code, the number and size (i.e., the density) of black modules increases and the code becomes that much more difficult to scan by a code reader app. The images below illustrate the idea of code density. Both images link to the same URL address (http://www.2d-barcodestrategy.com/2011/06/you-didnt-really-want-readers-to-scan.html). The top code was generated using the long URL. The bottom code was generated using the goo.gl URL shortener. Very easy to see the difference with respect to density.

If either of these two codes had to be reduced in size to fit a magazine print advertisement, chances are the person reading the ad would have a harder time scanning the top code than the bottom code, all because of density. When generating QR Codes, the objective, among many others, is to keep the information embedded in the code as simple as it can be, and this is where URL shorteners (e.g., TinyURL, bit.ly, goo,gl, etc.) come to play.

As necessary and as advantageous as URL shorteners can be with respect to QR Code generation, they do have their disadvantages, and even security risks, that need to be understood and addressed as a 2D campaign strategy is formulated and implemented. Listed below are a number of issues and/or concerns with the use of URL shorteners:

Reach: Many email networks and Wi-Fi hotspots at libraries, airports and restaurants actively block links that use URL shortening services. When you use a URL shortening service be prepared for some users to not be able to access your message.

Code Management: Some URL shortened links cannot be edited and do not expire, so they will always redirect to the site for which they were originally created. It's always a good idea to check that your long URL and/or custom name are correct before creating, sharing, or printing your URL shortened links.

Control of Information: With many URL shortening services you are releasing to them the right to harness your user data and share it with the world, including your competition. For example, to learn more about the life of any given bit.ly URL, simply add a "+" sign to the end of that link and you will be directed to a page with that link's statistics.

Link Rot: Short URLs will be subject to link rot if the shortening service stops working; all URLs related to the service will become broken. It is a legitimate concern that many existing URL shortening services may not have a sustainable business model in the long term.

Closure by Internet Service Provider: URL shortening sites are sometimes shut down by their hosting Internet service provider (ISP) because the links are being used for illicit purposes.

International Law: Shortened Internet links typically use foreign country domain names, and are therefore under the jurisdiction of that nation. Libya, for instance, exercised its control over the .ly domain in October 2010 to shut down vb.ly for violating Libyan pornography laws. Failure to predict such problems with URL shorteners and investment in URL shortening companies may reflect a lack of due diligence.

Blocking: Some websites prevent short, redirected URLs from being posted. In 2006, MySpace banned posting TinyURLs and Facebook, in July 2010, blocked TinyURL and bit.ly links, as part of what it called a "temporary spam prevention measure."

In 2009, the Twitter network replaced TinyURL with bit.ly as its default shortener of links longer than twenty-six characters. In April 2009, TinyURL was reported to be blocked in Saudi Arabia. Panera Bread blocks access to TinyURL within its free Wi-Fi network. Yahoo! Answers blocks postings that contain TinyURLs, Wikipedia does not appear to accept links by any URL shortening services in its articles and Craigslist does not appear to accept bit.ly links in its posts. Microsoft web security is currently blocking the URL shortener o-x.fr as a "phishing site".

Privacy and Security: Users may be exposed to privacy issues through the URL shortening service's ability to track a user's behavior across many domains. On the security side, a short URL obscures the target address and, as a result, can be used to redirect to an unexpected site.

Additional Layer of Complexity: Short URLs, although making it easier to access what might otherwise be a very long URL or user-space on an ISP server, add an additional layer of complexity to the process of retrieving web pages. Every access requires more requests (at least one more DNS lookup and HTTP request), thereby increasing latency, the time taken to access the page and also the risk of failure, since the shortening service may become unavailable.

The last disadvantage and/or risk associated with the use of URL shorteners is probably the most important to discuss and understand, and this relates to Catastrophic Point of Failure, a phrase coined by Philip Warbasse, head of Warbasse Design. According to Mr. Warbasse, marketers, creatives and developers need to look at a 2D barcode or pure mobile campaign, from beginning to end, and consider what he refers to as "fail points." Some fail points are embarrassing (e.g., a broken link to an image) while others can be catastrophic (e.g., a broken link to a page or the entire site itself). To know that a QR Code may be generated using a URL shortener, Mr. Warbasse believes that the client must understand what they are giving up by using a URL shortener. In this case, control over entrance to the campaign. "It's like having your neighbor hold your house keys. Every time you want to get in your own home, you have to go across the street to get your keys and if your neighbor is not home, you are out of luck," says Warbasse. At times, when it matters most, companies should never hand over control of their mobile strategies/campaigns to a third party (i.e., a URL shorterner service), because of all of the disadvantages and risks mentioned above. An advertiser's goal should be to minimize fail points and, if that's the case, it only makes sense to bring URL shortening in-house. Another solution might be to register a short, nondescript URL instead of making use of a long one.

In summary, I have seen far too many 2D-based campaigns fail for the simple reason that the QR Code used was too dense. Before setting out to build a QR Code-based campaign, know the standards when it comes to code generation and density, and know that using a third-party URL shortener may not always be the best solution.

Have you seen or experienced this scenario before, an advertising or promotional message that says one thing, but delivers on another or fails to deliver at all? You will, if you look at or interact with the vast majority of 2D barcode-based advertising campaigns in the marketplace today. As more and more companies choose to incorporate 2D technology into their advertising, fewer and fewer are actually delivering content, an experience and/or an offer that is of meaning, value and relevance, let alone meets or exceeds a consumer's expectation.

When a consumer decides to read a 2D-based advertisement, takes the time and makes the effort to take out his/her smartphone, launches a code reader app, scans the code and then is linked to a page or website that does not meet his/her expectations, this is when a consumer may not only shy away from scanning 2D codes in the future but, more importantly, the brand as well. Advertisers must recognize the fact that their 2D-based campaigns may trigger a variety of expectations in the minds of their audience, and that they not only need to manage these expectations, but meet them, especially as the expectations may relate to the 2D/mobile/user experience.

When trying to get a handle on setting and managing consumer expectations, as it relates to 2D, one of the more popular best practices that I refer to is for a company to base its campaign around the consumer and to ask, what's in it for them (i.e., the consumer), how do they win? Not, what's in it for us (i.e., the company), how do we win? Working from this frame of mind, companies will find it much easier to develop campaigns that truly deliver without disappointing. Also, it never hurts for a company to conduct some preliminary market research to understand what a consumer's expectations may or may not be with respect to the process of scanning a code, linking to a landing page, viewing and/or interacting with content and so on.

Because so much of what consumers hear or know about a product or service these days comes via word of mouth and/or social networks, the last thing an advertiser wants is for a negative experience or an unmet expectation (i.e., a failed 2D campaign) to get out and spread.

In summary, and I've written this before, advertisers need to do their homework regarding how best to make use of 2D technology, and they cannot be lazy if and when it comes time to implement the technology. And, mind you, all of this falls under the guise of setting, managing, anticipating and delivering on consumer expectations.

Before delving into this subject matter, let's first define what is and/or makes for a 2D barcode provider, and an exceptional one at that. Search for a provider on Google and typically you will get results for companies that offer one to three basic services and/or capabilities: code generation, code management and code tracking/reporting. Some of these services/capabilities might be free, while others have an expense associated with them. While these might be the most common services/capabilities provided, they really don't describe or include some of the more important services/capabilities that a company or its agency might need in order to produce and implement an effective and efficient 2D barcode-based strategy or campaign. In addition to the three basic services mentioned above, companies/agencies should also consider whether or not a provider or platform can offer strategic marketing advice, creative ideation and production, mobile website development, mobile device detection and content optimization services, as well. While often overlooked, these additional services/capabilities are really the ones that will make or break a strategy or campaign, especially if the company does not have these resources in-house or at their disposal.

Searching the 2D barcode provider landscape, there are very few companies, whether they be a major player or boutique, which offers the very basic, as well as the additional services/capabilities outlined above, but they are out there.

With a better understanding of what a 2D barcode provider could or should be able to offer, now let's focus on the process of selecting one. To begin, a company's marketing and/or creative team needs to look inward and ask questions of itself and then of the provider. Listed below, in no particular order, are the types of questions which should be asked:

• What is our overall budget, what can we afford?
• How or on what is provider pricing determined (i.e., codes generated, scan rates, report delivery, etc.)?
• How does the provider bill for products and services (i.e., hourly, project, retainer)?
• What in-house capabilities, resources, manpower do we have?
• Does our agency have the necessary capabilities, resources or manpower? If so, at what cost?
• Will creative ideation and production services be needed and does the provider offer such services?
• Will website (desktop or mobile) development be needed and does the provider offer such services?
• Will content management and optimization be needed and does the provider offer such services?
• Will mobile device detection and optimization be needed and does the provider offer such services?
• What 2D barcode format to use, open source (e.g., QR Code) or proprietary (Microsoft TAG), and what does the provider offer?
• Will technology support be needed and does the provider offer such services?
• What will be the duration, frequency and reach of the 2D-based campaign?
• What are the goals and objectives of the 2D campaign?
• Does the provider have the ability to test the code and to what extent?
• Does the provider assist with code/advertisement print production?
• Does the provider offer strategic marketing advice?
• Does the provider offer competitive analysis?
• Does the provider offer code tracking, reports and analysis?
• Does the provider offer code management?
• Does the provider offer dynamic codes versus static codes?
• Does the provider offer a code reader app or the white labeling of an app?
• Can the provider work virtually or just in-person?

Get the idea? Certainly there are other strategic, tactical and technology related questions to ask, but I believe this covers a great deal of what's most important and necessary to know to get the selection process started. If you believe other questions should be added to the list, by all means, please comment.