The Men Who Made Barcodes, Which Were Initially Considered Failures, Get Honored After 40 Years

Written by Frank Hayes
March 12th, 2011

The men who invented barcodes for scanning groceries—and then watched their idea sit for decades before it was put to use—are being inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Joseph Woodland and Bernard Silver came up with the idea of a row of parallel bars to identify products in 1948, and then immediately changed the format to a bullseye shape, which they thought would work better.

But it took 25 years (most of which Woodland worked for IBM, which wasn’t much interested in the invention) for optical scanning technology to catch up so the idea could be adopted as UPC codes in 1974. And even though barcodes were on their way to becoming the most important technology in retail, by 1976 BusinessWeek pronounced it a failure. Analysts had predicted 1,000 stores would have scanners by then, but only 50 did. Clearly, barcodes were a flop. A decade later they were everywhere.

Barcodes got their start when the president of a Philadelphia grocery chain, Food Fair, was pleading with a dean at Drexel University to do research into automating the grocery checkout process. The dean said no, but graduate student Silver overheard the request. He told Woodland, another grad student, who came up with the idea of parallel bars to encode identifying data. (Curving the bars around into a bullseye was intended to make the barcode readable from any direction.)

Woodland and Silver built a scanner from a 500-watt lightbulb and parts from a movie projector. It worked, but it wasn’t practical. Woodland went to work for IBM in 1951 and offered the company the invention, but Big Blue didn’t want to pay Woodland and Silver’s asking price. Eventually RCA bought it, and in the spring of 1971 the company demonstrated a bullseye barcode scanner at a grocery trade show. An IBM marketing guy saw the demo, remembered that IBM had the barcode’s inventor on staff, and IBM started work on its straight-line barcode version, with Woodland on the development team.

It turned out that the bullseye wasn’t such a good idea; on test labels, the ink tended to smear, making the label unreadable. When a straight-line barcode’s ink smeared, it just made the lines longer. IBM’s barcode became the UPC in 1974, but the laser scanners to read it were still so expensive—and consumers and lawmakers were so resistant—that it took until the 1980s, when Kmart and other big chains started using them, for barcodes to finally make it big, a mere 40 years after they were invented.

Keep that in mind the next time you hear from analysts that a hot new retail technology is about to take over the world—or that it’s a flop. It may just take a little longer than anyone expects.


One Comment | Read The Men Who Made Barcodes, Which Were Initially Considered Failures, Get Honored After 40 Years

  1. Dick Shulman Says:

    If you were to check with IBM you would find that they were testing scanning with Safeway in 1968-1969 in a controlled lab situation.


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.