Comments on: Augmented Reality Bites

By: Robert Rice

Robert Rice — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:30:54 +0000

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.

By: tobyjoe

tobyjoe — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:15:52 +0000

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.

By: chandler

chandler — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:29:44 +0000

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?

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:16:33 +0000

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.

By: tobyjoe

tobyjoe — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:08:47 +0000

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.

By: Nik Bauman

Nik Bauman — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:28:02 +0000

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.

By: Ryan Tomorrow

Ryan Tomorrow — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:24:30 +0000

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.