AR & QR – Here to Stay?
I just read a great re-cap post on “super brand’s” use of Augmented Reality from Chris Lake on Econsultancy and it got me thinking. Specifically about AR & QR codes. I call both technologies enabling technologies because they both enable the offline to be merged with the online. And they both enable deeper experiences with the brand. But QR codes – really any barcodes – just don’t seem to have the attraction, nor the experimentation to scale and use that AR has. Why do you think this is?
Aside from the end-visual difference between the two, I think it’s simple – QR codes don’t do for a brand what AR does. In other words – QR codes are just another way to access information. AR is another way to experience a brand. It’s quite a big difference.
At the end of the day, do we really need QR codes? We can duplicate the same experience through advertising a URL or a short code. Some would even argue that accessing a deeper level of information through a URL/short code is a better experience than through a QR code. You don’t have to understand what it is, how it works, download an app, take a picture. Just simply type or text for the information you want.
AR, on the other hand, is an experience unto itself. You can’t duplicate the experience any other way. And because AR is what it is, it allows brands to either create an experience or utility that can show things in ways that no other medium can. And that’s one of the fascinating things to me about AR – it transcends the mediums/screens we use to consume media. It lives, literally, somewhere between your hands in the real world and your eyes on whatever screen you experience it on. It can immerse someone in a brand far more effectively than any barcode can. And depending on the actual solution, it can probably immerse someone more than a TV commercial can, or a website, or a banner ad, or a “static” video.
QR codes & AR both have hurdles for sure. Start with the technology needed and the effort required to access either of them. But because of what each provides, do you think one will outlive the other? Or do you think that they’re both here to stay?
I've always thought of QR codes as a technology in transition. I think there are future developments that will make the technology much more accessible and palatable to a broader audience. I do think that most QR applications are viewed from the brand's point of view. That is, what do we want consumers to do or see. If that model is turned around, and you look at what the user can make the brand do or see, then the experience becomes a little easier to digest. For example, what if a brand gave its customers QR codes that made transactions easier for the individual. Credit cards are the easiest example of this, and not a QR code. But, it serves a similar function. I'm sure there are applications of general information that could be applied to QR codes that don't merit the level of security of a credit card. Maybe amusement parks using them to make it easier to navigate lines or find friends and family. Just a thought.
I also think that the technologies are fundamentally different. AR can be an experience in itself. Whereas, QR codes are a gateway to an experience or information. Similar to the way Facebook is an experience, whereas Google is a gateway.
Just some thoughts based on trying to refute your premise. Thanks for the post.
I have been trying to find a use for QR codes myself. After reading about companies such as StickyBits (not really QR, but close) and MobileTag, I wonder if this technology is really going to work, and more importantly gain mass appeal.
I've tried using "new" technologies in the past with little success……..and especially something like QR codes, which today are dependent on 3rd party Apps to "read" the codes to then decipher them to something that, to the point of the post, would have been just as easy to remember – like a URL, etc.
I'm all for showing off my geek prowess to my other geek friends, but I always default to the wife test. If I find it hard to explain to my wife why I am trying something, or even better find it hard to give her an example of how/why she might try something, then to me it's just a hobby – something that is fun for awhile, but will pass in time, and as a self-professed geek, I will be on to the next shiny toy.
My thoughts today are that QR codes are just that, a shiny toy that will be out of fashion when the next new "thing" comes along.
Thanks to both of you for the comments. Good stuff. Rather than QR codes being the "tech in transition," I would say that 2D/3D barcodes are a tech in transition. Just look at Stickybits. As Joey points out, they're not QR codes, but they're in the same family. What Stickybits enables seamlessly, unlike QR codes, is social interaction around the object itself. I do believe each of these are fundamentally different, but the question becomes, which one is going to rise to the top? Because I don't believe that they will all succeed. They are different enough from one another to provide different benefits right now, but I think we're still in experimentation mode. But they're the same enough to confuse the everyday user, which will always be a barrier to mass adoption.