I totally made that up - just looked at the report we did and actually
QR out-performed short urls - which is interesting - but most striking
is the fact that very few people followed up on the call to action at all..
Mike
_____________________________
*Mike Ellis *
Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital
agency:http://thirty8.co.uk <http://thirty8.co.uk/>
* My book: http://heritageweb.co.uk <http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
Mike Ellis wrote:
> Thanks Richard, that's a useful bunch of thoughts.
>
> Did any of your work involve how many people actually engage with
> these solutions? As a percentage say of footfall or web visits?
>
> Actual analytics in this area seem very sparse and I'm trying to work
> out if that's because in reality no-one actually uses stuff like this
> or because no-one writes it up.
>
> We did some work with a big heritage client in Bath a while back where
> we used QR next to short urls as part of a big bus-back / train
> station / bus stop poster campaign - our findings basically showed
> that shorturls performed slightly better than QR but that overall very
> few people actually engaged with the content at all. In this
> particular instance they were also given a code to get 10% off entry
> to the attraction, so even with an incentive the click rates were very
> small.
>
> Anyone else got any insights into this stuff? It's very easy to get
> excited about the tech possibilities but if no-one is actually wanting
> the content then we should probably reconsider.
>
> Andy - what kind of click-through rates do you see on QRPedia?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> _____________________________
>
>
> *Mike Ellis *
>
> Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital
> agency:http://thirty8.co.uk <http://thirty8.co.uk/>
>
> * My book: http://heritageweb.co.uk <http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
>
>
>
> Richard Malloy wrote:
>> Hi Mike
>>
>> We've developed a beacon based CMS platform and app, and before getting to
>> this stage we undertook user testing within a art gallery with QR codes vs
>> presentation cards vs Beacons.
>>
>> You could argue that we have the complete system (CMS, app and beacons)
>> which is an unfair comparison to the QR Codes, but we could have easily
>> retasked our CMS to generate QR Codes and our app to read them. However
>> there were the several factors that we encountered:
>>
>> *Quality of display*
>>
>> QR codes need to printed. We looked at the professionally printed codes vs
>> in house printed vs beacons.
>>
>> - If your exhibit changes that QRC sign cannot be reused, you have to
>> generate a new. This will incur a cost and print time.
>> - Inhouse QRC looked unprofessional (laser / bubble jet does not have
>> the quality of a printers)
>> - We observed more users scanning the professionally printed QRC than
>> the inhouse one.
>> - Beacons can be hidden out of site and it could be easily re-assigned
>> (with our CMS) if the display changes. Content is pushed to a users device
>> as soon as they come into proximity,
>> - 92% of users questioned said they prefer the beacons solution as they
>> didn't have to do anything - content was pushed to them.
>>
>> *Size of QRC*
>>
>> How large do you print the QRC out? This was a constant question.
>>
>> - Too small:
>> - Users had to get up really close to scan - which was often a barrier
>> - Risk of getting too close and damaging display/artwork
>> - Too large:
>> - Over-powered the display
>> - Looked tacky
>> - Just because it was bigger didn't mean we could scan it from further
>> away and the size of the QRC made no difference to the number of visitors
>> who would scan.
>>
>> *Accessibility& engagement*
>>
>> We observed a crowd around a display having to queue in order to scan the
>> code.
>>
>> Several member of that group gave up waiting and became disinterested. We
>> asked those users why they walked away and the general feedback was;
>>
>> - having to wait for others to finish scanning
>> - too many people around that one display in close proximity - they felt
>> they where pushing and shoving each other just to scan the code.
>>
>> We also encountered a chap who had 2 walking sticks who struggled to hold
>> his phone at the angle needed to scan the code - not great for
>> accessibility.
>>
>> This also then made us aware of users in wheel chairs, although none
>> attended, if the QRC have been positioned too high or in a tight space,
>> those user may not have been to access the area or been able to reach the
>> QRC to scan.
>>
>> With beacons they transmit, so anyone within that proximity can get the
>> information sent to them - you don't have to get up an close.
>>
>> *Usability*
>>
>> Of the organisations that we spoke to who had implemented QR codes did so
>> with free software. They would publish content on their website, copy that
>> URL to the free software, generated the code and print it.
>>
>> Users would then have to download and/or open a QR code reading software
>> app, scan the code, wait for the code to ping back with the URL, then take
>> them to the phone's browser to then load the content.
>>
>> The majority of the time, it would have been just as easy to type in a
>> dedicated url rather than do all of the above, but many CMS systems do not
>> publish search friendly URLs, making QRC previously the only option.
>>
>> We even found that with one organisation they would do the above, but their
>> site was not responsive! So after all that, the user still couldn't access
>> the content.
>>
>> In general, beacons and QRC are just the physical triggers to content. Its
>> how the content is structured and how that is accessed.
>>
>> Beacons are lot better than QRC as you don't need to get close, you don't
>> need to scan, you don't need to generate the QRC or print it or mount it
>> and so on.
>>
>> There was a lot that we discovered undertaking the pilots and I could write
>> a lot more - but perhaps save that for phone call if you wanted to know
>> more.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On 26 February 2015 at 10:58, Mike Ellis<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all
>>>
>>> Has anyone done / know of any studies (or have any thoughts) about
>>> comparisons between the take up / usage of on-gallery "find out more about
>>> this object" solutions?
>>>
>>> Do people want to find out more? Do they scan? How?
>>>
>>> cheers!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> *Mike Ellis *
>>>
>>> Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital agency:
>>> http://thirty8.co.uk <http://thirty8.co.uk/>
>>>
>>> * My book:http://heritageweb.co.uk <http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************
>>> website:http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>> Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>> [un]subscribe:http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>> ****************************************************************
>>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>> website:http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>> Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>> [un]subscribe:http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> ****************************************************************
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|