When it comes to ideas we like to think being different is a pretty good starting point. A few months back, a new client asked us to come up with ideas for a game based on Ping Pong in order to promote… well, let’s just say it’s something pretty cool.

We huddled and thought and huddled some more (hey, it was back in the depths of winter) and came up with a good few ideas. The client thought and thought and thought some more (their winter wasn’t that cold) and chose… not Swing Pong.

It was fair enough. They wanted something to meet a slightly different task (and we’re in the process of fulfilling THAT brief too so hang in there).

Something, however, wouldn’t allow us to let go of Swing Pong.

Maybe it was the name or maybe it was just the idea of basing a sports game on audio reactions that kept us interested but we plugged away and, thanks to some hard work and a team of honest beta-testers, created Swing Pong.

We think it’s a bit of fun.

The Guardian think so too. Which is nice.

We could have created a regular ping pong game of course. The App Store has quite a few of those. Poke your finger at the screen and score points. But we wanted to show that anything can be turned on its head and presented in a different way in order to stand out from the crowd. Add an ad spend to that and you have yourself a clear proposition which has really, measurable value.

Take a look and see what you think.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Recently I’ve been writing a few short stories for a website run by Tom Mason. The conceit is that each story must be sparked off by an image and be no more than 330 words long.

It’s a great format for me because with it I can say something quickly without running into the issues of structure I’d face with something longer.

I do, however, periodically consider whether what I’m writing can be classed as “story” at all.

In fact, the definition of “story” is something we all wrestle with at Head First because it is integral to creating strong and effective advertising.

The difficulty I have with my 330 word stories lies in the difference between a story and a concept. Is it possible to relate a story in so few words? Or does the reduction render it to a concept?

It’s easier to see when you reduce the word count even further. To, say, 140 characters. One guy tweets very short stories which come across more as outlines (or perhaps poems) than stories.

You could argue, of course, that anything can be a story. If I write something like:

“She lived. She cried. She died.”

You get a sense of narrative. You get a classic beginning, middle and end. Even the choice of words plays a part. “Lived” is more emotive than “was alive” because it suggests more than the simple act of existing, of breathing. And by starting it that way, I set the scene for the tragedy that follows. The reader might arrive at their own conclusions but it is clear that the woman’s situation is a result of her having “lived”.

So that could be described as a story.

Except it isn’t. Not in the more traditional way.

For that, you need more flesh on the bones for story to occur.

My personal jury is out on the 330 word stories. Perhaps they are something different. Certainly they are something exciting (to write at least).

What is clear, however, is the lesson they contain for advertising. Because by challenging my understanding of story, they make me challenge the story of advertising.

Whether I’m writing a two word ad or advertising through social media the lesson remains. I must ask myself what story am I trying to tell.

For the two word ad I must work to ensure the experience, through the combined efforts of text and imagery, is sufficiently satisfying as to provide a story.

Because stories are how experiences are related and relationships formed.

And that’s a way to ensure advertising is effective at the deepest level.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

The reason isn’t that I want to see Adobe continue to dominate the market, I don’t.

I don’t even care whether Flash gets adopted by every smart phone around.

I care because the debate over Flash vs HTML5 focusses on technology, not ideas.

Taking a look at how an iAd is created I have to say that I’m worried. Worried that these will take more manpower to produce, which makes them more expensive, or that they will be more limited because of their complexity.

And let’s just look at that word: complexity.

I use it in the sense of how easily certain functions in web advertising can be achieved. Flash is guilty of this also of course. The change from Action Script 2 to Action Script 3 has had the effect of making certain functions more complex. I look at some web ads and ask myself where the need for Action Script 3 is.

In the same way I ask where the need for style sheets is.

It all just increases complexity.

And that’s when we begin to focus on the wrong details.

Invariably the ideas get pushed back as the gap between coder and creative widens.

Maybe that’s the cost of freedom and certainly in the world of enabling information to a wide audience and retaining control of our data that all seems good and worthwhile. But in the world of advertising it’s not the same. I’d rather see a static ad with a well designed message than let the technology lead. Flash, for all its flaws, has two things in its favour: the reach to a wide audience through browser technology and the way anybody can use it.

As time passes and tools become available then maybe this will change but at the moment it seems that most of the people attacking Flash ads are doing so because they don’t like advertising. They feel that Flash enables it to be invasive and irritating (which it does). But that’s not an argument for changing technology, that’s an argument for changing ideas.

And that is where the debate ought to be.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Perhaps the bravest part of examining our creative service meant proving ourselves in new ways. The landscape of advertising and design is changing rapidly and, whilst we still believe the idea should always come before the technology, it has to be recognised that being able to understand how that technology is affecting society can make all the difference from a strategic point of view.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in social media.

So we set out to see how ideas could impact upon something as big as Twitter.

That’s when Super Twario was born.

In creating Super Twario, we wanted to show clients how a single exciting idea, bravely realised and confidently pitched, could resonate with people.

It did.

Even before Apple opted to run it as a featured app the test videos had been viewed over fifty thousand times and most every magazine had run a feature. Word of mouth carried the name of Super Twario right around the world and the Twitter searches we were running were moving faster than we’d ever expected.

We set out to get noticed.

We succeeded.

The meetings and conversations we have had since have been exciting and more apps, different apps, are in development.

All from the conviction we have that anything can benefit from a bit of exciting thinking.

What a year it has been.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

So how’s your year been?

It’s not been the best has it? We have seen many companies, much admired companies, go under and many talented designers, game creators and writers have lost their jobs.

Recession has presented us with a whole bunch of challenges (are they still challenges or is the latest term “opportunities”?)

Whatever, it’s been tough.

At Head First we had to examine every part of what we stood for and what we offered in order to stand out.

And stay standing.

For a company that services such large brands that was quite the challenge. Early on we realised that “we aim to excite” was more relevant than ever before. We had to excite and we had to encourage our clients to excite.

As a result we began to talk to people, one on one, to show them the opportunities available by exciting people. We came up with ideas, often unsolicited, and threw them at the people we wanted to work for. It didn’t matter whether these were paid for ideas or even potential ideas. What mattered was that they were exciting ideas.

We ranged from suggesting ways for companies to open up new dialogues with their markets to examining what their real business actually was.

And if a client called us to a job we sometimes turned them away.

Not empty handed of course. But with an idea they could implement on their own.

An exciting idea.

For such a small company, Head First often punches above its own weight. There are few projects we have balked at.

That’s because we know that along with the ideas comes production.

You could say that Head First is about ideas in production.

When one of us comes up with an idea, someone else is thinking how to make it work.

Our clients seem to like this approach.

It means they don’t get one dimensional production. They get the responsive, thinking approach to production.

That’s much more exciting.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

So I relished a statement made via the Twitter Gods, home to all off-the-cuff and unsubstantiated statements, that claimed all marketing had to figure Digital in any strategy.

Let’s first be clear: I love the possibilities afforded by digital campaigns. Technology is a marketing person’s dream, offering, as it does, a slew of measuring mechanisms to keep all but the most cynical of bosses happy. Digital plugs into many lives and the numbers it reaches increases daily.

It’s not, however, a must in every circumstance.

In fact the only real encompassing statement I stick my neck out on is that there is no “must”.

Let’s talk anecdotes.

Earlier in the year I had a meeting where I was urging a prospective client to do more with digital. We all agreed there was more to be done and it felt great.

Then, almost as a side discussion, I was given an insight into the value of a non-digital campaign.

The reasoning began simply with: not everybody has easy access to the web. And even if they do they won’t have the access you and I have. I’m here twelve hours a day and a web-capable device isn’t far from my hand.

It makes sense.

I don’t work behind a till or in a hospital or any of the many jobs that mean a person can’t access the Internet whenever they want to. Access to media can be restricted to a newspaper in backroom between jobs or over a sneaky brew.

Yet these people still lead consumer lives and companies still have reason to urge them to buy during their break times.

In these digital times when it seems everybody is forever on Twitter or Facebook it is all too easy to overlook these people and, in doing so, overlook the effectiveness of what is now called “traditional” media.

Digital is a way forward, not the way forward.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

John Lewis ads have, in recent years, become something of an art form. Layered with emotive imagery of wholesome living they are an art director’s dream and a way to explore techniques that will prepare them for that Julia Roberts film they’ve been planning.

Yet walking the tightrope of social and political viewpoints to pinpoint a common vision of Dickensian Christmasses and a gentle humour isn’t all that easy as they have discovered. Their most recent ad, featuring various unusual objects being wrapped, received complaints because one of those objects was a dog. Hardly acerbic satire and certainly not portrayed in a sinister League of Gentlemen manner – although wouldn’t that make for an eye-catching and headline grabbing advertisement? In a nation of dog-lovers, however, it was clearly the wrong subject for a company that never wishes to offend.

It speaks volumes about many things: about consumer power, precarious corporations and recession and even what it means to be British.

But most of all it speaks volumes about advertising messages, specifically about the fact that when your message is feel good rather than pay less or see more, you’d better please some of the people all of the time.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

You sit down at your computer. Now what are you doing? Most likely it is the task you sat down to complete. You will be reading the news, shopping, chatting to friends or catching up on a programme through an online on demand service.

Both scenarios represent something of a dilemma to advertisers. Both tell us that our relationship with advertising has to change.

The power of TV advertising still holds sway over our purchasing habits. At least they do when we are watching the ads. But how often is that when shows are subject to Sky+ or distractions from other, living room based, technology.

Advertisers know this of course. It’s one of the reasons we see increasing amounts of non-traditional advertising be it through sponsorships, idents or product placements.

As technology enables us to set our own TV schedules and access entertainment in different ways, this becomes even more of an issue.

Then there is the computer.

Whatever that means these days.

Whether it is through a terminal in the corner of a room, a laptop or tablet perched on the arm of the sofa or via a mobile phone, it’s really the Internet we are talking about.

And there our consumption behaviour changes. We are either more focussed or certainly less amenable to advertising than we would be in our old, goggle-eyes days. We see the banners flashing in the frame of article and might, just might, take note.

But not in the same ways we would with a TV ad.

Advertisers might want to count the click throughs because the technology allows but we probably have other ideas.

We are on this page for a reason, remember.

Our relationship with advertising has to change.

Instead of seeing us as willing followers, eager to watch the next ad or cluck through to the micro-site where we can can “swish” our hair for some marketing person’s vain hope of building a community, advertisers need to understand the key changes in our viewing habits.

They, we, need to understand that the relationship needs to become more equal, more give and take and account for the fact that whilst we understand the need to be alerted to new products, we would like the method to change.

We would like to be informed rather than told about products; given reasons to purchase rather than slapped in the face and told to pay attention to advertising that has no message.

Advertising must seek to build a rapport with us and it must do this by engaging, not intruding. New technology demands advertisers take a new approach. Rather than deafen us with ever-increasing volume, they must work harder to let us hear the message they contain.

Our relationship with advertising has changed.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Have you ever sat through advert after advert and wondered which ones are actually interested in, or at least aimed at, you?

The older you get, the more this will happen as advertisers skew their messages for the more exciting 18-30 crowd whose disposable incomes, whilst dwarfed by those of older people, seems all the more attractive and desireable.

Perhaps you and I are seen as being fixed in our habits, unlikely to budge from our Pears soap and Werthers Originals. Old habits die hard and all that and maybe advertisers see us as too tough a crowd to convert into new consumers.

Or maybe it’s the lure of the opportunities within the creative approach. Looking at the landscape, with its copies of Old Spice ads and E4 style voice overs for banking products I can see the attraction. New blood is where it’s at as brands struggle to embrace technological opportunities which, like programming the video recorder (they still have those, right?) seem to be designed for young people.

And creatives, fêted for their constant stream of new ideas are shaped by the influences of new comedy sketches rather than the next series of QI.

New, exciting, these words must only be applicable to young consumers. The rest of can just be happy watching re-runs of Grumpy Old Men/Women and watch with envious wonder at ads for products we are too old to buy.

Like shower gel and mobile phones, car insurance and savings accounts.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Dear Rising 2 is an interesting case in all kinds of ways, not just because of the range of materials required or the scope of the strategy but also because it has leapt ahead in the digital download stakes (pardon the pun).

Dead Rising 2: Case Zero was released as a prologue to the main game and available through Xbox Live – an arena not unlike Apple’s App Store and one which will undoubtedly develop massively in the years to come as product switches away from traditional retail outlets.

For us, Case Zero represented a chance to show how advertising can have a measurable effect upon sales and it’s fair to say that NOBODY was disappointed. The game broke all records and a sequel is scheduled to follow sometime after the release of the main game we’ve been working so hard on.

Here’s just one of the ads produced to raise awareness and provide some kind of back story to the launch.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.