As a rule of thumb related to the degree of immersion, virtual reality (VR) replaces the real world, while augmented reality (AR) coexists with it. The former is experienced via specialized headgear and the latter is experienced via a smart device (e.g., cell phone or tablet). AR packaging is imprinted with a trigger (commonly a QR code) that, when scanned, provides consumers with a digital experience. AR packaging has a short history, yet one long enough to have yielded useful insights regarding its promise and limitations.
The QR code, in the physical sense, should be consistent with the brand’s package design strategy. Retail brands strive for shelf impact, an objective pursuable by various paths. Does the brand subscribe to a less-is-more design philosophy? Or a bold, in-your-face philosophy? Or something in between? The answer affects the placement and size of the QR code, in other words, its conspicuity. But even a prominently displayed QR code might require auxiliary design components, explaining what the QR code unleashes. That’s because consumers, despite knowing that the QR code is to be scanned, might lack the incentive to do so.
The digital experience provided by AR packaging can take a variety of forms, including videos, animations, games, profiles, tours, etc., categorizable as information, entertainment, or a combination thereof. Packaging is a potent marketing tool, differentiating the branded product and serving as a visible cue of the product’s persona. The digital experience, therefore, should be consistent with that persona. As an example, it might be inconsistent for a pharmaceutical product to provide an experience meant to be entertaining and lighthearted, given the somber association between illness/discomfort and their alleviation. Consistency between the digital experience and the product’s persona should not be determined arbitrarily. Testing is warranted, focus groups being one option.
AR imposes requirements on the packaging’s shape and materials. QR codes are comprised of dark images on a light background, and smart devices rely on sufficient contrast between those elements, to be able to read the code and trigger the experience. And it’s not only just about the quality of the printing on the label (or surface). The surface itself should not induce distortion of the QR code. Surfaces that can fold, crease, wrinkle, etc. (think flexible packaging), can pose challenges, although not necessarily insurmountable ones.
Convenience is a function of packaging and should be reflected in its AR version. Brand owners should impose upon consumers the fewest requirements feasible to obtain cooperation. An AR experience that is browser-based and accessible directly from scanning the QR code is more consumer-friendly than an AR experience wherein the QR code is linked to the downloading of an app. A small difference in time? Yes, but timesaving is a major type of convenience.
And speaking of time, how long should the digital experience last? It depends on the nature of the experience. Entertainment-based content likely will be afforded more time than information-based content. As for the latter, it should get to the most important point early, with the remaining time devoted to support and corroboration. Think of that advice as the AR equivalent of the long-accepted notion that, within the retail environment, packaging has scant seconds to arrest the consumer’s attention.
Promoters of AR packaging tout various benefits accruing to consumers. But for the sake of brevity, they can be summed up as positive experiences that go beyond the static to the interactive. Specifics have already been mentioned.
Regarding the benefits of AR packaging that accrue to the brand owner, promoters cite increases in sales and in brand-loyalty. In analyzing such claims, one needs to distinguish between potential and fulfillment. Are we, for example, talking about new sales or repeat sales?
New sales imply that the AR packaging has influenced consumers in-store. In turn, such influence implies that consumers traverse store aisles, phone in hand or at the ready, intent on scanning QR codes. Such behavior is not noted typically, not to mention that it would extend the time expended in the shopping trip (recall the earlier discussion about the convenience of time). It is a possibility, however, for packaging and AR to work in tandem. Under that scenario, the packaging’s shelf-impact first attracts the consumer’s interest to the degree that the consumer makes an in-store scan of the QR code, and the experience culminates in a purchase. Repeat sales, on the other hand, can be spurred by an in-home AR experience that influences future purchase behavior.
Traditional packaging is static but changeable with redesigns. AR packaging, in contrast, is interactive, but nonetheless, can become static. When a brand-owner adopts AR packaging, there should be consideration for whether there are maintenance requirements. The question becomes, how repeatedly will the same AR packaging entice consumers who have previously scanned that QR code? Depending on factors mentioned herein and others that are equally mention-worthy, a brand-owner might need AR packaging that’s not only interactive and immersive but repeatable, too.
As a concluding comment, AR packaging can be useful to brand-owners that utilize plastic packaging. Consumers can have their sustainability-related concerns assuaged by a message that explains and justifies the choice.
Sterling Anthony, CPP, consults in packaging, marketing, logistics, and human-factors. A former faculty member at the Michigan State University School of Packaging, his contact info is:100 Renaissance Center, Box-176, Detroit, MI 48243; 313/531-1875; [email protected]
