Nowadays, we take the barcode for granted.
We see the little stripy box on almost everything we buy, wherever we buy it.
But it wasn’t always that way.
Up until about 1970, the barcode didn’t exist.
Because computers didn’t exist.
Pre-barcode, what would happen was that a shop would have to have a huge stockroom.
They’d order lots of cartons of all the products they thought they’d sell.
Then they’d do regular inventory checks, stock-taking, to see how much they had left, and when they needed to reorder.
Keeping a daily check on stock and reordering when necessary.
And when the price changed, they had to change it on every single item.
One by one.
And the checkout girl had to enter every price into the cash register by hand.
Like an old fashioned adding machine.
But computers, and the bar code, changed all that.
Now you print a bar-code on the wrapper and it’s mass-produced and goes on every single object.
If anything changes, say price, that’s entered at head office and applies to everything carrying that bar-code.
The checkout person doesn’t have to enter anything because the machine reads the code and enters the correct amount.
And, as it reads the code, it adjusts the stock on the main computer.
Which reorders the stock as it needs.
So the job is done efficiently, invisibly, and we all take it for granted.
And it all depends on that little bar-code.
Recently I was watching a video about the invention of the bar-code.
In America in the late 1960s, the US grocery sector realised the need for, what they called, a Universal Product Code.
It was revolutionary idea, but it was a massive job.
Some of the biggest computer companies in the world pitched for the contract.
No one knew what a Universal Product Code should look like.
So every company had a different design.
Some had concentric circles, some had half circles, some had radiating circles.
Only IBM had a simple linear design.
As each company took it in turn to present, they talked about the logic of their design.
All of the reasons it was the better choice.
Each company carefully explained that, when held the right way, their design should register on the scanner.
Each company had spent months working on their pitch.
So they spent hours on overhead projections of charts, and graphs, and research, explaining why their approach was better.
Every company had their own persuasive, logical, sensible argument.
It seemed almost impossible to choose between them.
Then it was IBM’s turn.
Their design was very basic, very simple.
They’d printed up lots of their little design on small adhesive stickers.
Instead of going through hours of charts, they opened up a box of Camay soap.
Then they began sticking their little design on the bars of soap.
Then one of the IBM team stood at the far end of the checkout counter and slid a bar of Camay soap as fast as he could along it.
It slid the full length of the counter, over the scanner.
The scanner went ‘beep’ and showed “Soap 85c” on the cash register’s illuminated display.
He heard the board gasp.
He slid another bar even faster the length of the counter and over the scanner.
Then another, then another.
Each time, the scanner went ‘beep’ and ‘Soap 85c’ showed up on the cash register.
Then, to prove he wasn’t faking it, he asked the board to try it themselves.
It was like bowling, or like sliding a hockey puck.
They slid it as fast as they could, and every time it registered.
They were like children, playing a game having a great time.
Everyone relaxed.
Instead of trying to understand complicated rational arguments, they could see it in action.
They could feel it, they could do it.
It was real.
This is what they were looking for.
Right then and there is when IBM won the contract.
Despite all the complicated sales arguments and research documents that everyone else had spent months carefully crafting.
IBM won it by sliding a few bars of soap along the counter.
And not just by understanding how computers work.
By understanding how people work.
Wrigley’s Chewing Gum was the first product to use a barcode, so says my book of useless information.
Robin. - 31 January 2011 11:15 am
Mac V PC.
Kevin Gordon - 31 January 2011 12:54 pm
Some great history from IBM on their 100th anniversary.
This shot by Errol Morris with music by Philip Glass: http://www.youtube.com/ibm#p/c/AC374E7B6B913C98/1/XrhDaAmn5Uw
And this shot by Joe Pytka.
http://www.youtube.com/ibm#p/c/AC374E7B6B913C98/0/39jtNUGgmd4
Both via Ogilvy.
george tannenbaum - 31 January 2011 1:02 pm
Brilliant example.
Rob Mortimer - 31 January 2011 2:18 pm
what about MAC vs PC?
charlie - 31 January 2011 2:33 pm
George,
I think the Joe Pytka one is brilliant, I may have to write something on that.
If they’d run that before 1984, Ridley couldn’t have made that ad.
Dave Trott - 31 January 2011 3:08 pm
IIIIOIIIOIIIII’m trapped within a bar code. Help!
Grilla Login - 31 January 2011 5:14 pm
Some brands even make the most of barcodes in their marketing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/keropok/3916170532/
Stuart Davis - 31 January 2011 7:43 pm
Breaking through the barcode: Man v Ape
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12303651
Kevin Gordon - 1 February 2011 12:20 am
Elmore Leonard was once asked what’s the most profitable kind of writing. “Ransom notes,” he answered.
john w. - 1 February 2011 12:23 am
Beep. Gimme 85p or else.
Kevin Gordon - 1 February 2011 12:25 am
I’m not a fan of Macs. I used one for a year and didn’t get on with it. So I prefer PCs. Weird eh?
Traudl Junge - 1 February 2011 4:12 am
That’s it Kev,
You pay your money and take your choice.
john w. - 1 February 2011 10:24 am
Kevin – the snowing walk is phunny.
Grilla Login - 1 February 2011 1:17 pm
Dave, some ?s.
1. The CST barcode – what’s the thinking behind it?
2. If u were 2 run it over a scanner at the supermarket would the till read ‘Soap 85c’?
3. Do u realize your previous address is on this, your blog site, and not your present address, which is: CST, Devon House, 58 St Katharine’s Way, London E1W 1LB?
4. Was it Egypt where pyramid selling began?
Grilla Login - 1 February 2011 8:52 pm
Dave
Just an observation but why is it that on the home page, the five principles change colour as you run the cursor over them and yet there is no link to their description?
Is that by design?
Btw I can see they are on the ‘Approach’ link.
john w. - 2 February 2011 12:33 am
Grilla and John,
I have nothing to do with design or running of the website other than the blog.
One of our art directors, Simone Micheli, did the logo and website design along with Gordon.
I think their thinking was ‘Every product has a barcode, let’s make it more fun.’
Also moving the website has been a massive ball-ache, the IT guys have had to rebuild everything.
I thought we’d at least fixed the address, I’ll check again.
Also, what is an ‘Approach’link?
Dave Trott - 2 February 2011 10:01 am
Dave,
On the home page you have a menu. Approach, Clients, Case Studies, Team.
Click on ‘Approach’ and it goes into detail of the five principles of the agency.
The five principles are flagged up on the home page but it seemed that one didn’t get a link from clicking on their individual headings. Turns out it was my mistake…it does…albeit a little slow…guess it was my speed of expectancy…impatience…call it what you will. Apologies.
john w. - 2 February 2011 10:39 am
Have you seen that Harry Hill routine…
There he was, at the supermarket checkout, when suddenly a wasp flew by.
Beep!… Wasp: 27p.
Mark - 2 February 2011 3:06 pm
Dave, do u concur with their thinking… I only ask because u seem to b distancing your self from it
Grilla Login - 2 February 2011 4:42 pm
“Despite all the complicated sales arguments and research documents that everyone else had spent months carefully crafting.
IBM won it by sliding a few bars of soap along the counter.”
I think they won it by spending as many months if not more making sure they had the better product, and as many months as everyone else just thinking of ways they could show it.
It’s true though that since they had the best, or at least one of the better, systems then they could afford to do something breathtaking.
We don’t always get to present products that are demonstrably superior.
CHRIS - 3 February 2011 8:58 pm