See that hedgehog? Come March, it may get flattened by our angry car but for now we are pleased to see its smiling face and neat buzz-cut as it shows that our work for our Resident Evil: Mercenaries social campaign.

Under the big idea of ‘The War On Horror’ Head First created a damn fine campaign to promote Capcom’s first Resident Evil game for the Nintendo 3DS (wow, SEO overload for you there folks). From packaging to advertising by way of video and apps (with hard-core programming by Worship Digital) this was a campaign that tested new waters.

And, gosh, it was a success too. Our video saw over 80,000 views in just a few weeks and the War On Horror Facebook app we designed was played over 40,000 times in the same period. The campaign boosted the official page by 160,000 (and maybe more).

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Recently, @fatboyzim told me to “stop being so anal” and to not preach “like old media”. It was regarding a discussion concerning the changing of somebody else’s Tweet. The change altered the orginal meaning and the author (Mike Butcher of Tech Crunch) had an issue with it.

It led to a brief round table of opinions about clarity and it was resolved easily as you might expect.

But Simon (@fatboyzim) was right to ask that I not preach “like old media”.

Because when it comes to social media, I believe the standards should be even higher.

In print (or in “old media” in general), misrepresentation is easily caught and (relatively) easily rectified. Watchdogs such as the Press Complaints Commission or Advertising Standards Agency keep an eye on things and newspapers are held to account when they alter meaning. Nobody would defend the right of a company to change a film review from “This film is not great” to “This film is great”.

At least, I’d hope not.

So I had to have a think when the following tweet:

While LoveFilm mulls a sale, it signs another movie house for streaming service http://bit.ly/dPHRU3 by @mikebutcher

was changed to:

RT @TCEurope LoveFilm mulls a sale and still doesn’t make money? http://bit.ly/dPHRU3 by @mikebutcher

The change forced an opinion on the author that wasn’t in the story. In the fast moving world of Twitter where we don’t always follow links to get the full story, this can be a problem. At a glance it seems that the author (Mike) is judging LoveFilm. That could affect things for him and it certainly influences the reader.

As social media becomes ever quicker it becomes more shallow. It has a tendency to amplify the sound bite culture of old media in ways that are harder to regulate. Indeed, the beauty of Twitter is that it isn’t regulated but that doesn’t mean personal responsibility goes out of the window.

If we are taking on the role of citizen journalists then we have a duty to take that role seriously. Shaping the news is a wonderful thing, re-shaping the opinions of others is whole different thing.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

This was my response:

The word “consumers” is a pretty broad brush but really the usage you employ would cover only a tiny percentage of them. Some consumer generated content has earned respect – but there is only a tiny amount of it and even the Doritos ads were originated (conceptually) by an agency. And did people respond positively because it was user-generated? I have no idea but I wasn’t aware (until this article) that that was what it was. I thought it was just a nicely scripted ad which made me laugh.

Some brands and some consumers are in a two-way dialogue. Equal though? I’m not so sure. In so far as consumers have always had a choice whether to buy product A or not then yes, the responsibility continues to rest in the hands of the consumer.

Social media can empower people but as with most things, most just don’t care. Protests have always helped shaped brands, the digital age has made that easier but in some ways this could be headed for a fall as consumers become desensitized to screaming reactions from the Twitterati. But we’ll see.

Consumers have, in addition, always looked to one another for what brands to support. That’s why agencies take such pains to research and target opinion formers. Even the term “traditional media” is liquid – changing as it does with the shifts in technology that have seen advertising transform across the ages.

From focus groups to the Tupperware party, these affects have always been with us. “Consumers” are no more an ad agency than they ever were.

Social media is broadcast word of mouth, but as with so much else on Twitter – it’s a simplication that helps nobody.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

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.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Actually… scratch that. MOST days I want all that.

There’s a trend at the moment to be interactive with all your communication. These days everything seems such an effort. In this trend, ads are a two-way process. Conversations are social. It’s not sufficient to entertain or inform, “interactive” is so much better. And by interactive we don’t mean in the way we all identified with and talked about the Oxo family or the would-be lovers of Nescafe. We don’t mean interactive in the way the best Tango ads had us imitating the advertising and talking about the drink as we would talk about our day. No, the new interactive, in its guise as a trend, is different.

This form of interactive is online focussed and driven by the almost monthly leaps in technology, specifically where it relates to bandwidth. As advertisers we can deliver “rich media” for the best in interactive advertising. Engage your audience to get rollovers and clickthroughs, we are encouraged. As though these are the ultimate goal and not merely one more form of assessment. As though these are the only way in which in inform the purchase decision

And so we are encouraged to believe in and pepetuate the split between traditional and new. And new is always better. Because when TV was new, radio and print died. Didn’t they?

So traditional is relegated and even print must tow the party line by directing us towards the Internet and the rich media experience that awaits us there. And there, the latest in “user experience” awaits us. Much like the  days of children’s Saturday morning television and its brief obsession with screeching 8 bit video games into our carefully positioned tape recorders, this user experience will take an age to load and deliver very little information via a beautifully crafted technology demo.

And so we come to the latest in trends, the proof that print advertising can be made to gel with the green grass of online life. Augmented Reality, or virtual reality to those still awe-stuck in the 80s and 90s. If ever there was a modern example of misused technology it is AR. In the field of advertising it is akin to asking the consumer to dance for the supper they already paid for. In the rush to deliver rich experiences and engage the consumer, the advertiser has neglected to question the amount of hoops that must be jumped through in order to reach the experience. Queue here to be sold to, the sign seems to say. Our brochure is in 3D.

Print is flat. TV is flat. Billboards? Flat. The creative effort required to make people linger for five seconds in order to be entertained and informed is too much. How can a person get excited without interacting? If only reading were interactive.

If you want to make ads interactive, don’t do it for the technology, do it for the idea.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.