Yes, an interactive activation can collect useful feedback if the question is useful, participation is voluntary, and the team checks the quality of answers. It can reveal what participants noticed, preferred, or found unclear. It should not be presented as a representative poll of all event visitors simply because many people pressed a button.
Treat answering as part of the experience
Golsteijn and colleagues designed VoxBox, a tangible device for collecting opinions at events. Their initial deployment explored ways to group related questions, invite completion, combine open and closed answers, and show results through a playful interaction. The study shows design possibilities, not a proven universal response-rate gain. Golsteijn et al., Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, 2015.
A related observational study examined VoxBox at two real deployments and explicitly asked whether a tangible questionnaire could attract a diverse set of attendees while gathering relevant opinions. That research frames diversity of participation as something to investigate, not an automatic consequence of a more playful interface. Gallacher et al., UbiComp, 2015.
For a brand activation, the question should be close to the visitor's task. After comparing two service options, ask which difference was clearest. After trying a product concept, ask what they expected the next step to be. Avoid asking for a broad brand rating at a moment when visitors have only seen an animation. The answer may reflect the interaction more than the brand.
More answers can mean more noise
Goncalves and colleagues compared public-display feedback with paper and web forms across lab and field studies. Public displays attracted more feedback and interest in their setting, but the collected feedback was noisier: some people approached without a specific purpose and used the display in unexpected ways. The study was about civic feedback in urban settings, not a brand event; its trade-off is still relevant when the installation itself is fun to use. Goncalves et al., Displays, 2014.
The three studies point to a useful distinction: participation is an interaction outcome; answer quality is a research outcome. A playful control can improve the first while weakening the second if visitors tap for the effect rather than the question. Pilot the exact question and control together.
Brief the feedback task before building it
Define what decision the answer will inform. Then write a question that participants can answer from their recent experience. Keep choices distinct and allow a “none of these” or open response where the alternatives could miss an important view. Show the question before the interaction effect, so people know what their answer means. Make it easy to skip, and do not make a public display reveal an individual's sensitive response.
During a pilot, observe whether participants read the prompt, whether they discuss answers with companions, and whether staff explain or influence the response. Inspect a small sample of open answers for relevance. If many answers are jokes or repeated taps, redesign the question or separate the playful action from the feedback input. Report how many people were invited or encountered the question, how many answered, and the limitations of that sample.
An interactive experience can use a feedback station alongside a short interview or follow-up survey. These methods may reach different people and produce different kinds of answers. The right result is not the largest answer count; it is evidence clear enough to guide the next design or campaign decision.