eBall

Read the campaign story

smart’s eBall formed part of its electric-model campaign at the Frankfurt motor show in September 2011. Contemporary HORIZONT reporting describes an interactive ball game using vehicles as controllers. The One Club archive credits BBDO Proximity and records the work in its 2012 awards, a later date that should not be confused with launch.

The execution translated a product experience into a recognisable game format. The entry’s claims about acceleration, enjoyment and environmental qualities are promotional framing, not independent validation adopted here. The study concerns interaction design. It does not provide instructions for recreating the vehicle event, assess its operational controls or recommend that a small team conduct a comparable driving activity.

Editorial interpretation: a familiar game gives participants an immediate model of what to do and what feedback means. That can reduce the explanation needed before an unfamiliar product becomes approachable. Yet the game may reward skills unrelated to the feature being advertised. A useful adaptation maps one meaningful action to one visible response and checks whether people understand the connection rather than assuming that enthusiasm proves learning.

Editorial interpretation: spectators can understand an interaction even when they do not participate, which gives an event a second audience. The visible cause-and-effect relationship becomes its own demonstration. This advantage depends on clarity, not necessarily physical scale. A tabletop interface can reveal a principle just as effectively for an early test, while avoiding the risk, cost and specialist controls that accompany moving equipment or a public stunt.

Map the interaction before choosing the game

Write down the feature, the participant action and the feedback separately. Each should connect clearly with the next. If the game only provides a decorative theme, it may generate fun without helping anyone understand the product. Use a low-fidelity prototype to test the mapping before adding competition, scoring or elaborate production. The simplest version often exposes confusing assumptions that a polished event would conceal.

Make the lesson visible to observers

Design a short explanation that allows someone watching from outside the activity to understand what is happening. Avoid relying on privileged knowledge held only by the participant or operator. Show the input and response together where possible. This makes the experience easier to discuss and reduces the temptation to exaggerate what the interaction demonstrated when it is later edited into a promotional film.

Separate enjoyment, skill and product evidence

Measure these outcomes independently. A participant may enjoy a game because of competition or novelty, not because the advertised feature matters to them. Someone may perform poorly despite understanding the product perfectly. Do not turn a game score into a claim about capability or suitability. Keep any real product-performance statement tied to appropriate evidence outside the playful demonstration and disclose the limits of simulated behaviour.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: build a stationary keyboard-controlled game for a fictional file-organising interface, where one simple action produces visible sorting feedback on a screen.

Measure whether users can explain the action-response relationship and apply the idea to a separate fictional task. Record enjoyment separately from comprehension. Ask observers what they believe was demonstrated and revise the interface if they infer capabilities that the prototype does not establish.

Stop if the concept requires hazardous movement, pressures participants into competition or presents a game result as evidence of real-world safety or environmental performance.

• Use only a desktop mock-up, with no vehicles or moving machinery.
• Offer a non-timed, accessible mode and a plain explanatory diagram.
• Keep scoring optional and avoid ranking participants publicly.