HEAD BLOG

I keep on banging the choice drum. Boom, I say that the more we are exposed to choice the less choice we end up with. Boom, I say the more open markets are the fewer the shops end up operating them and now Boom, the more personalised our choices become the less we deviate away from them.

Watching Virtual Revolution on Saturday this concept was summed up (brilliantly and effectively) by Douglas Rushkoff as he explained how decision engines worked (the technology behind Amazon’s recommendation features amongst others). He ran through a programmatically logical structure of how the more we were presented with “people like you also bought” the more we became “people like us”.

It’s along the same principle of seeking out like-minded people to work with and be friends with.

I get the bus each morning. At 6:20 there aren’t many people in my village who do. In fact, generally speaking, there are five. Three of these people get on at my stop. Including myself. So, sociable being that I am I took two years to say hello to the other two. One is a postman, the other a cellar man. I didn’t realise pubs had people starting work at that time of a morning but apparantly they do.

Over the years we’ve enjoyed our ten minute chats. Much like Twitter, these shared moments build up into something far more than just a nod and a comment about the weather. Insights are gained, personal details shared and views occasionally (and tentatively) expressed.

The views aren’t always something I’m comfortable. Sometimes they are at the opposite end of the political fence where I sit, quite comfortably, knowing I am right in all things.

At one time it would have been enough to force me onto a later bus.

They hooked me, however, with their bonhomie. Many silent moments, a furtive nod of hello and a lifetime of isolation were banished simply by the two of them being nice. By showing an interest in my life and in sharing theirs.

I’d never have found them if I’d done a search for bus companions and been recommended like-minded people to share my journey with.

Now my bus buddies and I ignore what we have in common and celebrate our differences. If there were a search engine that told me what was different, even what I might hate – well I’d try that.

Volkswagen have created a wonderful piece of what they call “social marketing” but which anybody familiar with gaming for the past thirty years would just call “gaming”.

At Head First we pursue work where we can make a difference; where we know that our ideas would be appropriate. Sometimes this takes us outside the games industry and the usual response is “where’s your relevance?”. I never struggle to find an answer.

I say something like games brings everybody together. To which I am told that the client isn’t a gamer.

I don’t believe them.

Everybody is a gamer.

They might not consider buying Modern Warfare 2 or Bioshock 2; they might not even own a “games machine”; but they are gamers.

The rise in what is commonly called social media has gaming built in as standard. Look at your friend’s Facebook updates and a game won’t be far away, clearly VW understand this.

Games unite people. Games teach people and games blaze the trail in terms of user experiences and technical accomplishments.

And if everybody is a gamer then it follows that there are certain elements they have in common; certain elements that can be used to reach them.

VW’s boast centres around the fact that their promotion had been downloaded over four million times. The “revelation” of their claim is supposed to be that all this was achieved without spending a penny on media. However, when you understand the power of gaming the revelation, however brilliant, isn’t surprising.

It’s that time of year again: Superbowl time. Traditionally I enjoy skipping the actual event and turning instead to the ads. Companies spend such a huge amount of time, creativity and money on them that it seems rude not to politely sit through to the end, bitter or otherwise.

This year they are getting talked about more than usual. Normally I read about which movie trailers played but this year Google ran an ad which made it into the mainstream press; dragging everything else behind it.

Google’s ad was pretty nice; whimsical and confident and with a simple message – namely search is a fact of life. As brands become increasingly switched on to the social side of commerce this positioning resonates.

What stood out for me, however, was the number of ads that were content to essentially waste time and money. Go Daddy drew lots of ire but, subjective views aside, at least it threw in the facts of the product.

Other brands weren’t so ambitious, relying instead on the media spend to impress the viewers. Why spend money on creative if all you are doing (from a semiotics perspective) is showing the company logo? Indeed, if no message and no values are conveyed then thirty seconds of a logo would not only be cheaper, it would arguably be more memorable also.

Advertising, of course, is the opportunity to be more than memorable. It offers the chance to inform as well.
And in these times, when buzzwords such as “social” and “conversation” are in such free-flow, what better form of dialogue is there than a contructive one?

With or without the release of the iSlate, the world would be facing exactly this situation but it suits my sense of drama to aim for the high note and claim Apple are ushering in Skynet whilst the rest of us reach deep into our sofas for the chunk of change it’s likely to cost.

Talk about saving for your own funeral. Maybe they will get June Whitfield to front the ads.

I’m only half joking. The iSlate is just the pinnacle of where tech has been headed these past few years; someone was bound to do it sooner or later. It’s just that Apple are perfectly poised to deliver the technology wrapped neatly into the consumer dream.

Because that, it seems to me, is what Apple trades in. Unlike Microsoft, Apple don’t deal with computers. It’s all about the consumer dream. Name another hardware manufacturer, be they HP or Sony or even the affordable semi-pioneers such as Asus and you have a collective that deals in computers, in technology.

Not so Apple. Cupertino asks what we dream of as consumers. The answers are brought to us courtesy of the technology but it’s the concept we buy into.

So how can we hold Apple in anything other than the best of regards?

Like Google, their image is one of purest ‘cool’ – if cool were a commodity worth billions and capable of keeping us in a blissful state of perpetual purchasing.

And the Google analogy isn’t accidental or merely convenient either.

Both companies are currently engaged in activities that have far reaching and potentially damaging consequences for freedom. They show us, in dramatic tones, just how far out of touch our notion of the Nation State really is. We may gripe about unelected officials being handed authority but really it is Google, Apple and, to a lesser extent even Amazon that we should really be examining.

In the pursuit of creating the ultimate in companion devices, Apple are aiming above the heads of Amazon and Google. A single device upon which we can buy books, films, music and games is a fine old dream as far as consumer dreams go but it comes with provisos attached.

Controlling the gateways to these entertainment hubs is more than just savvy business, it’s a political and economic wakeup call. The iPhone has stimulated enormous activity in development circles and led to Apple’s latest $3.3 billion dollar profit. I’ll just qualify that; first quarter profit. That’s a great achievement and the global economy must be, to no small extent, thankful.

But what longterm damage is it doing? What affect will it have on bricks and mortar retail? Unlike the threat of Internet shopping, Apple have created a system by which there need be no rival shops.

Their proprietary approach means that each of those 2 billion Apps we’ve all been busy downloading (and happily agreeing to call Apps) have been downloaded through Apple. There can be no competition to sell them just as there can be no competition to put them up for sale; even the type of application on sale to us is tightly controlled by Apple.

Of course that’s not to say it is only Apple doing this. There is competition, of a sort. Amazon is trying to control the way in which we access books – an aim which could now fail thanks to Apple who want the whole publishing pie. Google too, want in on that and it remains to be seen who will win out. Google are interesting because they have the veneer of open source to make us believe their motives are somehow purer. The recent spats over the book agreement reveals a different side.

But why does it matter? We have to buy our books, our music, our pleasures somewhere don’t we?

We do. We also need to work somewhere. Imagine a world devoid of high streets; where there is no HMV or Waterstones. A great world perhaps but they have, between them, mopped up the choice we used to have.

Independant stores are a dying breed, concentrating the hunt for jobs into fewer and fewer hands. The benefit to local economies dies with them and it’s not so much of a stretch to see a world, ten years hence, where the big shops are just online. At best.

We’ve been here before of course. The Industrial Revolution has lessons to learn from in this regard of the dangers of concentrating power in too few hands.

But we survived that, right?

Maybe.

Huge areas of poverty, inequality and unemployement followed the Industrial Revolution and it gave rise to the concept of the sweatshop, whether it be in a factory or across an entire continent. Once we allow our consumer desires to be our needs then little stands in the way of making that a reality. Once we allow Apple to be the one stop shop we ease the way for any measure which can streamline that process even further.

It doesn’t stop there either. We have already seen Amazon withdraw books for sale after they’ve been bought, reaching into the digital home and removing a publication (ironically it was 1984) from the Kindle (remember that?). Can that ever be a good thing? It’s an activity we surely associate with repressive Nations.

And that’s just what can happen to existing publications. It’s not a work of fiction that deciding what can and can’t be published in the first place has terrible ramifications.

Much applause has been given to the return of the bedroom coder. With the iPhone we saw game development break away from the huge coding conglomerates that had built up around the walls of the super publishers. The bedroom coder was back and that meant more power, more control and ultimately more money in the hands of the craftsman. But this is somewhat misleading. Because where is the self-publisher? The sole coder has full control of his own vision, up to the point when Apple becomes involved. Then it is judge and jury time. You’ve funded yourself, you’ve been creative, they say. Now it’s time to accept our payment terms – no negotiation, no choice. And that’s if we decide your creative vision is appropriate and in line with ours.

Again, we’ve seen this before. Apple aren’t reinventing the wheel, merely tightening the reins. Walmart has come under frequent fire for using it’s commercial position to dictate content to artists.

So are Apple switching on Skynet here?are we witnessing the end of control and the demise of the Nation State?

Yes.

There is, however, the chance that it will fail.

The open standards of the world wide web could be the only challenge to the monopolization of data. As long as Apple keep a web browser as part of their devices the opportunity for new ideas to seep through because anybody can publish on the Internet. Any ideas, any music, any games can all be delivered free to air through the old WWW.

But even the Internet is beginning to look a bit too unwieldy, a bit too big. How much longer before we’d rather use the Amazon App than the Amazon website? How much longer until our research is done within a single, cleverly cross-reference App with access to every book available through Apple? How much longer before it’s just easier and less confusing to altogether skip the Internet as we understand it today?

In the end we tend to take the path of least resistance and maybe that’s the problem. Who will step in whilst we get swept along? Will we see a repeat of the anti-trust suits that marred Microsoft’s rise to dominance in the 80s and 90s and in which case will they be fought on a national level or will we see the emergence of the World State in a bid to counterbalance the power.

Whatever happens with the iSlate, iPad or iTablet – we shouldn’t just suck it and see.

This blog has bumbled along for long enough. We’ve covered all the really juicy bits from campaign work to design to reading and cooking. Along the way we’ve had a discussion with Dave Trott about Twitter and looked at the future of print and the importance of the idea. Nothing, no corner, no stone, has been left out in the first year of the blog.

And yet something is missing.

So it’s time to kill off a major character.

And we need your help to do it.

Because that’s what we do now isn’t it? Ask ask ask. Or rather we tell people we are asking because it’s all about social marketing these days, which means conversations and for that we need feedback. We say we will do what you want.

It’s as if the concept of the social conversation has supplanted simple, good ideas. As if the only way to lead is from behind. As if creativity must first be tested and endorsed before it can be valid.

I’m reminded of all those ads which tell me my teeth are my own so I should brush them my way. Or my bank is my own so I should invest in it my way. Or that I should drink, eat, smoke and murder in exactly the way I should want to. Because I’m in charge and these helpful toothpastes/snacks/axes are there for me to use any way I want to.

The ads fall over themselves to not just include us but to follow us and agree with anything we might say.

I know they are my teeth but I won’t brush them my way, I’ll brush them the way a dental expert has told me to. Because that makes sense.

There used to be ads which led the way. Which set trends alight and had us all slapping people or chanting a mantra.

They pushed a good idea.

And people respond to a good idea.

When it comes to advertising, make your own decisions and lead the way. Your way.

Today I read something that made my eyes bleed. The phrase “fail, but fail forwards” stabbed me in the face. It ranks alongside such philosophical advice as “take a dip in Lake You” in utter inanity.

The offending phrase came about during a conversation about, well, conversations. It must have been one of those days because only hours earlier I’d read several blogs all orbiting around the same topic. Maybe it’s like suddenly being attuned to adverts for baby products just hours after “an accident”.

Who knows.

All talk of “conversations” in marketing makes me look to my wallet. Like being doorstepped, it is a term thrown about far too easily and attempts to convert us all to the cause of “social marketing”.

The “conversation” people have a cause. A social cause.

They believe that marketing MUST change. That it MUST turn away from the old pagan ways and embrace the conversation.

Some issues certainly require such conversations; political parties would be well advised to start a few with voters – and actually be interested in the other side of said conversation. Toilet paper manufacturers however, well, I’d rather you didn’t talk. Just pass it through the door please. All I need to know is are you selling tracing paper or will your product do what I need it to.

The proposition is simple: I have a product that I think you’d like. Please buy it.

Answers on the back of the cheque.

Earlier this week I wrote a couple of articles (here and here) about Twitter.

They achieved three things:

1) I was followed by @davetrott – we admire his approach to advertising so this is “a good thing”.

2) Our blog traffic increased by around 900%. This is also a “good thing” and shows the degree of influence Dave has as an opinion former.

3) It cheered me up. This is a “good thing” for everyone else in the office.

All in all it shows stuff works.

Microsoft’s first foray into ’social networking’ on the Xbox 360 came with the integration of Live Messenger back in May 2007 as part of the then ’spring update’. Fast forward to 2009 and, whilst Messenger is still popular, people are more likely to be found messaging through Twitter and Facebook so it hardly comes as a surprise that Microsoft have chose to add these to the Xbox. Forming part of a new “Community Channel” not available until later in the year I managed to get myself on to the ‘Xbox Live Update Preview’ to see what all the fuss is about. Read more…

There is a debate raging across the Twitternet. At stake is the future concept of the Follow list. Entire conversations hang in the balance.

After the first article, Dave Trott replied:

@headfirst_dom I didn’t quite understand why I should follow lots of people v selective perception, maybe you could flesh it out.

Damn. Trott and his insistence upon persuasive strategy.

Well OK, let’s take a shot at that.

I had argued that Twitter was Social Networking, not Social Friendship. My approach was to attack Dunbar’s number as applied to Twitter Follows. I was right to do so. Dave’s comment regarding selective perception is something else entirely.

It concerns the very start of the debate and the comment about Dave’s small number of followers.

Having lots of followers has clear advantages, foremost of which (for me) is that you get your message out to more people.

Working in advertising that’s important.

So what about the other way around?

There are two questions here: the first one of why should Dave follow more than 30 people and the second of why he should follow lots of people v selective perception.

The second question is easy.

He shouldn’t.

Selective perception is absolutely the way to go.

I don’t follow Stephen Fry. Nor do I follow Philip Scofield, Ashton Kutcher, John Cleese, Derren Brown… the list goes on.

To varying degrees I enjoy the work they do. It’s just on Twitter I have found that they don’t enrich my life. I don’t really care who is on GMTV and I don’t really care whether Stephen Fry is stuck in a lift. As for Demi Moore’s bottom… well, what’s the point?

I chose to switch them off. Selective perception wins out.

There are millions of Twitter users. Surely it is possible to be both selective and follow lots of people. Given the numbers and the demographics involved it is likely that of these many millions, an individual will find more than 30 people who could enrich their lives and provide stimulating insight and accounts of their daily lunch habits.

This isn’t Sodom and Gomorrah here. Finding more than 30 people to follow shouldn’t be hard.

Of course that means making a judgement call on why we follow people.

I know why I do.

I follow people who are active in my field in my community.

Because their views are often exciting and stimulate my own.

I follow writers who offer insights into the way they work.

Because their insights can help me in my work.

I follow damn funny people.

Because I’m learning to smile.

I follow followers of followers.

Because I’ve come to trust some followers and believe in recomendations on #followfriday

I follow competitors.

Because SOMEONE has to keep an eye on those pesky kids.

I follow Demi Moore.

No, I don’t.

I follow because I can find a few statements amongst the daily chatter that interest me or excite me or provoke me. I follow because I look for debate. I follow in the same way I read more than one newspaper each day, flick through more than one website a day and talk to more than one person a day.

Because ideas can be found in the most unusual, most unexpected of places.

And these unexpected places are everywhere on Twitter. So that must make them expected… OK, let’s move on.

Twitter gives us a chance to connect. To connect to people. To exciting, stimulating, surprising, inspiring, sweary people.

And it’s an ad-man’s dream to be able to connect, in some way, however briefly, however superficially, to these people.

Here’s an example courtesy of the man who started this:

Twitter is free, completely live, market research. Doing an ad for running shoes? Follow some runners. Put them into a group called “Runners” and watch what they talk about. Maybe dip in and reply, ask a question or two, prod and poke them (gently) for responses.

Of course you don’t have to Follow to get this sort of research. You could run searches and pick out the comments. But that’s not selective. And you have no hand in guiding the debate. You are passive, not active.

So, 30 people? Are they likely to provide (given that most people don’t Tweet on a regular basis) all the stimulation, all the insight, all the debate, all the surprise you could need?

Why should you follow more than 30?

Why not?

A friend of mine sent a tweet to Dave Trott on the number of people he follows via Twitter.

He said he couldn’t believe Trott followed 30 people.

Dave Trott replied with a joke. A good one.

He said that he agreed. And that he’d cut that number down to 20.

Boom-tish.

Advertising copy live as it happens.

What my friend actually meant was that the number was far too low and that Dave Trott should think about following more. My friend suggested that he would get more from the experience of Twitter that way.

Dave Trott responded with a link to Seth Godin’s blog piece about Dunbar’s Number.

Dunbar’s number is 150. Dunbar estimates that any person can only have 150 friends.

It’s down to tribes and the way mankind interacts.

It sounds true.

But it doesn’t matter.

Because when it comes to social networking, Dunbar’s number doesn’t apply.

Because the dirty secret truth about social networking is that we aren’t friends. Not really. Not in the tribal sense.

And why would an ad-man like Dave Trott want that?

When he promotes himself using Twitter he doesn’t want a tribal relationship with his followers.

He doesn’t limit their numbers to 150.

And I’m willing to bet he doesn’t want his ideas, his tweets, to be read by just 150 people.

He doesn’t want a tribal relationship with those people.

He may like the idea of his tweets being picked up and retweeted.

He may like the idea of sending his people out to carry the torch.

But advertising doesn’t work like that.

You don’t broadcast an ad to 150 people and believe that their word, their tribal strength is stronger that way.

Word of mouth is great.

But why limit it?

There is no guarantee that if only 150 people hear your ad, that their takeup and evangelism will be any stronger

Facebook might call us friends. Twitter might call us followers.

But they are just being polite.

When we read a tweet we are just dipping into the thoughts of a number of people. Any number of people.

Some of those thoughts will stick. Some won’t.

We’ll pay more attention to the former and less to the latter.

But we aren’t trying to be their friends. Not in the real, social sense. It’s nice when it happens but it’s not the primary concern. On Twitter I want to be exposed to lots of ideas. I select a list of people to follow based on the hope that their ideas will be good. And I’d want to be in a similar camp for other people. Building trust on as wide a scale as possible.

I’ll do my best to make my tweets stand out in the way I would if I were writing an ad.

But I’m under no illusions as to why others follow me.

It’s social networking. Not social friendships.