QR Codes Are A Terrible Idea. Why Is Image Recognition Even Worse?

Written by Frank Hayes
July 12th, 2013

QR codes are ugly. They’re intrusive. Most designers hate them because there’s no way to make them look any less like the brick-full-of-blocks they are, especially when they’ve been slapped next to a great-looking retail marketing image. That’s why the idea of leaving out the QR code entirely and just getting a mobile phone to react to the image itself is so appealing. It looks so much better that it’s easy to forget why it’s a bad idea: That ugly, intrusive QR code screams “Point your camera at me!” An ordinary image doesn’t.

As a result, if potential customers know what they’re supposed to do with a QR code, they can easily do it. But how are they supposed to know that there’s any special significance to the image in an ad or porter or brochure?

This comes up because of a story we saw about LTU Technologies, which claims its image-matching tech is so good that just pointing a a smartphone’s camera at an appropriate image can trigger the same kind of response—a web page, a coupon, additional details—as a QR code. We’ll take the company at its word for that (though of course if you’re thinking about using it, you’d be crazy not to test it thoroughly).

Unlike digital watermarking, this is pure image recognition. You don’t have to load the image up with too-subtle-for-the-human-eye markers, you just upload the image to LTU along with indications of which parts of the image are most recognizable. It does the matching and sends the customer whatever information or redirect you’ve specified.

It’s a clever idea, and it seems like it should work perfectly once it’s everywhere. The customer points her phone at a logo and gets a website, at a magazine ad and gets a coupon, at a billboard and gets directions to the nearest story.

But it’s not everywhere. And the vast majority of logos, ads and billboards aren’t waiting for customers to point a phone at them. Point the phone and nothing will happen. After a while—a very short while for most customers—the charm will wear off.

It’s hard enough to get consumers to point their phones at QR codes, where they can be sure something is encoded in the brick-full-of-blocks (even if it’s something the consumer really doesn’t want). They’re slowly being trained by a few specific applications such as Peapod’s virtual grocery stores and the occasional giant billboard, but it’s QR’s use is nowhere near what its proponents expected.

And that’s with a technology that trumpets the fact that it’s there. Pure-play image recognition, where the few images that can be recognized are vastly outnumbered by the great many that give no response, hasn’t got a chance—at least out on the street.

Then there are the technical issues. A QR code actually contains information that can be decoded without a network connection or a vendor on the other end. In a cell dead spot with no Wi-Fi? Customers can point cameras all they want, and nothing will happen. (And there are a surprising number of dead spots, even in urban areas.) Nothing discourages the use of technology like that tech mysteriously stopping and then starting again.

That said, once you get customers in off the street and into a situation you control, this might work brilliantly. In-store, with customer-accessible Wi-Fi and images you’ve already uploaded to a vendor, customers can point at lots of images and get a reaction. You could even pitch it as a reason to come into the store. Prepping all those images is plenty of work, but so is adding QR codes to everything. And trying out image recognition might distract some customers from actually shopping, but that’s a risk of any in-store technology.

Of course, you could get around the most-images-don’t-work problem by putting some kind of logo near images that trigger recognition—something that flags those images as special. Something like, say, an ugly, intrusive brick-full-of-blocks?


2 Comments | Read QR Codes Are A Terrible Idea. Why Is Image Recognition Even Worse?

  1. ed Says:

    QR codes have been successfully implemented in Asia where they started nearly 15 years ago. Because the awkward way QR codes are implemented in the Western world should not mean they should be written off.

    I doubt the object recognition technology being touted can outperform QR codes. Multiple QR codes can be decoded on a single pass as well as very tolerant capable of reading only 75% of a QR code and read QR codes from multiple angles and orientation.

    QR codes are going nowhere and here to stay. If the designer cannot find a way to incorporate QR codes effectively, then they should find a new career field.

  2. Yogi Chopra Says:

    one of the reasons why image matching technology is not working is because brands are not well-educated about this. also there are no apps that are not only doing the job of recognising the image but also giving some value back to the user. Both QR codes and image recognition can be very effective if the end scan results into some offer, value or promotion…!


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.