HEAD BLOG

The game layer can be dropped over anything we do in order to help customers engage with products, processes or people.

When Head First set up shop, it was on the strength of believing the approaches of each market specialty, from videogames to DIY, could and should engage in whole lot more mixing.

From the perspective of videogames it seemed advertising often took a back seat to illustration, as though the two disciplines were interchangeable, as though merely by saying that a picture was worth a thousand words actually made it so.

The sophisticated techniques, the considered messages, these were often missing from marketing strategies for the fast growing sector of videogames and Head First wanted to change that.

At the same time, however, we knew that videogames had a lot to give. Energy and engagement were just two things that the world of videogames had to offer every other brand. Sure, the big boys knew how to form a message but videogames… well, they could deliver it in ways that just clicked with audiences of all ages.

Videogames, we said (and still say) aren’t something you grow out of.

We understand the power of the industry and believe in it so strongly that we thought it was time to show just how engaging it can be.

Enter Super Twario and a whole new look at how Twitter can be accessed.

For a while now there have been claims to have created the first ever Twitter game but these claims are built around spamming rather than engaging and users often Tweet in anger as they feel cheated into allowing the service to broadcast messages on their behalf.

With Super Twario we didn’t want to engage with Twitter at all, we wanted our users to. By providing the platform (literally) for them to roam through their Feed in an exciting and, dare the word be uttered, an innovative way. Add to this a score system and you have engagement in a very real sense.

What Super Twario does is show how different products (such as Twitter) can be approached in very different ways.

Most of all though, we wanted people to see that Head First has some pretty great ideas.

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.