Recently, I saw this “interactive” print advertisement for Beauty Bar and, while clever, I am not really sure what to make of it.
Printed in the center of the page, on the woman’s face, are the following “interactive” instructions: 1. Go to beautybar.com/now on your smartphone browser. 2. Place smartphone here. 3. See today’s look applied. Simple, right? Wrong. I followed the instructions and attempted to “interact” several times, but nothing appeared on the screen. Frustrated, I went to my laptop and typed in the URL address given in the instructions. Here, I was able to see what I should have been able to see on my smartphone, which was a rotation of six different images of the model in the print advertisement, where each image portrayed the model in a different look (i.e., different makeup).
As I said, a clever use of a smartphone, but too bad the interactive experience never materialized as intended. But, even if the experience worked, I wonder how the company would enable the reader of the ad to read and learn more about their products, purchase the products and/or share the content/mobile experience with others. Also, where would the value and benefit have been for the reader? Was a purchase discount being offered, exclusive content, anything?
Questions to the marketing/creative team: Did you consider using a mobile barcode or a digital watermark? Did you find codes or watermarks too involved or too costly? Did you actually test the resolve mechanism? Was this developed in-house or via an agency or vendor? Were any objectives set for the campaign?
Question for the players at home: Do you believe we see more of this interactive strategy or does it fall by the wayside?
While this is not a true 2D barcode campaign, it strives to be interactive, but fails. Sorry.
2D Barcode Litmus Test: FAIL