The CueCat and CueCat Barcode - image by Chris Tomkins-Tinch.
I just finished reading Dave Weineke’s article “Why Marketers Shouldn’t Waste Their Time on QR Codes” at adage.com and I agree with the article and all points therein. So much so that I thought it important to expound on the topic.
Weineke makes a comparison to the CueCat, a paralell I’ve drawn as well. If you’re not familiar with this device that has become an icon of the .com bubble’s irrational exuberance, I think this sums it up: it has the dubious distinction of Being #5 in Time’s list of the 50 Worst Inventions.
QR codes are just like the CueCat in that they’re an attempt by print marketers to drive consumers over an unrealistically onerous barrier to entry in order to satisfy their own needs to bridge the conversion and measurement gap between print and digital. That attempt is buoyed by those in the digital world that are blinded by new and shiny to the point that they ignore the practical realities of using the things.
In the case of the CueCat, users had to pick up the device at a retail store (RadioShack was an outlet), hook the thing up to their PC, install the software, then scan the barcodes in print ads; all so they could see…more advertising. In the case of CueCat 2.0 (aka QR), we’re expecting consumers to care enough to learn what they are, own a smartphone (in most cases) download an app, open it and scan the code (which in my experience rarely works the first time – if at all), all so they can see…you know the rest.
I’ve heard the argument that it’s all about execution and providing value to the user – which, if you stop there, is a sound argument. But here’s what that really means: we have to add some kind of value (i.e. QR-exclusive content and offers) to get consumers to adopt a technology that provides absolutely no value to them on its own.
Few would refute that marketing in the age of fragmentation is all about providing enough value to consumers that they choose to spend the little free time they have with your brand over the infinite amount of choices they’re being offered by your competition – this is why (rightfully so) content marketing is such a hot topic; and if QR codes actually saved people time it could turn my argument on its ear, but the fact is that it’s quicker for someone to open a mobile browser and type in a URL – not to mention the fact that most people already know what a web address is without including instructions on how to use them.
In closing, I should point out that the CueCat was not a phenomena that I witnessed from afar. Digital Convergence – the company that created the CueCat – was based in Dallas where I live, and Belo Corp. – the print and broadcast company I worked for when the CueCat was still alive – was a large investor. If you’re wondering how well Belo has done in the digital age, take a look at their stock price and financials over the last decade.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
[...] But CueCats of Any Stripe Are Lame Beyond silly use by marketers, there is a problem with this mechanism. It isn’t convenient enough to be a great mass market connecter. In the article, I compared QR codes to their failed predecessor, the CueCat. In fact, my new favorite digital strategy friend, Lee de la Houssaye, wrote a post extended this idea, that QR Codes are CueCat2.0. [...]
I think the argument about which approach is faster is a flawed one. It’s true that the first time someone uses a QR code they have to download an app, and that can take more time than a one-time URL entry. But once they have done that, using codes can be lightning fast. Some of the readers I’ve tried on the iPhone are ridiculously efficient (i-Nigma, NeoReader and Scan seem to be the best), and the apps will continue to improve. In the meantime, you can pack a long, non-consumer-friendly URL away into a nice tidy QR code.
I agree that CueCat was a disaster. You needed a special piece of single-purpose hardware, tethered to a computer (taking up a valuable slot), and adoption of the bar codes themselves was incredibly limited. I don’t see those same drawbacks this time around.
My primary mobile device is a Blackberry (that’s what my employer provides) and the user experience on that thing (using ScanLife) is awful. Most of the time it doesn’t even work. I tried a friend’s iPod (not sure what app) and it took a couple of tries for it to recognize the printed code, but was a much better experience than the Blackberry. While I don’t have an iPhone, I do have an iPod Touch (the newest version) and when I read your comment I downloaded i-Nigma, and that one was was a much better experience than I’d had in the past. I also scanned a few QRs with RedLaser, which I already had installed, and it was good, but not as good as i-Nigma. (As an aside, I think the comparison shopping aspect of RedLaser is brilliant).
Having done all that, I still don’t think the QR reader represents a considerable improvement in user experience and time savings vs opening Safari and typing a short URL. All things considered, I’d say it’s a wash at best. One thing that might move the needle in that department is an app that runs in the background and recognizes the codes any time you take a photo – i.e. the user just opens their camera with the hardware button and snaps the image without having to wait fir the app to recognize the code. But again, we’re talking about seconds here – it starts to feel like QRs are a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, which is the reason the CueCat failed.
I have been intrigued by the discussion over QR codes. The technology of it escapes me. If they only last a day, so did 8 tracks, but we still had ‘em. I do not see the harm in having a QR code on your social media or products. If it works for some and drives some sales it is worth the few seconds it takes to download it. It can be removed when replaced by the next glory widget. Just saying…