There’s a whole bunch of discussion this week about McDonald’s adopting QR codes on their bags for customers to scan in order to access nutritional information. And judging from the reactions in comments and on Twitter, many marketers can’t figure out why.
People understandably don’t get this move because, well, no one uses QR codes. They were a terrible idea initially and most brands have realized this and dropped them. A short URL is far, far easier. You don’t need to install anything, they’re universally understood, readable from far distance, etc. Short URLs are superior to QR codes in all ways. The only people benefiting by their use are the companies who stand to profit by selling QR code related tools or services, not consumers.
And this is exactly why it is brilliant for McDonald’s to use them. Do you think they really want users to see nutritional information? Of course they don’t, or they’d have put it in restaurants prior to having legal reasons to do so. If they did want people to check out this information via the bag, they’d use a short URL with clear CTA (note, current CTA above the code is unspecific). Also, is McDonald’s core demographic part of the 5% of Americans who actually have scanned a QR code? Of course not. PS: it’s also brilliant for them to do this because they received a wave of press for it.
And now your moment of zen, for brands or marketers who still think QR codes are a good idea:
Couldn’t agree more buddy. Leading brands have baked technology adoption into their PR strategies, but it’s few and far between. The reality is, McDonald’s has garnered substantial media impressions in the past few days along with increased reach. Boohya! Happy Friday:-)
I would never have thought of it this way, but an excellent point. It makes perfect sense. They’ve done their duty. If you want to scan it’s up to you, but who is going to do it? If this was their rationale, it’s pretty good. Thanks for the insights. Have a great weekend.
The 5% figure you quote is over a year old, it’s now running at 19% (60 million people).
If short URLs in ads are superior why are they so rare compared with QR Codes?
No one makes money from QR Codes they are open source. The cost to McDonald’s is as close to zero dollars as you can get.
You say ‘most brands have dropped QR Codes’ which may be true on your planet but not here on Earth.
If you don’t like QR Codes it may be better to just say so rather than try to back it up with specious arguments.
Link to the 19% stat so we have context? The 5% stat is what I found upon some quick research and seems to be the most verifiable stat from a trusted source. I still don’t think they’re a good idea: FAR more people recognize and know how to use URLs. And you’re right btw — total honesty: I don’t like QR codes or find them at all useful.
http://bit.ly/10wVEnc
Roger: you should have posted a QR code instead of a short URL.
You should have provided the link as a QR code. ;)
Like it or not, QR codes have been around before most of you were in college. Like everything mobile, it’s too soon to write an obituary. They remain an easy target for criticism.
Why not focus on something more important, like how most sites (including this blog) are not optimized for mobile? That’s a far larger problem for markets that’s rarely discussed.
Roger,
Thanks for pointing out the obvious — QR codes are on the rise. There are good marketing reasons for this. They are given in the Pitney Bowes study.referenced by your link. Among the reasons are that “QR codes have
been used by 27% of 18-34 year-olds”.
I agree. Few munching on a big macs are interested in the nutritional information. Those who are don’t need a URL or QR code to find it. I don’t see it as a sinister effort to hide the information. I think the other reason you mention for their doing it is more valid: lots of positive free press.
QR Codes are an excellent way to look up such information. Firstly, no one wants to type in a URL. It takes much more time, energy, and focus, than scanning a QR Code. Secondly, I doubt that McDonalds purposefully chose QR Codes because fewer people would use them. Providing a URL would have been the less-sophisticated way. Thirdly, they can always provide a URL along with the QR Codes. In this way they’ll debunk any thought of an attempt to minimize access to nutritional information.
Thanks, genuinely, for the article. Cheers.
Yup a URL *too* would have been great. And I don’t agree no one wants to type in a URL. I don’t mind at all personally :)
Depends on the reason for the QR code. I gotta agree that I can’t be bothered to type a URL into my browser on my phone, its just not that easy.
QR Codes are a great way to get quick feedback however.
If on a restaurant receipt I am given a 16 digit number to type in at the companies website, and then answer 15 questions about the service etc.. There is no way I am going to do that, even if the server exceptionally great or crappy.
However if there was a QR code on the bottom of the receipt, and I can just scan it there and then, rate the service quickly, and then stick the phone back in my pocket. I would definitely do that.
There have been MANY occasions where I wanted to give feedback, but the hassle factor was to high.
‘A Bar-code for Ideas’ As I’ve heard it called, is the easiest way (at the moment) to link the real would with the on-line world quickly and effortlessly.
Alan
QR codes are another step that most people are too lazy to want to deal with in this instance. Nobody that’s eating at McDonald’s to begin with is going to care that much about what the nutritional information of the food their eating is.
Wow that’s crazy that they would use QR codes for there nutritional information. Just put the information out there you shouldn’t have anything to hide.
thanks for sharing