Apple’s announcement can be said to have underwhelmed the talking heads. Coming on the heels of Amazon’s Kindle it felt a little like they were standing still.

It was inevitable.

When a company releases a breakthrough product, everything after it is a case of enhancement. Innovation is the gunshot which makes us take notice.

And yet we still want to focus on that gunshot when in fact we should be focussing on the effect it has had.

Look at it another way and we see that there are two sides to product development: the solution and the marketing.

The solution is where the innovation occurs. You take a ‘problem’ and find a solution. It’s what led to the iPod, the iPhone, to Google, to Twitter, the Dyson and to all the other technologies that have become ubiquitous in our lives.

Marketing is how it reaches the public. Key messages inform as to what that technology, what that solution, can do for us. Will it let me talk to my family in Australia? Does it enable me to write tragic poetry whilst standing on cliff-tops? Can I use it to find my way to that secret club where we dress up? These are the benefits which innovation can bestow upon me, the humble user.

There comes a point, however, when the majority of people are just quite content with how their benefits are delivered. Whilst some might care about how pin sharp their photos are, more will be happy just to flick through the blurry images they fired off on holiday. Others might want 1080p in order to fully appreciate the bright colours of the shaky handcam film they downloaded. More will be content with the fact that all it took was two simple actions to start watching the latest Tim Allen christmas movie.

In other words, there comes a time when the physical phone no longer matters. How fast a piece of technology is is only relevant when it hinders the benefits it promised to deliver.

Amazon know this. Their innovation is in the ecosystem; in the delivery of benefits. So too is Apple’s. They just didn’t focus on that. If they made any mistakes with their announcement of the 4s, it was in allowing their usual secrecy to complicate their very simple message in a way that never happens with their routine upgrading of the desktop and laptop hardware.

Innovation happens once in a product’s lifetime. After that it’s a question of showing people what it can do for them.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Social engagement is down 22% according to Syncapse. Maybe the veneer of social media is wearing thin, maybe we’ve had enough of flaming popular brands or maybe the content is no longer worth talking about.

Whatever the reasons, what is interesting is the fact that we have come to associate ‘engagement’ with conversations.

A cacophony of voices urge brands to use social media to start conversations with their customers.

It’s a case of ‘do it because you can’.

Few people challenge this instruction and in doing so, start their brand down a course of engaging in the most ridiculous “conversations”.

Brands check their bibles for any pretext upon which to strike up conversations.

We produce hair products, they observe, so let’s ask women how they feel about their hair.

We make glasses. So let’s try and get people to talk about poor eyesight.

Sometimes these conversations have the potential to unlock interesting, human stories (though rarely because to do so properly generally means allowing people more space than Facebook tends to encourage).

Mostly, however, they feel stretched, over-polite at best as customers contribute just to get at a deal.

Are these the conversations a customer really wants to have?

Or are they beginning to wonder whether they want their Facebook feed littered with references to 2 for 1 offers?

If you’ve ever wandered down a high street and avoided the clipboards then you will understand the issue currently facing social media now that it’s all becoming a bit ‘normal’.

Because thirty years ago, when clipboards were new, shoppers flocked to them in a rush to be questioned on calorie intakes, sexual preference and whether or not they thought fluoride toothpaste was a good idea.

Ok, maybe not.

But compare that to a crowd around a busker and you’ll see that being social isn’t about demanding something from a customer – even in return for marvellous coupons or the opportunity to look like a celebrity next to Cat Deeley.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Good.

Not great, not the best; just good.

The understated, happy-with-my-lot side of me likes this sign. Good is, well, good enough. It doesn’t attempt to lay claim to being the key to the one drink that will make your day or give you a story to pass on to your children. It’s just good coffee. Used in the same way as we might say that we would like “a nice cup of tea” it offers a charm which is wholesome and welcome, especially when placed against the grandiose claims of the big coffee shops.

And yet, another part of me wonders what would happen if there was a second sign next to it saying “Great Coffee”. How would that affect customer behaviour? It’s one thing enjoying the folksy charm of the ‘good’ but, given a choice under the same roof where such a decision can be clearly measured, would we stick by our simple friend or raise our aspirations?

Perhaps they know their customer is just looking for the good life.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

It’s the wonder of digital communication which makes this kind of impersonal contact possible and makes me realise that spam isn’t always trying to sell viagra.

Which is all a very convoluted way of saying “just because you can, doesn’t mean you ought to”.

Keeping in touch with customers can offer similar issues as marketeers attempt to write copy which is “personal” but then fire it across the decks of a thousand people.

Such copy might begin by laying claim to a shared experience before going on to reveal the solution and thereby sell the product. It’s not a terrible way to start but it’s possible to go too far and assume too much from any imagined shared experience. Add to this the number of personalisation options available through digital media and you risk being seen as a stranger pretending to be a friend, like knocking on a door and asking how the kids are.

Just because you know personal details, doesn’t mean you should use them.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

In the interim I’ve had plenty more opportunities to put my foot in it and these days I’m more inclined to request time to think of a suitable response.

In the fast moving world of marketing, however, the pressure is on to have all of the answers, all of the time. It’s during job interviews, pitches and brain-storming sessions where the answers are needed quickly and full-formed. It’s during these situations when having them can often be most dangerous because when answers struggle to breathe, opinions can jump in and cause the damage.

All too often you and I have offered an opinion out of simple panic. The need to appear knowledgeable on all things, to have covered all bases on your chosen subject, is addictive.

Yet to do so undermines the process of discussion. It doesn’t allow for other viewpoints and has a tendency to work in absolutes – a dangerous thing in a profession that is (rightly so) fluid in its approaches.

So take your time. Think about it. If you don’t have the answer then that’s ok. Somebody has raised an important point and a little research won’t hurt. We aren’t operating on someone here so having the answer isn’t critical. Venture an opinion, by all means, but make it clear that’s what you are doing and reserve the right to change your mind after due consideration.

It’s worth thinking about it, first.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

As Cage says:

“look, I’m 40, I’m fed up of writing games where you shoot at everyone”

The fact that this is even an issue is interesting. Gaming, perhaps uniquely amongst entertainment media, really has grown up. An entire generation has stuck with the pastime beyond the childhood period. No other toy has this sort of power. As adults we don’t indulge in the marvellous imagination games inherent in (for example) toy soldiers. I don’t even think (to stick with toy soldiers) that one form of play transforms into its video game counterpart. So whilst we drop one form of play, that doesn’t mean we are “moving on” to video games.

Video game are, in other words, unique. They are a separate form of entertainment which was born as one thing and has now evolved.

As a result it’s not surprising that developers themselves can be heard questioning the relevance of another “space marine” game*. His words may well unite other developers as they begin to pass into middle age and beyond. What they ought to do, however, is prompt publishers to look at potential audiences of this demographic and carry out research into how strong a “grey gaming” strategy could be. I’m sure it won’t be made of up people all wanting games based on thoughtful introspection and arthouse philosophy exercises but it may reveal that a different approach is needed – whether that be in the storylines or in the marketing as we begin to question whether one size really does fit all.

*I disagree that games developers should avoid writing about situations for which they have no experience though. The imagination, rather than personal experience, is still the most vital tool in a writer’s arsenal.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

The village where I live have joined the marketing game. Investments in signage and newsletters are all around, logo design cannot be far behind.

The pressure to join this game is immense but all too often the execution is lacking the guidance which could be gained through an analysis of the aims. It’s clearly a case of ‘what’ shall we do rather than ‘why’ should we do it.

And so the residents are told of a postcard competition. Amateur photographers have been invited to submit their views of the village and a postcard is to be printed a distributed to newsagents in the local area where it will fade alongside the hopes of the out-of-date football calendar.

It’s the postcard which gives us our clearest insight into the committee process as, after showing a witty cartoon sketch card from the 1950s, the modern counterpart is unveiled alongside careful explanations. This image of the stone hewn village marker has been elevated to tourist attraction, that view away from the village is a point of difference. And look, we have included a view along the main lane because it was felt the boarded-up shops were not otherwise represented. Nobody seems to ever asked what these scenes really offer us by way of promotion. Just lots of people squeezing in aspects thought to represent a ‘side’ worth, well, representing.

Nowhere in the process has anybody asked what is being sold and that’s where the opportunity has been missed. All the perceived gears of marketing are being swung into action but we are missing the actual product.

Views of the village aren’t, in all honesty, up to much. These scenes won’t be chosen for chocolate boxes to represent a golden era. Flower displays, lovely and welcome as they may be, aren’t the reason a young family will put down roots.

The real sadness is that it wouldn’t take much to uncover potential products upon which a genuine sales initiative could take place. The village is surrounded by farmland that could be tapped to provide goods which could be uniquely ours. Local businesses and landlords could be shown the benefits of working together to make more of eyesore spaces that would lift the shopping areas. Such businesses would do much to foster community in which generations could mix. If you know your neighbours and your community, you are more likely to want to support it. Activities could then be based on people rather than new signs.

In all, efforts to find a real and sustainable product for the village would pay dividends for everyone and when the committee meets to flex its wannabe marketing muscles it can do so in the knowledge that they won’t be selling their own, hopeful impressions of a village that doesn’t really exist.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

When it comes to spreading the word about your brand, the received wisdom is that Facebook and Twitter are the slickest way to go. Often, however, they are viewed as one and the same as marketing managers boil their influence down to “spreading the word”. The two social media giants, however, are two very different beasts and require a very different approach.

Let’s try to separate the two and achieve a little clarity.

On the surface, the differences seem clear. Facebook has so many mechanisms which users can draw upon to interact with one another. Sending photos, emails, IM, status updates, videos, games, Facebook looks like it could be the one stop shop for social media. Drop a stone here, you might think, and count the ripples.

Even the status updates have changed to mimic the 140 character messages of Twitter.

That alone should dictate social media strategy: post games and movies on Facebook, keep Twitter for simple comments.

The truth, however, isn’t so straightforward. And to see why you have to look at how, and to whom, your message is being relayed through both networks.

With Facebook, the connections are all physical. At least to start with. Chances are that the first bunch of friends you added to your account were all real world friends or colleagues. Your network then grew to include past friends and then friends of friends but for the most part, the majority of regular users, all interact outside of Facebook too.

That is a huge difference to the way in which Twitter connections form.

When you signed up to Twitter, who did you add first? Perhaps it was the person who introduced you to it. Perhaps not.

Perhaps you tapped in Justin Bieber’s name. Or Simon Pegg. Or The Batman.

Your connections list, in other words, doesn’t place the emphasis on real life friends. You don’t burn with the need to hear what your school friend from thirty years ago is Tweeting about. That happens, of course it does. But it’s not the kicker. It doesn’t drive the connection process.

With Facebook it does.

One isn’t better than the other. They are just different. Because the way in which our connections form will dictate the way in which we relay information. And understanding the way in which this information is relayed via Facebook and Twitter is key to developing a social media strategy.

With Twitter the connections will be formed with very different motivators than for Facebook. People on Twitter might connect because of an interest or an ambition. Which means the sort of data they are willing to spread will be shaped by that.

The process is also shaped by the hullabaloo over privacy.

On Facebook, viral status is beginning to be throttled by the privacy settings demanded by users. When you post something, you don’t necessarily want that to go viral so you shape your permission settings to protect you. That covers you for all the photos of the night out but it can also serve to kettle messages that marketing managers might wish would pass through your “oh, this is cool” filter with a little more ease.

With Twitter, this doesn’t happen as sharply. Messages are just passed along with little concern for privacy. Add to that the fact that you can get, or attempt to get, the attention of any other Twitter user and the process of conveying messages becomes different again. Attracting the attention of Twitter’s super users, in the hope that they will take up your crusade, has become an aim for many users.

This isn’t to underplay the role of Facebook. Of course it isn’t. Facebook campaigns can be stickier, deeper and more rewarding than those conducted via Twitter.

And then there is why people use each service. Whilst there are no fixed rules, one clue is in the terms each site uses for your connections. Facebook has friends whereas Twitter has followers. Is this reflected in what sort of information people are likely to share? Not always but, given that many folk often use Facebook to share family photos then the atmosphere tends to be more personal. Contrast that to Twitter where the more public nature of the Tweets might make a user ask how any Tweet reflects back on them and you can see a way to position posts to both sites.

Understanding the differences between the two networks, however, is vital when it comes to having that discussion with your boss which begins “let’s push our brand into social media”.

©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.