The potential of interactivity in print is a subject that I believe is much closer to its conception than it is to it's end, if it will ever end. The progression of digital interactivity with print has developed with the development of technology, the two grow together. The introduction of QR Codes and their appropriation to be used alongside smartphones is still to be classed as a recent development, the introduction of augmented reality apps such as layar is an even more recent development. The future potential of print interactivity is dependent on future technology, how much easier it is possible to make this interactivity and dependent on how questionable the ethics of source users such as advertisers are willing to attempt. The growing questioning of true privacy, using the recent U2 album invasion onto Iphones may impact the development of interactivity, advertisers using methods to force themselves upon a specific audience may be the future, the interactivity with a printed or digital subject may become non consensual.
 |
| http://www.wired.com/2014/09/apples-devious-u2-album-giveaway-even-worse-spam/ |
How much easier can the task flow of interaction really become, in a current context, I believe it to be incredibly easy, a simple app and photo may be the smallest that is needed, I struggle to see how this can become easier while still staying in the consensual mind of the audience.
A seamless link between the exposure to the target audience and the desired call to action is what I believe to be the aim of any interactivity, an efficient method of promotion that considers the conceptual and practical elements of the subject through form and function; Making advertising enjoyable, easier and creating a positive brand perception.
The benefits of augmented design described above can be tainted; the fine line between these positives and the negatives of such a method such as overexposure, too much pressure on a user and debatable privacy issues need to be considered and avoided.
Can augmented design help to draw people to your website. I believe so, talking subjectively as I have participated in advertising campaigns both using augmentation and simple analogue methods, I believe augmentation within advertising has the ability to attract an audience. Augmented design adds depth to a campaign, the interaction can be enjoyable, it can add a sense of personality as well as improving the perception of a brand, as a user can feel involved and open up to the commonly cold world of advertising. I believe it can help draw an audience yes but there are exceptions, augmentation is not for every campaign, some campaigns are not suitable and would in fact benefit from excluding interaction.
A message, idea or concept is to be communicated through an advertisement, it can harm the campaign if the inclusion of augmented design is not necessary, making the advert more complicated than it needs to be. Function is to be considered primarily, if the function is met effectively without augmentation, then there is no need. I need to consider this, is it appropriate to include such an element; I believe so, my website is about contemporary graphic design, the progression and experimentation of graphic design at this current time, the growing inclusion of augmented design is a part of graphic design, this correlation between the two is strong enough to justify the inclusion of an interactive element primarily. It is also to be used as tool to promote my website more efficiently, ethical, cultural and conceptual values are to be considered when choosing the form of these advertisements.
Gimmicky? Is the inclusion of interactive elements in advertisements simply a gimmick or are they effective?
As previously mentioned, I myself have interacted with augmented advertisements, I wouldn't have interacted with the same advertisement if there wasn't such an element. Augmentation takes the effort away for a user, instead of remembering a website until you have the time to find it online, it's much easier to take a photo of a QR code or tap your phone against a bus stop, as lazy as it sounds, from my own experience, taking away the minor link between exposure and the call to action is incredibly effective, the difference between interaction and dismissing.
There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. - Oscar Wilde
In relation to the gimmickry and the quote above, if a user interacts with an augmented element simply for the fun or interest, is this not still a success?
Referring to my target audience and the product/ service I am promoting I am to determine what kind of interactivity would be the most effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment