This document proposes the need for a standardized "Check-in 2.0" system to improve upon current check-in technologies. It outlines some of the key limitations of current check-in methods like GPS, cellular location, Wi-Fi and ultrasound that make them inaccurate, battery inefficient, prone to fraud, and lacking a global standard. The document argues that a standardized approach is needed to drive adoption, ensure interoperability across devices, and fully realize the business opportunities of precise location-based mobile marketing. It proposes requirements for an ideal check-in standard including being automatic, precise, battery-friendly, low latency, cross-platform, inexpensive, easy to implement and secure.

1. January 5, 2011
THE
FUTURE
OF
CHECK-INS
By : 1
Pat Burns, President, DASH7 Alliance & Jayant Ramchandani, COO, Novitaz

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Let’s Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A “Check-in 2.0” Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
2

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Let’s Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A “Check-in 2.0” Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
3

4. A Check-in:
Quite simply, making your presence
and identity known to an
establishment or business upon
entry
4

5. A History of Commerce Check-Ins
“Check-in
1.0”
Airline check in Card swipe, E-commerce cookies, Location-based
counter, circa 1973 circa 1994 services,
circa 1965 circa 2009

6. Today, Check-ins Are A „Must Have” Feature for
social networks
6

7. Hello, Jane Doe
Jane’s Amazon.com
When you visit Amazon, you effectively utilize a cookie-based online
check-in, which
– Personalizes the e-commerce experience for every returning
customer
– Enables real-time promotions, discounts, recommendations,
targeted advertising
– Results in increased cross-sells and up-sells
…yet E-Commerce Sites Have Been Using online
Check-Ins For Years
7

8. However:
Of Sales Occur Offline!*
8
*Forrester Research 2010

9. Like online cookies, next generation check-ins are
enabling future mobile advertising and commerce
spending AND …
9

10. … are creating an
Amazon.com-like
personalized experience
for brick-and-mortar
retailers
10

11. But the bigger
opportunity is NOT
about being the mayor
of a donut shop or
letting your friends
know where you are …
11

12. Next generation check-ins will
Enable Better Mobile Advertising,
Promotions, Search, & Mobile
Commerce
12

13. Introducing CHECK-IN 2.0
provides advertising
networks with
precise coordinates
of your location so
it can serve you
with more targeted
and meaningful
promotions
13

14. Introducing CHECK-IN 2.0
provides advertising
networks with
Solving for the
precise coordinates
“check-in problem”
of your location so also helps solve for
it can serve you other lucrative
with more targeted wireless marketing
and meaningful programs
promotions
14

15. How Huge is The Check-In Market
Opportunity?
Check-ins form the basis
for accurate, auditable
mobile marketing campaigns,
a $24 billion opportunity in
2013.*
15
*ABI Research, 2010

16. Use Case Example #1: Offline “Adsense”
s
Novitaz uses an inexpensive, long-range, wireless smartcard to provide retailers
with unprecedented visibility into the offline behavior of their customers while in their stores
16
Source: www.novitaz.com

17. Use Case Example #2: In-Store Marketing
Customer
Enters
Customer Identified upon entry
Services Infrastructure
determines relevant offers
RETAIL STORE based on in-store presence,
e browsing and purchases
Entrance/Egress MENS WOMENS
Hotspots
Internal Hotspots CHILDRENS
e
Customer
Exits Product Offers sent on
Novitaz Hotspots Targeted Offers mobile phone
captures brand and increases sales and
product interest drives customers back to
the store
17
Source: www.novitaz.com

18. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Let’s Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A “Check-in 2.0” Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
18

19. Check-In 1.0
19

20. Check-In 1.0
Is:
20

21. Check-In 1.0
Is:
• Not Battery-Friendly
21

22. GPS or WiFi Will
Drain Your
Battery In One
Day or Less
22

23. Check-In 1.0
Is:
• Not Battery-Friendly
• Not Accurate
23

24. Today, Your
Check-In Can Be
“Off” By 500
meters or more!
…
24

25. … And Usually
Fails Indoors …
25

26. Check-In 1.0
Is:
• Not Battery-Friendly
• Not Accurate
• Prone to Fraud
26

27. Check-In Fraud Is Common
27

28. Check-In 1.0
Is:
• Not Battery-Friendly
• Not Accurate
• Prone to Fraud
• Without A Killer App
28

29. Check-ins Today Are Infrequent
• On average, about one per week for each
Foursquare user* …
*Source: Mashable,
June 2010 29

30. Check-In Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)
–
30

31. Check-In 1.0
Is:
• Not Battery-Friendly
• Not Accurate
• Prone to Fraud
• Without A Killer App
• Inconvenient
31

32. Check-In 1.0 Is High Maintenance
• NO automatic check-in
• User must consciously invoke an app
with each use
• Low quality location granularity …
requires significant manual intervention
32

33. Battery Life is Key To Happiness
High Power Frequent
Draw = Battery =
Recharges
33

34. In Summary
Check-ins today
are novelties with
limited long-term potential
34

35. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Let’s Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A “Check-in 2.0” Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
35

36. GPS
 Massive battery drain
 20-30 meter location granularity
 Relies on imprecise geo-fencing approach
 Easily hacked
 Enables “fake” check-ins
 Line-of-sight only. Fails indoors and in urban
areas
 Not portable to smartcards, keyfobs, most other
non-phone devices
 1-way signal, not encrypted

37. Cellular Location
• 250-1000 meter
location granularity
• Requires monthly
carrier subscription
• Not portable to
smartcards,
keyfobs, other non-
phone devices
37

38. Wi-Fi
 Major battery drain
 10-30m location granularity
 Easily hacked, not encrypted.
 Enables “fake” check-ins
 Fails while moving
 Not portable to smartcards, keyfobs, and most other non phone
devices
 1-way signal
 No global standard for WiFi location
38

39. Ultrasound
• User must actively invoke application, no background check-ins. Creates
check-in fatigue.
• Major battery drain
• Very poor location granularity
• Ultrasound detection is unreliable in many cases, e.g. carrying phone while
inside purse/jacket
• Not portable to smartcards, keyfobs, other non-phone devices
• Easily hacked, not encrypted. Unsecured signal creates phantom
check-in risks
• 1-way signal
• Proprietary, no global standard for ultrasound location 39

40. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Let’s Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A “Check-in” Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
40

41. “A better solution would
be for the various
services to adopt a
standard for places.”
-- MC Siegler, TechCrunch
41

42. Check-ins Require a Global Wireless
Multiple Benefits Of A
Check-In Standard Beyond GPS!
Standard For advertisers:
A common metric for
auditing advertising
spend
For end users:
Solutions that are
For solution easier to use and
providers: less costly than
ensures proprietary
interoperability solutions
across a diverse
array of devices and
markets
42

43. Yet without a Check-in Standard
• Merchants would be required to deploy and
maintain multiple, incompatible check-in
technologies
• Handset and other device vendors will have
to deploy multiple check-in technologies on
their devices
• Customers would feel pain
In short, a huge revenue opportunity will be STALLED
43

44. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Let’s Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A “Check-in 2.0” Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
44

45. To Invest in Check-in 2.0, Local Advertisers Will
Require:
• A huge audience
• Repeated, ongoing check-ins
• Repeated, ongoing merchant participation
• Reliable, “fraud free” targeting
• Auditable results
• Surmountable privacy concerns
45

46. It‟s Not Just About Phones
“What is not going to happen
In 2011”, Dec 17, 2010
46

47. To Attract A Large Audience
• Do not limit check-ins to mobile phones!
• Include smartcards, keyfobs, tickets, tablets,
watches, laptops …
Allow end users to “check in” using the form factor that is most familiar and
convenient to them … 47

48. To Encourage Frequent Check-ins, Make It
Reeeeeaally Easy For The Customer
– Automatic/background check-
in option
– Many device options
– No setup or maintenance
hassle
– Low or zero incremental
cost
48

49. And While The Standard
Should Enable Check-ins …
49

50. … What About
Checking Out?
50

51. Check-in 2.0 Should Include
“Check Out” Capability!
51

52. Requirements For A Standard
Automatic
Location Precision
Battery-friendly
Low latency
Cross-platform
Inexpensive
Easy to implement
Secure
52

53. Requirement #1: Automatic
• Enables “background location”
so end user doesn’t need to
Automatic
“do” anything when entering a
Location Precision “place”
Battery-friendly
Low latency • Users can continuously share
where they are with friends or
Cross-platform merchants
Inexpensive
Easy to implement • Allows users to “passively”
check-in and check-out without
Secure
invoking an application
53

54. Requirement #2: Location Precision
• Must be accurate indoors and
Automatic in urban areas
Location Precision
• Locates customers with
Battery-friendly precision of a few feet
Low latency
Cross-platform • Prevents “fake” check-ins
Inexpensive
• Not impacted by location of
Easy to implement the device (e.g. in purse or
Secure wallet)
54

55. Requirement #3: Battery-Friendly
• Minimal impact to a smartphone
Automatic battery … no more energy than
Location Precision a phone’s LED “message
waiting” light
Battery-friendly
Low latency • Multi-year battery life for
Cross-platform very small form factor devices
(e.g. smartcard, keyfob)
Inexpensive
Easy to implement
Secure
55

56. Requirement #4: Low Latency
• Allows check-ins while the
Automatic customer is moving, i.e.
Location Precision customer does not have to
“stand still” to check in
Battery-friendly
Low latency • In the future, allows the
Cross-platform customer to check-in to a
moving object (e.g. Conan
Inexpensive
O’Brien’s blimp)
Easy to implement
Secure
56

57. Requirement #5: Cross-Platform
Automatic
Location Precision • Not limited to a single
device type (e.g. smartphones)
Battery-friendly but can be used in a variety
Low latency of consumer devices including
Cross-platform smartcards, keyfobs, access
Inexpensive control badges, etc.
Easy to implement
Secure
57

58. Requirement #6: Inexpensive
Automatic
• Minimal impact to smartphone
Location Precision bill of materials
Battery-friendly
Low latency • Minimal impact to smartcard
or keyfob bill of materials
Cross-platform
Inexpensive
Easy to implement
Secure
58

59. Requirement #7: Easy to Implement
• “Out of the box”
Automatic interoperability
Location Precision
• An actual global, ISO
Battery-friendly
standard. NOT proprietary
Low latency
Cross-platform • Globally available frequency,
Inexpensive single SKU
Easy to implement • Low total cost of
Secure ownership
59

60. Requirement #8: Secure
Automatic
• Avoids risks of spoofing or
Location Precision fraud
Battery-friendly
Low latency • Allows user to
Cross-platform configure/turn off automatic
check-ins as desired
Inexpensive
Easy to implement • Allows full public key
Secure encryption, if desired
60

61. A Comparison
Check-in 1.0 Check-in 2.0
• Inaccurate • Accurate
• Not Automatic • Automatic
• Subject to fraud • Auditable
• Power Hog • Low Power
• Limited to phones • Multi-device
• Non-standardized • Standardized
• Not secure • Secure
61

62. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Let’s Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A “Check-in 2.0” Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
62

63. A Global Standard That is
Uniquely Suited for Check-In 2.0
• DASH7 is the ISO 18000-7 Standard for Active RFID
• Uses a globally available frequency – 433.92 MHz
• Works in tandem with 13.56MHz Near Field Communications
• Long Range
• High Precision
• Multi-year battery life
• Low Cost
• Low Latency
• AES 128 Crypto Support 63

64. Feature Comparison
GPS Cellular Dog Whistle
Triangulation
Automatic Location Yes Yes No Yes
Indoor/Urban Location No No No Yes
Precision
Battery friendly No No No Yes
Low latency No Yes Yes Yes
Platform agnostic No No No Yes
Inexpensive No No Yes Yes
Easy to implement Yes Yes Yes Yes
Secure No Yes No Yes
64

65. Automatic & Check-in Technology Comparison
Authenticated
Check-in Method
Auto
Cellular GPS Ultrasound
Manual
& WiFi
Vicinity Location Fidelity Presence
65

66. DASH7 Is “Piggybacking” the Introduction
Of 13.56MHz NFC in Smartphones, Smartcards,
And other Devices
With the addition of a two-cent circuit to current 13.56 MHz NFC silicon, all NFC-
enabled smartphones become DASH7-enabled

67. DASH7‟s “Goldilocks Zone”
1. DASH7 operates at 433.92 MHz
worldwide
2. NFC operates at 13.56 MHz
worldwide
3. 13.56 x 25 = 433.92 … i.e. DASH7
operates at the 5th harmonic
above NFC
4. DASH7 utilizes the same
antenna and nearly the same
silicon as NFC, apart from a
single two-cent circuit
67

68. 68

69. Pioneering Check-in 2.0 Product
Novitaz DASH7 Loyalty Card
Includes:
• ISO 7810 Compliant Smartcard
• Integrated 433 MHz DASH7
radio
• Thin battery
69

70. Enhanced Loyalty
Existing Loyalty Card Check-In 2.0 powered Loyalty Card
What a guest purchased What a guest is interested in purchasing
Identifies cross-sells Identifies new and lost opportunities
Mass Marketing In-Store Presence Marketing
Generic rewards based on Loyalty based on understanding in-store
spend browsing behavior
Enhanced Loyalty

71. 71

72. Bringing Check-in 2.0 To Market
• Requires an ecosystem of suppliers, systems
integrators, and end users like the DASH7
Alliance (www.dash7.org)
• Requires readily available and inexpensive
silicon and thin batteries
72

73. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Let’s Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A “Check-in 2.0” Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
73

74. Join The Fun
• Join the new DASH7 smart card working group
– Encompasses a range of interests including SIM, NFC,
mobile telephony, credentials, ticketing, more …
• Attend the DASH7 Alliance Annual meeting in San Diego on
February 1, 2011 http://ht.ly/3xXGb
• For more information, visit www.dash7.org or email our
executive director, Paul Ritchie, at paul@dash7.org
74
Google, Foursquare, Facebook, Loopt, Gowalla, DASH7, NFC, NXP, Infineon, ST Microelectronics,
Orange, KT Telecom, Vodaphone, AT&T, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, RIM, Apple, Shopkick, NTT, SK Telecom, LG, Samsung, China Telecom, Hutchison, Melexis, Semtech, Texas
Instruments,
G&D, Gemalto, Oberthur,
Smartrac, Best Buy, Target,
Starbucks, NFC 2.0, Twitter,
Skout, Yelp, Ericsson,
Huawei, ADT, Assa Abloy,
HID, Sony, Panasonic, HTC,
TSMC, EM Micro, Nordic Semiconductor, Austria Microsystems, IBM, Accenture, EDS, HP