« ESPN/ABC airs trippy ads for X Games 12 | Main | There’s nothing regular about Activia’s ads »

Agency.com posts Subway pitch video online As part of its bid for Subway’s interactive account, Agency.com says it was asked for a five-minute video of its executive team. Instead, they made this nine-minute video of themselves learning about Subway’s business and posted it to YouTube. They interview people on the street. They say things like, “If we roll, we roll big.” They even work at a local Subway restaurant. (“Nobody got hurt. Nobody got fired. So I think it went pretty well,” says one team member.) Which is all fine, as pitch materials go. But they keep referring to the video as a “viral,” when in fact there’s nothing viral about it. It might be somewhat compelling viewing for Subway executives and/or immediate family members of the agency team, and of passing interest to people in the business. Beyond that, the chances of anyone passing this video around are slim indeed. Can we stop referring to anything that’s posted online as “viral”? —Posted by Tim Nudd

August 1, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c51c053ef00d8342985e653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Agency.com posts Subway pitch video online :

» Note to agency.com: It's Not About You from Fresh Glue
A mind-blowing, very public example of how not to reach an audience — a lesson for both agency types and people who hire them: it's not about you. In what promises to go down as a very public humiliation for [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 1, 2006 6:58:39 PM

» Agency.com's Subway pitch from Rakeman
Agency.com's video about their Subway pitch. The initial brief was to submit a five minute video of the management team. Instead (or on top of that) they posted a nine minute video about the pitch team and pitch process... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 2, 2006 5:41:34 AM

» Agency.com's extra cheesy pitch video to Subway g from Beyond PR
I came across this story through Steve’s bellicose posting. I started to write a contrarian post to defend Agency.com’s much mocked-after video pitch to Subway, diligently posted on Youtube for the world and its viruses to enjoy. However, after readi... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 3, 2006 1:11:22 PM

» When We Roll We Roll Big … from Profitable Signals
Yesterday, I read a post on Steve Rubel’s Blog Micro Persuasion about Agency.com’s pitch video for Subway they released on You Tube. It has launched quite a debate on his blog and other like Ad Freak. The interesting thing is most conversation see... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 4, 2006 8:56:04 AM

» "When we roll, we roll big" from the fruits of imagination
So by now you've probably all seen the Agency.com Subway pitch fiasco from this week. If not, you really should check it out. I would have posted this sooner but I've been trying to stop laughing. The story so far (this all happened in the last 4 days)... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 5, 2006 11:21:55 AM

» Coudal's Viral Infection from Screenhead
The ever-good Couldal.com has fun with a response to Agency.com's recent self-indulgent and wee bit clueless stab at nailing Subway restaurant’s interactive account. "Recently Michele posted a link to... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 7, 2006 7:39:33 AM

» ambien from ambien
[Read More]

Tracked on Aug 9, 2006 11:48:15 PM

» Joe Jaffe Rides to Maine And Back In Adrants' Ear from Adrants
Since we were so far behind in listening to American Copywriter and Joe Jaffe's Across the Sound, we took the opportunity to catch up on the long drive to Maine this weekend to catch the Annual Lobstermen's Daughters Bait... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 13, 2006 5:34:17 PM

» Joe Jaffe Rides to Maine And Back In Adrants' Ear from Adrants
Since we were so far behind in listening to American Copywriter and Joe Jaffe's Across the Sound, we took the opportunity to catch up on the long drive to Maine this weekend to catch the Annual Lobstermen's Daughters Bait... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 14, 2006 10:50:04 AM

» Quick! Name an interactive ad agency! from Marketing News
Did you think agency.com? Then its 9-plus minutes of much-maligned video on YouTube.com has not been wasted. If you've been under the proverbial marketing rock for the last month, just type "agency.com" into Google "news" for an update on the... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 30, 2006 5:25:36 PM

» Quick! Name an interactive ad agency! from Marketing News
Did you think agency.com? Then its 9-plus minutes of much-maligned video on YouTube.com has not been wasted. If you've been under the proverbial marketing rock for the last month, just type "agency.com" into Google "news" for an update on the... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 30, 2006 5:35:14 PM

Comments

Yes - let's.

Subway wanted five minutes and instead they gave them nine? Whoops. Rolling big indeed. Subway might expect them to exceed budget too.

Posted by: Jetpacks | Aug 1, 2006 9:54:28 AM

Viral. I hate that word. Clients are constantly asking for something 'viral' and it's a phrase that only Account Executives seem to use, liberally peppering every paragraph with it.

Viral = Excellent creative. That's all.

As for Agency.com ignoring the client brief, they should be shot. Now that really would be viral.

Posted by: | Aug 1, 2006 10:23:41 AM

Okay, so I watched it and I still can't seem to see what would be viral about this video?

At best it's a business presentation for Agency.com. At worst is indulgent and crass. Or is that the other way around?

What worries me most is that these nine minutes were the 'best' our of the "18 hours of footage" that was shot.

WARNING: You won't get those 9 minutes back. Really not worth watching. It really isn't.

Posted by: | Aug 1, 2006 10:36:25 AM

Not viral in the least. Posting it here on Ad Freak is about as viral as it will get - and then stop dead. I'm certianly not passing this to anyone or suggesting they watch it.

Should've listened to above comment.

Posted by: Yardbird | Aug 1, 2006 11:37:18 AM

I'm sure all their competitors will be relieved to see Agency.com, once the cutting-edge darlings of the dot com era, produce the kind of video that could have easily come out of a small agency in Boise, Idaho five years ago. Maybe next time they could recreate the buzz they had from 1997 rather than the phone conversations they had last week.

Posted by: Jarret | Aug 1, 2006 11:39:10 AM

Agencies have been doing this type of exercise for many years now - to demonstrate how 'deeply' they dive into a clients business. It seems to me they satisfied the brief, and went the extra mile in an attempt to differentiate.

Will it be heavily viewed outside of the groups someone listed above, no. Was that the expectation, I highly doubt it.

You can be sure that, if they win, their creative team knows that to differentiate in the consumer Web environment, they're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than a video about their internal creative development process.

Good luck.

Posted by: pgd | Aug 1, 2006 11:40:02 AM

Okay, let's get this straight once and for all. Just because it is online does not mean it is "viral". Every time I hear someone use that term and others like, "intergrated" and new media opportunties" I am sickened a little more. This business is about IDEAS not delivery devices. Sure, there are new possibilities thanks to the web, but you still need CONCEPTS.

There should be a rule that if you can't explain the concept with a marker and a sheet of paper then you can't use any of the obove phrases. Let's just do some great ads. Get that part right and the "viral" will happen organically – like a virus...

Posted by: Crash | Aug 1, 2006 12:23:54 PM

A bit harsh on some of the above comments. Anyone who has ever had to do one of those pitch videos for new biz, knows that its a painful, awkward process. Its lame to stand in front of the camera, introduce the team and talk about why they are good at what they do. At least Agency.com seems to be having fun and enjoying it. That's gotta count for something.

Posted by: fowlmouth | Aug 1, 2006 12:27:11 PM

Doesn't the fact that you are all talking about it make it viral?

Posted by: InteractiveGuy | Aug 1, 2006 12:30:29 PM

You are all talking about it - so it is VIRAL.

Posted by: addarling | Aug 1, 2006 12:36:07 PM

DID THEY WIN THE BIZ????

Posted by: Matt Brand | Aug 1, 2006 12:46:06 PM

Believe the pitch is ongoing.

Posted by: Tim Nudd | Aug 1, 2006 12:47:54 PM

Who else is pitching this? Haven't heard anything about it until now.

Posted by: fowlmouth | Aug 1, 2006 12:55:06 PM

I can't wait to show this to my mom. I'm sure she'll forward it on to my Uncle, becuase they are such huge interactive advertising fans.

Posted by: Jimbo | Aug 1, 2006 12:57:45 PM

I wish their current clients can see how their agency completely stop working on their business as soon as they have a pitch coming in. This is shooting yourself in the foot. Trying to win new business but ending losing your existing clients.
Brilliant.

Posted by: jerome | Aug 1, 2006 1:00:16 PM

Say what you want about it, but you've gotta admit that its pretty ballsy to put your pitch out in the open. I disagree with some of the things they are preaching, but I respect that they are taking the chance and doing it.

Posted by: Frank the Tank | Aug 1, 2006 1:08:38 PM

Agency.com's "viral" pitch is definitely pushing the boundary of what can be considered viral. In terms of content, it's long and not really that funny. However, the idea of pitching in this manner is pretty cool, and love it or hate it, people- even if they're mostly from the ad community-are definitely talking, which means more press for Subway.

Posted by: dizzle | Aug 1, 2006 1:13:29 PM

It really funny how so many people who claim to know so much about everything interactive always are the ones posting comments in negative light. Are you really that offended that an Interactive Agency put out a video about a pitch with a client. The biggest complaint clients have had about agencies, is that they have disconnected with "people" and "consumers" and have focused more on awards. So good for them, you should be approached more by random strangers working on behalf of your brand..
Oh wait...you are offended, because you never realized why everyone else was getting ahead of you and doing more with thier lives..its simple really, they never claimed to know everything and now they dont have time for you. If its not viral, then explain what viral is, instead of bitching about it...

Posted by: Don Knots | Aug 1, 2006 1:18:58 PM

Amen

Posted by: addarling | Aug 1, 2006 1:57:07 PM

Agree - can blogs stop complaining about the word "viral". Who cares.

Correct, something being online doesn't make it viral. But the point of the video was for people to send it to each other - and a couple thousand people did that - so the video is viral. It worked. And some virals are better than others. What are you gonna do?

It's like if a movie studio talked about an unpcoming summer blockbuster, and then MovieFreak.com starts whining about "It's not a blockbuster until lots of people see it!! We're so, so mad!!!" Oh, you know what they meant.

And can we stop referring to this blog as "AdFreak". This blog is exactly like 500 other advertising blogs run by people who couldn't make it in the industry, so there's nothing really freakish about it.

Posted by: Phil | Aug 1, 2006 2:13:08 PM

This video is terrible. YouTube has entered the mainstream and is now shitty interactive agencies's horse to beat to death, much like subservient chicken was not so long ago. There's nothing creative or intersting about this. And the reason it's getting buzz is that it's so blatnatly bad. No wonder Agency.com imploded in the bubble.

Posted by: deathstar | Aug 1, 2006 2:23:47 PM

Memo to Don Knots: viral is organic and contagious. Madsion Avenue is not.

Posted by: Opie | Aug 1, 2006 2:26:17 PM

if it were great, i'd applaud it. it's not. too long. uninspired. and highly unfunny. the end with them watching the video is so tired it's sad. I agree that viral is an overused term. this is no big hucking chicken. but then, agency.com is no "big hucking" digital agency. let's all save some pixels and just move on. not worth this much communication. it sucks and that's that.

Posted by: cinnabar | Aug 1, 2006 2:32:23 PM

I agree Opie, Madison avenue is niether alive nor spreading anything worth catching that is for sure.. Its just rare that you see an agency interactive or not going out on to the streets to learn about a brand.. viral, organic, engine, blah blah blah.. sell brand and product, bottom line.

Posted by: Don Knots | Aug 1, 2006 2:54:24 PM

hmmm.

kudo's for trying to understand the clients base in an inventive way even though it looked like show and I don't think they really learned anything.

Boo for regurgitating the standard pitch info but in a video. Instead of reading the same ideas from other agencies this time the folks at Subway get to watch it.

another Boo for not following the RFP guides.

Kudo's for breaking out the spy cam.

Kudo's&Boo for giving all the other agencies an idea on what their up to.

Boo for the lack of Pirates in the video - Pirates are hot right now. But at least they didn't animate hand drawn type over the whole thing.

Posted by: subslayer | Aug 1, 2006 3:01:23 PM

Can you really trust senior art director with a fauxhawk.

FauxHawk + YouTube = A short ride on the Trend Express Line

Posted by: Nickle and Dime | Aug 1, 2006 3:07:42 PM

I love fauxhawk.

Posted by: Pee Can | Aug 1, 2006 4:19:59 PM

The music in that thing is fuckin' awesome.

Posted by: Tartcart | Aug 1, 2006 4:21:41 PM

What is it with agency types and their hate? The video isn't going to change the world but it is likable. Which is more than can be said for 99% of the smug, over-produced, self-referencial crap that Madison Avenue produces. And do those who declare that "it's all about the idea" really have any credibility? Really, where are these so-called ideas in advertising today? Wake up, no one cares about your commercials. No one. Seriously. Bravo Agency.com for a solid effort.

Posted by: captainjack | Aug 1, 2006 4:30:40 PM

"Oh wait...you are offended, because you never realized why everyone else was getting ahead of you and doing more with thier lives."
Ouch, agency.com comes back with a nasty reply.. seriously.. if you can't take criticism.. then don't post it to YouTube.... and most of all:

If you have to tell people that it's viral.. then chances are it's not viral.

i agree with the comments that it's too long, unoriginal, not funny, and pretty much leaves me wanting my 9 minutes back...

Posted by: brent | Aug 1, 2006 4:41:45 PM

Since when does the term "viral" equal "excellent creative"? You're fired.

Posted by: | Aug 1, 2006 4:45:27 PM

I don't know about any of you guys, but I'll take a Frank sandwich with a side of Adam. :)

Posted by: Supercake | Aug 1, 2006 4:46:30 PM

"Viral" equals "excellent creative"?

YouTube's top 100 most viewed videos:

58 are consumer created
31 are music videos
4 are commercial ads (Sony Balls, VW Pimp My Auto)
3 are commercial virals (2 identical Nike videos, 1 Nintendo)
2 are movie trailers
2 are Asian candid camera shows

Posted by: juniormint | Aug 1, 2006 5:02:53 PM

What you've got here is a Creative Director who needs to get his head out of that dark place that he thinks all his ideas come from. Bad move. Unfortunately for the folks at Agency.com (who are posting here as well, obviously) this is an undefendable embarassment.

Posted by: douggie | Aug 1, 2006 5:10:37 PM

OK, pat Agency.com on the back for being "different".

As stated about 1,000,000 times above, the term "viral" is becoming as cliche as "upside" has during the NBA draft. While this has CLEARLY created quite the conversation topic amongst those in the ad world, I cant see it going far beyond that.

While Subway may be impressed by the way Agency.com tried to understand their business thru a hands-on approach, I dont think they will find it to be a winner nor appreciate the extra 4 minutes outside the limits stated in the RFP.

Posted by: Sean | Aug 1, 2006 5:49:33 PM

I live in Argentina and I don't know if I would hire agency.com, but I sure want to try one of those sandwiches of Subway, they look great... yammy... & peace!

Posted by: rusomayer | Aug 1, 2006 6:23:57 PM

I eat babies.

Posted by: Baby Eater | Aug 1, 2006 6:39:48 PM

"And can we stop referring to this blog as "AdFreak". This blog is exactly like 500 other advertising blogs run by people who couldn't make it in the industry, so there's nothing really freakish about it."

Phil, it's the name of the blog. What do you want them to do? Change it just because you don't like the name. I can't speak for the writers of AdFreak but over at my place, Adrants, I have every right to bitch as much as I want after a successful 20 years doing the same shit we just saw in the agency.com video:-)

I'm glad I'm not doing that shit any more but it did pay the bills and it was a hell of a lot of fun. It doesn't make it right though.

We can blame all this and other self-indulgent ad folly on the person who invented the term "think outside the box." Why do we need to think outside the box when everybody else, including the consumers we're trying to reach with our crap are and have been living comfortably inside that box forever?

Posted by: Steve Hall | Aug 1, 2006 8:03:09 PM

The video is a piece of crap.

It was a waste of time and agency resources...probably what agency.com would squander away if they actually did get the Subway account.

Kevin Nichols

Posted by: Kevin Nichols | Aug 1, 2006 8:11:29 PM

Agency.com claims this is "viral success?"

Please.

As of now, Art Director Craig Ferrence's "sale" of his student spec work on ebay gained 2000 more views.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6626642598

If you can't even beat a single midlevel Art Director at viral self-promotion, you should shut yer big fat yap.

Posted by: Dean | Aug 1, 2006 8:14:47 PM

I wonder if anybody from Subway has read through these comments?

I wonder what impression that would leave. Would these comments alone make the video irrelevant?

Posted by: Slappy McGee | Aug 1, 2006 9:08:23 PM

Ugh.

It is pretty bad.

But anyone who's coming on here and getting all upset about it is roughly a million times more sad than this video could ever aspire to be.

Pitch videos are the worst. I've made a couple and there's a special place in hell for me because of them.

At least Agency.com's trying something a little different.

And funny enough, if it works, they'll actually receive more punishment than anyone on this blog could ever wish on them:

The Subway account.

Posted by: My Tattoos Are Interesting | Aug 1, 2006 10:04:59 PM

Guys lighten up ... I used to work there and no particular biases pro or con. I think this would have been fun to work on - something different. And as far as being off brief - it's not like a five minute executive video is some sort of real assignment - they want to get to know the agency and this will stand out.

On the other hand it is not "viral" unless they are simply posting on YouTube and not sending to Subway - which would be sort of risky. :)

And couldn't agree more about it not being that good. I like the try, but to an earlier post if this is the best 9 minutes out of 18 hours of video ... well they need some better creative talent.

But I think it reflects fine on the agency, a bit corny sure, but a bit of a different approach.

Posted by: Brad | Aug 1, 2006 11:25:16 PM

I actually feel badly for Subway - they didn't ask for any of this. Makes them look bad to even be associated with this video.

Posted by: | Aug 2, 2006 1:38:47 AM

it looks like people are taking to this ... they have "When we roll, We roll big" t-shirts for sale!

http://www.spreadshirt.net/shop.php?op=article&article_id=3404773#top

Posted by: | Aug 2, 2006 9:47:55 AM

To everyone.

Apparently all you people who are complaining about this not being a viral video don’t quite understand the meaning of “viral”. The mere fact that people are discussing this video effort, good or bad, had made it a successful viral video. Just because it is not going to reach very far outside of the agency circles does not make it a failed attempt at a viral video.

It has sparked conversation amongst my team and debate in the industry as well as a bunch of news and blog postings. Like it or not, this is how you generate a buzz about something. People need to take chances and come up with creative ways to do things in this industry. I have worked for a lot of different agencies, both private and public and I have seen many, many worse attempts at self promotion then this.

So I, for one, applaud the NY office. They set out to do something that would get people talking and they did just that. It seems unfair to blast agency for an attempt to do something different then the rest of the pack. Isn’t that the very foundation for which this industry was built on?

Posted by: Joshua | Aug 2, 2006 10:54:28 AM

it's nice to know that mediocre internet ad agencies have mediocre people who appreciate thier bad work.

Posted by: douggie | Aug 2, 2006 11:04:39 AM

boo hoo. stop pissing all over everything.

Posted by: | Aug 2, 2006 11:13:52 AM

So do you all really not get it?

Agency.com has a niche- they're interactive.
In order to prove how much they "get" the interactive arena, they went and posted their pitch video- which I have no doubt didn't look dramatically different from BBDO's pitch video- on YouTube.
Figuring, of course, that the Subway execs would be unsophisticated enough to think that Agency.com was demonstrating a cool new technology and would make them famous via real "viral" videos on YouTube. I'm sure the guys at Agency.com realize that this isn't a "viral video" in the true sense of the word. They just hoped the Subway client wouldn't figure that out.

Maybe.

I don't know the Subway client or their degree of sophistication. But I do know that every TV-centric agency in the world is busy shooting stuff that they can post on the web and call "viral." And that, like it or not, the BBDOs and Crispin Porters and WKs of the world do a much better job of filmmaking than the Agency.coms do. No matter where the film runs.

Posted by: Alex Cross | Aug 2, 2006 11:30:22 AM

who in here has a boner right now? be honest.

Posted by: steve | Aug 2, 2006 11:42:25 AM

To submit a comment, please click here.