The most common uses

1) Gateway to purchase/call to actionReading an article, if well-crafted, may inspire the reader momentarily to want to participate, or donate, based on the message. Quick response methods allow a means for making the most of this moment, captur-ing what may turn out to be a spur of the moment im-pulse that might otherwise fade before action.

2) Specific engagement/feedbackFor instance: hit the QR and receive full contact details as a vCard; hit Tag 1 for yes, Tag 2 for no.

3) Provision of further informationThe most obvious, and most-often poorly considered, use. Further information usually, sadly, only takes the form of a hyperlink to an existing web page, providing little, if any, useful further information. ’Hit the QR to go to our homepage’. A useful example here might rather be something like ‘hit the QR to receive my business card in vCard format’.

MSTags and QR codes: The ‘objects’ themselves

Presentation: out of the box

On first encounter, both aren’t what could be mistaken for attractive but, whilst Tags look odd, QRs are simply ugly. Adding either to a designed document or, in-deed, almost any document that isn’t built *around* the influence of the QR/Tag presence, ends up detract-ing from the design.

As a purely aesthetic – and, admittedly, personal – re-sponse, first encounters with Tag tend to be less ugly, less visually ‘clunky’ than QRs. This, combined with Tags’ customisation range, gives it my vote here.

Presentation: Customisation

There’s not too much that can be done to offset the shape and overall presentation of a QR code, unfortu-nately. Whilst you can watermark the QR itself or wa-termark a logo over the top, the underlying pixelated look remains.

And do we associate pixelation, subconsciously, with quality? No, we don’t. Think of the last time you consciously noticed pixellation: low-res images, bad photocopies or low-quality printing. These aren’t re-sponses we want automatically associated with some-thing we produce.

That’s not to say that Tags are subtantially better in this space, of course. Ever seen a Tag that sits well within an overall design? I haven’t, yet. That said, the simple fact that they operate on diagonals (in their unedited state) seems to offset some of the first-glance blockiness that makes QRs so glaring vi-sually. Tags do possess an edge over QRs in this space, though, through customisation options.

Tag customisation

In the first layer of customisation, Tags allow for changing the triangular elemeents to coloured circles – and yes, I do know how lame that sounds. How this helps, though, is that it minimises the amount that the Tag covers the background, and obviously this also slightly diminishes the Tag’s visual presence on-page.

The second, and more useful layer of customisation allows a designer to replace the coloured elements in a Tag with shapes more appropriate to the overall de-sign, essentially hiding the Tag. The downside? Get too clever with this, and nobody will know it’s a scan-nable Tag. Fail.

The technology

MSTag appears to have a couple of considerable tech-nology benefits over QR codes.

Scanning

In my experience, Tags scan quicker, and by a con-siderable amount – they’re recognised quicker by the app, and at sizes that QR code apps struggle with.

Let’s take a quick look at themain reasons for using a mobile quickresponse method, along with a look under the bonnet at the issues, things to consider and the technology.

These are the reasons that spring to my mind; they may not match yours, and are intended as broad headings. Feel free

to send in suggestions: www.radelaide.me/contact-us.

That’s clearly not any kind of issue at large-enough sizes, but it can be an issue if you’re trying to val-ue-add to a small item.

And, whilst I’ve yet to test this, if quick recognition at small sizes is an issue, if I’m on a bus, tram or stopped at traffic lights, I suspect that I’ll have a higher hit rate on a distant Tag-based ad than on QRs.Is scan speed enough to say ‘Tags are better’? By itself, no, but if you’re serious about getting that sale, split second de-lays on what could be an impulse purchase can mean the difference between closing or missing the sale. Much of the point of these in street-side advertising particularly is aimed at an audience that’s on the move, literally. Combine this with shortened atten-tion spans and you see the concern over scan speed.

Things to consider

Off the cuff, four primary considerations leap out:

1) Genuinely useful?

Unless you’ve a goal in mind – specific, stated, mea-surable, and benchmarked pre-campaign – you risk stepping into “doing it for the sake of doing it” terri-tory. And your audience will spot it immediately.

2) Value over existing methods

Following from the point above, do you genuinely need another space to check for reporting? Unless this is a key element of your business, or a specific campaign, think twice.

3) Skilling

Whilst not likely to be a major concern, can you afford the time for a staff member to become familiar with the method, its administration, and production and delivery-for-use of the objects for printing?

4) PR concerns

Following from the point above, there are too many clumsy – and often utterly pointless – attempts at using QRs and Tags. See http://wtfqrcodes.com/ for some howlers. Can you afford to join these ranks?

And on to some downsides…

Unfortunately, there are downsides to all this, admira-ble as the overall thinking is.

The overriding issue with both systems? Last I checked, neither QRs nor Tags have a scanning app as part of the Android/Windows software bundle that comes pre-installed on a new mobile phone. Not good, particularly as QRs and Tags aren’t exactly new technology. Whether this is because they’re not seen as a mature technology yet, or perhaps only as a stop-gap to something much more ‘able’ currently in the pipeline remains to be seen. (Much has been said of

Near Field Communication technology, for instance, but it’s really not in the same league, requiring costly chip embedding rather than printing).

Additionally, Google, whilst having implemented a free-to-use generator for creating QRs (attached to their goo.gl link shortener) provides next to no re-porting or tracking ability. And it’s been like that for a long time, suggesting a box-tick, rather than commit-ment to something they view as a serious technology.

Whilst my leanings are towards Microsoft’s Tag for the reasons outlined earlier, Tag has a couple of unavoid-ably large issues:

one, that to work, Tags *must* have network access, as they refer to an online database; and

two, that there is a specter (however ephemeral in re-ality) that the Tag service may either be discontinued, or that it may become a pay-to-use service.

The concern with point two above lies in the terms and conditions surrounding a two-year grace period if things at MS change regarding Tag. Two years – to me – suggests Tag doesn’t appear on any priority list, and that suggests an eventual withdrawal of resourcing. QRs, on the other hand, tend to have the information encoded directly in the image itself: no network access needed. Scan the QR anywhere – outer Mongolia, or in a submarine – and you’ll still get what’s intended.

On the horizon?

Leading on from the comment earlier about mature technologies, there’s one standout that will undoubt-edly have an impact. The best illustration of it is, un-surprisingly enough, in the entertainment category: Marvel’s Augmented Reality app. AR is most likely where all of this is headed. The downside, for now, is bandwidth, and its cost. Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZJo19udwHU

Reference

http://www.qrstuff.com/One of the more comprehensive QR services onlinehttp://tag.microsoft.com/home.aspxMicrosoft’s Tag site, providing details of the concept

about the author:wade kw on linkedin

about radelaide.me:www.radelaide.mewww.radelaide.me/magazinewww.radelaide.me/twitterwww.radelaide.me/shopwww.radelaide.me/facebookwww.radelaide.me/instagram