AdFreak: Agency.com posts Subway pitch video online

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

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

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

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Message to Don Knots: we did this aeons ago, it was called VoxPop in those days. Or Market Research.

Posted by: | Aug 2, 2006 12:18:55 PM

I was set out to hate these guys for this lame attempt. but i found the creative directors endearing. so there. the video is crap, they shouldn't get the business, but i like them.

and PPS this video is viral, for ad people. it's like a snakes on the plane clip for our little ad community.

Posted by: | Aug 2, 2006 12:37:56 PM

Nikki and Colleen seems like hot hot hot creatives. it's cool they also dabble in planning.

Posted by: | Aug 2, 2006 12:41:27 PM

it's viral. i'd take whatever virus kate is willing to give.

Posted by: | Aug 2, 2006 12:59:49 PM

We make ads to sell people on useless crap they don't need. We're not rocket scientists. We're not Hollywood filmakers. And we're certianly not saving any lives.

Seriously people, lets do our jobs and get over it already. There IS life beyond advertising. And it's actually much more rewarding and exciting. Yes, it can be fun and creative. But take a step back already and realize that the only people that give two sh!ts about this stuff is... us.

Good lord.

Posted by: WeMakeAds | Aug 2, 2006 1:25:34 PM

How do we know this isn't a "mockumentry" type video about the process of making new biz videos?

Posted by: think | Aug 2, 2006 1:37:27 PM

I'm find the Creative Director pleasing to the eye.

Posted by: AngryPete | Aug 2, 2006 2:08:10 PM

"Trying something different" and "a different approach", common defenses it seems, are about as cliche as the usage of "viral" in this video.

Being different does not equate to quality, and this here, well, it certainly is "different."

Posted by: | Aug 2, 2006 2:29:17 PM

WOW. I watched the whole nine minutes thinking that this was some kind of big "meta" joke. A viral about making a viral about making a viral about how cheesy and homogenously awful ad people are. Even down to the cornball Sr AD with the faux-hawk and the Financial guy who doesn't get it. I'm sad to see that this is actually real. I'm also delighted that I recently quit the agency game in favor of never having to say things like "experiences not messages" again. Ungh. This viral is as bland as Subway's food.

Posted by: jamie | Aug 2, 2006 3:38:37 PM

http://www.coudal.com/unsolicited.php

An unsolicited response, in kind, to agency.com from Coudal Partners.

Posted by: SD | Aug 2, 2006 4:19:03 PM

normaly I don't post crap on youtube but these guys deserve it!

mine is really funny! will subway hire me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE0SsmAWI5k

enjoy!

Posted by: crashbanger13 | Aug 2, 2006 4:44:48 PM

dude. the benny hill mashup is hilarious. nice one crashbanger

Posted by: waka waka waka | Aug 2, 2006 5:24:34 PM

Hell, I'm thrilled that this might mean I don't have to see Jared anymore pitching crappy food.

Posted by: Fuzzygoats | Aug 3, 2006 3:38:22 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xVniodmKfY

Posted by: blonde ambitchin | Aug 3, 2006 5:10:35 AM

The sad thing here, I think, is that they missed the opportunity to do something really clever.

As it's been said - they missed the brief. Subway didn't want an adhoc webad that could potentially damage their brand - they wanted a video of the ad executives.

If they really wanted to show that they 'get' YouTube, they should have posted their executive team doing parodies of the webcam videos that predominate the online service.

And then, rather that announcing "hey - we're doing a viral ad!" - they could have quietly let a few people know what they've done, and seen if it truly was viral.

Posted by: Alexander Angelus | Aug 3, 2006 5:49:29 AM

What's with all the downers on excellent creative = viral. Surely the best stuff definitely gets sent around? That makes it viral. YouTube isn't about viral it's about video sharing! This Agency.com has only got to be termed 'viral' because it's infected so many lame brains commenting on here.

Posted by: | Aug 3, 2006 8:34:21 AM

Wow. I love this industry. There's nothing but geniuses that can take shots at everything somebody else comes up with. Where's the suggestions of how they could have done it better? Where are the "original ideas" that everyone keeps clamoring for? Where is a single shred of evidence that anyone whos spouts off can do one iota better? Nowhere.

Let's take a moment to grab a hold of our overblown egos, think about how this could have been done better, and share. Glass houses and rocks don't go well. And everybody needs to clean the pot and kettle.

I personally haven't put that much thought into how I would have done it - but give me a few and I'll try to put something together. Does anyone have a copy of the RFP that can paraphrase the requirements?

Posted by: ignacio burrito | Aug 3, 2006 8:56:58 AM

Great point. This thing was a way of getting through that horrible "chemistry" thing and I'd be amazed if the client wasn't impressed with their courage, commitment and sheer chutzpah. I hope they make the short-list.

Posted by: david brain | Aug 3, 2006 10:23:16 AM

Of all these posts, my favorite are the ones that are trying to make a case that agency.com took a committed, unique approach to the pitch by "going out and truly learning about the brand and its customers." It's called ETHNOGRAPHY. It is done every day in our business. It was done just last week by our interns for their summer project. Give me a break.
And I guarantee that every time someone on that video said "and it'll be viral" they weren't hoping a bunch of ad execs on adfreak were going to be arguing over how f'ing bad it was. Do all the people on this post who are saying "you're talking about it, so it's viral" willing to go to the subway client with that? Don’t think so.

Posted by: yes have some | Aug 3, 2006 10:51:41 AM

Know what iwas thinking. This would actually be good if it was done by a weiden or goodby.. So you could see their process. Agency.com is just a crap place and it's a lame video. Wish I could see goodby's comcast pitch vid

Posted by: n/a | Aug 3, 2006 12:41:48 PM

I'm not in advertising but I do know what I like. I didn't like this. Whether it's viral or not doesn't make a whit of difference to me.

There were just so many things about it that were either boring, uninspired or just plain bad: the reality-tv "confessional"-type moments, the cheesy alt-rock montage, the snide manner in which they treated their on-street interviewees (the hairdresser with the paunchy gut says Americans need a "subway diet", oh hahaha), the bullshit fake brainstorming discussions (remember, they mention the script that needed to be written).

And what was the message behind Lance first THROWING THE SUBWAY CUP IN THE TRASH, then going back and caressing it lovingly? Is this supposed to be some moment of clarity or something?

Overall, this is a great way of letting youtube viewers see just how artificial an agency can be.

I think it is viral, cause after seeing it, I feel a little sick.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 3, 2006 2:02:24 PM

think fresh

Posted by: there stands the glass | Aug 3, 2006 2:44:06 PM

They should have had Katie repeatedly flash the camera. Then we'd have a viral video on our hands.

Posted by: mrjulius | Aug 3, 2006 3:22:50 PM

To the people that say "IT IS VIRAL! See. Everyone is talking about it!"

1. Do you think that they intended for it to be viral because of how bad it is?

2. Do you think that Subway will be impressed with their ability to create viral content and think that this video demonstrates that they could create viral content for them?

Posted by: stephen griffin | Aug 3, 2006 3:52:17 PM

Also, masturbatory.

Posted by: stephen griffin | Aug 3, 2006 4:05:48 PM

Hahaha! Not viral? Look at all the posts on this page and elsewhere. It seems that the blogosphere can't talk enough about it.

Posted by: Jenny Roman | Aug 3, 2006 5:03:57 PM

So, arguing semantics:

Just because people talk about it doesn't make it "viral". If people talk about it, it's "buzz". "Buzz" isn't the same thing as "viral". If the President publicly declares that tomorrow is "Hail Canada" day, people will be talking about it. That's "buzz". If a video of it is placed on YouTube or Google Video, that's still "buzz".

It's "viral", however, if someone finds a video of the President in drag dancing the Macarena in his youth, high off an eightball, and people spread it because it's just so gol-darned weird.

For somethign to be "viral", it has to have a rampant, uncontrolled, pandemic-like transmission of things called "memes".

People send "viral" "memes" because it's cool, it's funny, it's interesting. It's why the Sony Bravia ads, or the Honda Cog/Rube Goldberg ad, or the Star Wars Kid, or Snakes on a Plane are all viral--the video, the meme, sells itself, as well as the product. It hooks the recipient, and because it's so wierd, it compels them to pass it on.

This video isn't that compelling; it doesn't sell itself. It's hardly "viral", but it is generating "buzz".

Also, to answer those of you who equate "viral" to "good creative", I refer you to other examples of viral memes: Yatta!, Tunak Tunak Tun, ZeroWing, Snakes on a Plane, or, one of the worst, Goatse. Just because something is "viral" doesn't make it "good", "creative", or "good creative". It just means that it's odd enough, strange enough, or funny enough to capture enough mindshare for that brief moment of an ADD-laden infosphere.

Finally, "viral" seems to have become one of those buzzwords by which you can identify those who are struggling to catch up to the cutting edge, used frequently by those who don't truly have a grasp of what it entails or even means. It falls now, alongside the words "paradigm shift", "Web 2.0", "engagement", and "social networking".

Posted by: marq hwang | Aug 3, 2006 5:04:52 PM

What's with all the downer comments on this page? The piece was creative enough to get the lot of you all talking about it. Most of the mean-sprited posts here are just vitriolic rantings from people pissed they didn't think of it first. Especially the mock video from Coudal Partners--don't you guys have actual work to do?

Posted by: Josh | Aug 3, 2006 5:11:04 PM

The piece is creative, I suppose. Yes, we are talking about it. Did I like it? Not really. Does it matter? Not particularly. Does it work? Beats me.

We're talking about it. People talk about alot of things on the internet. Just because people talk and bitch and moan about something, however, doesn't necessarily mean that that something is "creative".

That's "buzz", not "viral", which is what I'm arguing about--semantics. Which, admittedly, on internet arguments, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I'll be that scoundrel, however. When you start taking a buzzword or a concept and start using that term everywhere, it starts losing its meaning--and that's something that already seems to be happening to the whole concept of "viral marketing". Maybe that's the way it is, but I'll be damned if I don't throw in my two roubles and complain about it as it happens.

Posted by: marq hwang | Aug 3, 2006 5:17:37 PM

I got here from Metafilter, and have been a decision maker in a number of companies looking for ad content. I would have hired these guys in a second if they can back up their art with solid tracking numbers. Wow, only up 2 days and it has already filtered out the mainstream. For us non-as types, the ones with the money to spend, this hit home. I thought it was meant to be hokey enough to be made fun of (was that a banjo in there somewhere?), and thus, become a self-fulfilling viral prophesy. What a great freakin' job they did here--hope they land the client (who's current ad campaign featuring Jared is getting very stale).

Posted by: Keith | Aug 3, 2006 5:21:23 PM

Keith, Metafilter is hardly mainstream. Just so you know. :)

Posted by: marq hwang | Aug 3, 2006 5:32:28 PM

HOLY SHIT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkFitDdRzVU

Posted by: stevej | Aug 3, 2006 6:15:49 PM

Marq, well said. Very well said.
I have already printed and laminated your post to hand to each of my clients when they say "we want to do something viral!"

Posted by: yes have some | Aug 3, 2006 7:04:35 PM

Let me start off by saying that the Agency.com Creative Director is very fat.

Let me follow that by saying a Word Of Mouth marketing effort is only effective when that word is POSITIVE.

If success is just buzz, regardless that the buzz sounds alot like "what douchebags" and "self important crap" and "not funny at all," then New Coke was successful, as was Kevin Federline's music career, and Kevin Cosner's Waterworld.

*fart*

Posted by: Dean | Aug 3, 2006 7:20:43 PM

Btw, has anyone seen this site yet: http://www.whenwerollwerollbig.com ?

It was set up by Agency.com two days ago and it claims that "You are all talking about it, so it's working" !? ;-)

Posted by: Bjoern Ognibeni | Aug 3, 2006 7:57:43 PM

The joke is on us.

http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2006/08/joke-is-on-us.html

The fact that people are debating if this is viral is hilarious, btw.

Posted by: George Nimeh | Aug 3, 2006 9:51:58 PM

wow, my feet smell better. and i have poor hygene.

Posted by: me you | Aug 3, 2006 9:53:35 PM

"Good work on the Henry thing. But let’s see if we can’t "kick it up one more notch," to quote my favourite sitcom star. The Henry ad is annoying, sure, but it doesn’t inspire the sense of utter, cold-hearted hatred that I’m looking for.

Look, Jared was too sympathetic. People could feel for a guy trying to lose weight. And apparently no one wants to hate firefighters anymore, after last week. I’m not really sure what happened- coke bender, you know how it is. Still, my secretary tells me firefighters are golden right now.

North America is kind of pleasantly indifferent to us right now. That can’t stand. They have to either hate us or love us, and it’s a hell of a lot easier to make them hate us. Let’s make ‘em say "What the fucking fuck?" and throw things at the TV. And then come into Subway, because they can’t get us out of their tiny little chick pea-sized brains.

Make me happy or you’re fired, Randall Cunningham III, CEO, Subway LLC"

-- from: http://www.goldenwords.net/issues/article.php?id=3712-12

Posted by: optimus | Aug 3, 2006 9:54:28 PM

now someone's made this spoof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkFitDdRzVU

whoever said the real action is in the comments and beyond hit the nail on the head!

Posted by: amy | Aug 3, 2006 10:19:03 PM

I'm not in advertising. I'm in application development. I didn't really learn anything about the team at agency.com. Wouldn't that be the point. What I learned is that they wanted to be different, so they faked being different. It doesn't look natural to how they normally would operate. To an outsider looking in, they pretty much didn't complete the assignment, because they didn't make the viewer believe what their company is all about.

Posted by: Ryan | Aug 4, 2006 12:21:33 PM

Nice viral.

Posted by: fritz | Aug 4, 2006 1:38:47 PM

I know this is a late comment, and therefor probably will not have any merit, but allow me to say that anyone who believes that this was not viral...doesn't understand what viral means. There were 6,000 views of this video when I watched it...less then 24 hours later there were 17,000 views.

Posted by: rain | Aug 4, 2006 3:33:55 PM

*Did the New York office of agency.com just destroy the entire agency? There was mad buzz about Vanilla Ice and Milli Vanilli too.

**Isn't the really horrifying thing about this that it rings so true?

***Aren't there an abundance idiots and ego maniacs who hold the creative director title ?

To paraphrase Bill Bernbach: Nothing is more dangerous than a bad idea well executed.

Posted by: aiden_ma | Aug 4, 2006 3:37:51 PM

The question on this isn't whether it's viral. It's clearly viral because people are sending it around and talking about it. The real question should be whether it's good or not. And it's not. They don't seem to learn anything insighful about Subway, they prove that they don't really understand that viral doesn't mean successful and they come across like the cliches ad people are always protrayed as in the media. It's the equivalent of pulling down your pants in public and then claiming success because you got attention. Zinga!

Posted by: ohmygod | Aug 7, 2006 9:35:24 PM

The insouciance and earnestness of the agency aside, this strikes me less as advertising and more as brilliant PR - for Subway in its battle with franchisees - the real audience for this video, in my opinion, and the only Subway customer segment that really counts - Subway is doing just fine attracting hungry consumers.

"So you think corporate sucks at controlling advertising? Look what our agency did. Try that, you franchisees!"

Posted by: bobinorlando | Aug 8, 2006 10:20:46 AM

Is this even real? Are we all taking it too seriously? I can't help but wonder - was this entire idea pitched to Subway long before we ever saw it as a 'viral' campaign? Seems like they make a concerted effort to get the brand in there as often as possible. And they spend an awful lot of time showing the clean, sparkly store and fresh ingredients while conducting research.

I'm just sayin...

Posted by: eshea | Aug 8, 2006 5:06:49 PM

Wow! Now that's criticism. I have to say, yes. There's something really cool about being will to post your agency pitch online. And for those of you who read this blog who actually work in this business and can be considered the target audience, you're either jealous or you forgot last night's midnight stint printing out decks for a client meeting. I think they went above and beyond. Sure it was a little long, but it was engaging and took the pitch a step further by harnessing a new medium of delivery. If I were the Subway guys, I'd give strong consideration to hiring agency.com. There's a lot of good agencies out there, but the ones that take the risk are greatly rewarded...or I should say, their clients are greatly rewarded. Just my thoughts.

Posted by: Tim | Aug 9, 2006 12:16:19 PM

All the negative comments that are being posted here are bull shit! You're all knocking something that has worked. Lot's of stuff that you don't like actually works because 'normal people' can't be arsed having to think really hard to get it.
Wake up!

Posted by: Dave | Aug 10, 2006 1:26:33 AM

Tim, Dave: leave the advertising business as soon as possible. It's not working for you. It's just not a good fit. Do this immediately. You have just defended what will be known as one of the worst agency debacles of all time! None of the people critiquing this abortion of an idea are critiquing the intent or the "viral" delivery system. It’s because it was BAD CREATIVE!!! On about NINE THOUSAND levels. The intent of this video was to win the Subway account: would actually let those people have your account? If you can’t see that, leave, leave, leave: get out NOW. Please.

Posted by: Wes Covina | Aug 10, 2006 5:50:16 AM

I once had agency in to pitch for my business. That was ages ago. I wished they would have done something like this back then... it would have saved me having to go through the pain that turned out to be their presentation. The only good thingabout this video are the spoofs that are popping up:

http://www.coudal.com/unsolicited.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJyMEP_AGjQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkFitDdRzVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qJ2Gz0q984

Posted by: MarcusBrown | Aug 10, 2006 7:20:21 AM