scanbam
← Blog

The wedding invitation that RSVPs itself

Three codes on the invitation: the date into their calendar, the venue into their maps, the reply into your spreadsheet. Nobody has to find a pen.

Wedding invitations have been solving the same problem the same way since before anyone reading this was born: a card, a date, an address, and a reply slip that seventy per cent of people will lose.

The card is not the problem. The card is lovely and nobody wants a website instead. What is broken is everything that has to happen after somebody reads it — putting the date somewhere, working out where the venue actually is, and replying.

Three codes do all three, and they can sit on the back of the card where nothing is printed anyway.

1. The date, straight into the calendar

An event code puts the whole thing into somebody's calendar in one tap — date, time, venue, and a note if you want one.

This is the one that changes behaviour. An invitation on a fridge is a reminder only while somebody is looking at the fridge. A calendar entry survives the move, the tidy-up, and the four months between the invitation and the day.

Two practical notes. The time you type is the time that lands, wherever they are — no timezone conversion, which is what you want for a place with an address. And keep the details short: a title, a time and a venue print as a noticeably smaller code than the same event with a paragraph attached, and the back of an invitation is not a poster.

2. The venue, straight into maps

A location code opens the exact spot in whatever map app the guest already uses.

Wedding venues are precisely the places addresses fail: a barn down a lane with the farm's postcode, a hall behind a church, a house with a name and no number. A pin does not care what the address says, and it solves the phone call at ten past two from somebody in the wrong car park.

Paste the link you copied from Maps — it does the work of digging the coordinates out.

3. The reply, straight into a spreadsheet

This is where the reply slip goes. Make a free form — Google Forms, or anything that produces a link — with the fields you actually need: name, coming or not, how many, dietary requirements, song request if you are brave.

Then put a link code on the card pointing at it. Replies arrive in a spreadsheet, already spelled, already counted, and nobody has to buy a stamp.

Keep the paper reply slip as well if your guest list skews older. The two cost the same to print and the code takes the load off the ones who will use it.

Where to put them on the card

The back, in a row, each with three words under it. “Save the date”, “Find the venue”, “Reply here”.

Unlabelled codes do not get scanned, and three unlabelled codes definitely do not — the guest cannot tell them apart and will not try. The generator prints a caption underneath for you.

If the design cannot take three, take one: the reply. It is the one you actually need back.

Free, no account

Three codes for the back of the card.

Event, location and a link to your form. No account, no watermark, and nothing that expires between the printing and the day.

Make an event code
What QR codes should go on a wedding invitation?

Three: an event code that puts the date in the guest's calendar, a location code that opens the venue in their maps, and a link code pointing at your RSVP form. Label each one with three words or people will not scan them.

Will a QR code on an invitation still work months later?

A static code does, because the information is inside the code rather than on a page somebody hosts. The exception is the RSVP form link — if you move or delete the form, every printed card becomes a dead end.

Does the event code handle time zones?

It uses the time you typed, with no conversion, which is what you want for a wedding at a fixed place. Seven o'clock means seven o'clock at the venue, whatever the guest's phone is set to.

Should I still include a paper RSVP slip?

If your guest list skews older, yes. Both cost about the same to print, and the code takes the load off everyone who would rather tap than post.