I think QR codes are almost never applied appropriately. I can Google something as quickly (if not more) than I can scan and process a QR code. True, a QR code may help me reach deep info easily, but a QR code has meaning ONLY to a computer; a URL has meaning to both a computer and to a human.
Let's say I see a poster advertising, say, a contest by Budweiser to win Superbowl tickets. Two scenarios that, for the sake of argument, are mutually exclusive: A) The poster has a QR code. If I don't scan that QR code then and there my interaction is done. B) The poster has a URL (BudweiserSuperbowl.com). If I don't visit that site while I'm standing next to the advertisement there's still a chance I may remember the URL and decide to check it out later. This is the similar to the reason we invented DNS to obviate the need to memorize IP addresses.
brk's example of a QR code on a washing machine at Best Buy was far more useful to Best Buy than to the customer: scanning a bar code can yield technical info, reviews, prices etc. whereas scanning a QR code will only give you the information that Best Buy or the manufacturer wants you to see.
Some places I wouldn't mind seeing QR codes:
- Videogames have more and more long alphanumeric strings to enter to enable online features, downloadable content, et al.; why not also include QR codes for Kinect to scan?
- Mini QR codes on menus to take you directly to nutritional info for a dish could be cool
> URL has meaning to both a computer and to a human.
I'm not convinced. I think that most people don't remember URLs, in the same way that they freak out when an error dialog pops up and the just click any button to make it go.
"What did it say?" you ask, trying to fault find. "Oh, I don't know", they reply, "I just clicked [NO]".
And honestly, no-one is going to remember "budweisersuperbowl.com". See also AOL using "aol keywords".
So maybe they're both bad ideas, I can accept that. In fact I know I personally would be far more likely to just Google "budweiser superbowl" than pay attention to the URL, but if I'm going to pick one or the other for my ad I'd stick with a URL. Those same people you reference certainly aren't the ones who are going to both know what a QR code is and have the motivation to scan the code. Anyone could read a url and remember it whereas no one I've heard of can look at a QR code and understand a lick of it. If nothing else I stand by a URL in this situation being a better bad idea than a QR code.
Let's say I see a poster advertising, say, a contest by Budweiser to win Superbowl tickets. Two scenarios that, for the sake of argument, are mutually exclusive: A) The poster has a QR code. If I don't scan that QR code then and there my interaction is done. B) The poster has a URL (BudweiserSuperbowl.com). If I don't visit that site while I'm standing next to the advertisement there's still a chance I may remember the URL and decide to check it out later. This is the similar to the reason we invented DNS to obviate the need to memorize IP addresses.
brk's example of a QR code on a washing machine at Best Buy was far more useful to Best Buy than to the customer: scanning a bar code can yield technical info, reviews, prices etc. whereas scanning a QR code will only give you the information that Best Buy or the manufacturer wants you to see.
Some places I wouldn't mind seeing QR codes:
- Videogames have more and more long alphanumeric strings to enter to enable online features, downloadable content, et al.; why not also include QR codes for Kinect to scan?
- Mini QR codes on menus to take you directly to nutritional info for a dish could be cool