Augmented Reality Bites

July 30th, 2009

I have this new rule I’m working on: If it’s easier to buy your product than to engage with your marketing, you’re doing it wrong.

If you are trying to raise awareness, forcing a user to work is generally a bad idea. You have to give users something of high value while minimizing their effort if you want to build a better reputation.

If your goal is conversion, you should be especially careful of the barriers to entry and usage. This seems obvious, but brands consistently require too much of users in their digital marketing efforts.

Augmented Reality in Ads

Industry rags and blogs have spent months reporting on a steady stream of augmented reality (AR) ideas in marketing ever since GE launched their Smart Grid AR site.

A recent entry into the pool is for Always Infinity. The site claims to show you a magic trick.

All you have to do is follow the instructional video and simple two-step process of printing a graphic out on a sheet of paper and holding it up to the camera while it superimposes the magic. What’s the magic in this case? A 3d animation of a rabbit in a hat. It’s cute, but fluff. The real magic trick is making 5-10 minutes disappear with nothing to show for it – including a greater appreciation of their new pads.

This is how most of these campaigns work. I think they’re mostly flops. They’re ideas pulled out of the bookmarks bar of a desperate art director, sold to a client as the next big thing, and supported by an industry press with a shortage of interesting topics.

There were two instances of this particular form of webcam-based AR in recent marketing efforts that were successful. The first was the aforementioned GE project. This was the first big brand use of AR and it seemed like advanced – if novel – tech coming from GE. It was cool and not overtly pushing a product.

The second was a project developed by AKQA for the United States Postal Service (USPS) that let users hold items up to their camera to find the best Priority Mail shipping box. The damned thing had a purpose, and used the tech in an interesting way.

Everyone else doing this stuff has been trying to fit in, adding to the noise. They’ve expected users to find inspiration in the declining novelty of webcam AR, put in the work of printing an image, engage in the theatrics, and eagerly send to a friend.

Instead of patronizing your audience, pushing this gimmick as new to them, why not find a real reward for engagement? Make the payoff ten times as valuable as the work users put in. Only the first project to use a gimmick gets to call the work itself the payoff.

Let me repeat my new rule to the consumer brands out there looking for gimmicks that make demands of people: If it’s easier to buy your product than to engage with your marketing, you’re doing it wrong.

  • If it’s easier to buy your product than to engage with your marketing, you’re doing it wrong. http://bit.ly/ObvlT (via @eomine e @passamani)


    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Robert Rice
    Give it time. AR is like a shiny new toy for some ad agencies and since it is so buzzwordy right now, they are all scrambling to fit it in, which results in a lot of superficial and gimmicky implementations. Marker based AR has its uses, but it won't be long before visual tracking and other methods start showing up. AR now is nothing like what it will be like in two or three years.

    One last point, AR is nothing like or remotely related to SL, nor should it be.
  • Interesting points put across by Toby Joe on why Augmented Reality Bites http://bit.ly/14DkLD


    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Augmented Reality – “ideas pulled out of the bookmarks bar of a desperate art director”. Good post @tobyjoe http://tr.im/vk1a


    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Lost, NIN, etc, aren't CPGs or other goods providers. Well, NIN is. But his community isn't really about raising awareness. I think he's building an entire marketplace. There isn't the sense that the community dies after the album cycle restarts, ya know? Building those kinds of deep fan relationships - including chatting with Trent R. - is also not gimmickry. It's a high value service in and of itself... and it's free and easy!

    I think the rule would apply differently to media, like TV shows or movies. Buying a movie ticket is easy, sure, but you also engage pretty heavily with a movie. Two hours of total immersion...

    I will rethink how non-goods relate to this.
  • chandler
    I'm also deeply skeptical of AR in advertising. But i'm not sure this new rule of yours is correct either. The trouble is metrics. I can claim that there have been a number of successful ARGs that require hours of time and complex thought/collaboration, but we have no honest way to measure success. The ARGs for Lost, ILoveBees, NIN, etc certainly raised awareness of the products, and if one follows the Gladwell-esque idea of a maven, locked in to those people who will effectively spread the word. But how do we know?
  • I think the big burden is the printing. The only reason I ever even saw the GE thing was because someone already printed the page and it was floating around the office. No way was I going to walk across the office to see an ad (or bother to hook up my printer at home). The Doritos thing was closer, being printed on the bag, though I still didn't think the payoff was all that compelling.

    So I totally agree. If I need to put in effort, you better give me something.
  • Ryan - I am all for brand building. I don't think jumping on bandwagons that make users jump through hoops for no payoff is a good means to build brands.

    I believe strongly in the utilitarian function of novelty. That is, novelty can enrich our lives and help us on our way toward day to day happiness. Levity is great.

    The initial GE project was a great use of AR because of the timing. It did help make the GE brand seem more youthful and interesting.

    Nearly every execution after that has been more about agencies and brands jumping on the bandwagon than giving anyone anything of value.

    See my post about pointless iPhone apps to understand more of my thinking on this new rule.
  • On goofy AR ad ideas: http://bit.ly/2mVzTn


    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • I had a similar reaction. I felt most of this stuff sounded as if the companies bought into these silly things with promises of being on the "forefront" without any thought to the consumer. I seriously doubt that this is making consumers buy.

    I like the rule.
  • RT @tobyjoe:On goofy AR ad ideas: http://bit.ly/2mVzTn AR is the new Second Life. Doesn’t mean it’s not sometimes fun.


    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Ryan Tomorrow
    Eh, I KINDA agree. While AR may very well be the new Second Life, there is merit in doing something that is purely brand building. You know me - utility above all - but sometimes that utility is simple delight. Again, it has to be done WELL, and it has to be done in an engaging way, but there's no harm in a little bit of fun for the users who are interested in trying it. It won't sell product, but it will build a bit of brand goodwill.
blog comments powered by Disqus