That is a good use for them. Recently I saw one on a company's van which just baffled my mind. I don't know if they wanted somebody to come up while the van was parked and scan the QR code but it was just stupid and goes in line with what the article is saying.

My favorite New York subway ad (besides Zizmor) is something like "Have bedbugs?" and it offers you some "bedbugs apps" if you scan it, which is great because:

1. I've recently been looking for a good way to let a crowded train know that I probably have bedbugs on my clothing.

2. Internet access is really good underground.

I'm afraid I can top you in "worst use of QR on underground travel" (this one in London): https://p.twimg.com/AneZAsiCAAATy1Q.jpg:large

They never learn... Some time ago (early/mid 90s I think) there was a particular problem with pickpockets in the Kings Cross area so an awareness campaign was started with similar posters. The problem got worse. Why? Often people walking past the posters would, consciously or otherwise, check the pockets their wallet or other valuables were in - this helped improve an observant pick-pocket's hit rate.

I know what I'm going to do in Chicago! I'll buy an ad like that near one of the CTA platforms and stand around it and as people come by and try to scan it, I'll pick their wallets.

yeah, I work with text messaging, i.e. "text XXXX to #####" and while I love seeing it places, when I see it on the train I say wtf? But I guess people can draft the message and send it when they go above ground? I wonder if that is the same for QR codes on the train....

That is exactly how they should be used: to give more detail once the user decides they want/need that detail.

They are used all over the place in Japan (where IIRC the QR code's popularity started) for non-sales related information like bus timetables as well as for access to detailed product information in shops. In both these use cases the QR code directing to a web page with up-to-date information is a benefit to the user rather than an advertising gimmick.

QR codes are done wrong in a great many adverts.

I've seen adverts with QR codes where is isn't entirely obvious what is even being advertised: sorry, I'm not wasting my time waiting for your information to come down what could be a slow mobile connection unless there is a good chance I'm going to care. You advert should make me want more detail, not expect me to make an effort to get basic detail.

The two times I bothered scan a QR code on an advert were failures from the advertisers PoV. One went to a page that was simply not useable on a small mobile device (remember: there are plenty of phones out there with QVGA screens and that site was unusable at half VGA) and would have taken an age to download if the user was stuck on a GPRS link due to lack of 3G+ reception. I closed the browser and thought nothing more of it. The other time I was taken to a registration page where I was asked for some of my details in order to get the data - if I scan a QR code I expect to go direct to relevant information, not to be asked for my personal details (I could have oput in fake details easily, but I should not have to go to even that effort). If you must have a registration form on the page, put it below the detail the user is expecting to find.

But that's not an example of using QR codes for advertising. It's an actual, useful application of them, yes, but it is so precisely because they're not being used for marketing.

I've seen a lot of replies to this of the form "how about they use [URLs/NFC/etc.]", but how are those options at all better than printing out all the product specs?

Surely having the specifications printed out and mounted in an emplacement next to the product is better than having to scan/touch/type some sort of digital tag.

If it is about paper use, how about they stop using flip books full of paper numbers set next to each other to display prices before worrying about replacing some measly product spec sheets with QR codes.

(EDIT: reviews are definitely a fair use of this sort of thing, and I had forgotten that they were a thing while replying.)

Wouldn't it have bee just as effective to have

http://bestbuy.com/12345 on the label.

Not really because then I have to type a bunch of characters instead of just clicking a button.

QR Codes are nice macros, in the right places. They don't necessarily belong on every uncovered surface, but in many cases they can transfer a relatively large amount of data quickly and easily.

I think we're still figuring out QR Codes and the proper applications of them. I remember usenet discussions in 1996 asking "Why did Ford put a URL in their commercial? Why do I need/want that? What do I do with it?"...

I think there should just be a font and border standard that is easily isolated and orc'd. That would make the human readable url and the device scannable URL one in the the same.

But I realized something about QR codes. Though they can contain any text, the vast majority of the time they're URLs. But they're not just base URLs. They contain query variables that people couldn't be bothered to type in, but which let the advertiser know which exact code (or which print run at least) was scanned.

I guess I'm old and inept, but I've never gotten a QR code to scan properly with a "click of a button."

Odd. I've never had any trouble scanning them, even on my old G1. The camera on that thing had trouble with normal UPCs at times.

If you have a reader app on your phone scanning the QR code is a bit faster than typing in a url, especially if your doing repeatedly for multiple products.

I still think they are overused, but they can offer a little extra connivence, as long as they aren't taking up too much space.

For me here's the difference:

URL: Turn on phone, swipe right to unlock, press search button, type url, press enter.

QR: Turn on phone, swipe up to open QR reader, point phone.

Yes, I'm one of those rare people who not only scans QR codes, but does it enough to bother making it one of the three actions he can take from his lockscreen (Camera, QR, Unlock)

They should do both. If you've got QR capabilities, it's quicker to scan a bunch of codes rather than enter each URL.

I think their QR codes us a URL shortening service like http://bby.us/12345.

usually this is for tracking and/or to redirect the page to a different url if their are changes. it is always best to use QR code management and tracking software than to use a direct link in the ad, because if you've printed 10,000 copies or are in national print ads and the site changes, you could be screwed....

The better replacement will just be NFC once it becomes popular.

No, it won't. NFC is (and will be) more expensive than just printing a label. It also gives no benefit to the user compared to scanning a code. User has to take the phone, and get it close to the reader, just as with NFC.

1. My understanding is that the user won't have to fumble to launch a reader app (and then aim the phone at, as with QR codes), as proximity to the NFC tag will trigger an event on the phone.

2. NFC tags won't be as efficient if you are tagging individual devices (e.g. all inventory on a store shelf), but for tagging stationary things (e.g. the appliance displays at Best Buy) they will work better, even if they cost a bit more.

I do barcode scanning on the Amazon app far more than I scan QRs. Handy to be able to check reviews and competing prices while I'm at the store.