Agency.com's YouTube Pitch is Lame

In a high risk strategy, Agency.com has posted a video of themselves preparing to pitch for Subway's interactive business. From the looks of it, this was not authorized by Subway. While I give Agency.com credit for having the guts to try something like this and others may disagree (just check out the discussion on Adfreak), I feel the move shows poor judgment on their part.

First of all, to put Subway's brand at risk like this at the expense of winning an account is a bad business decision. Agency.com is holding Subway's brand hostage for ransom. If I were the brand manager for Subway I would find this totally offensive. It's one thing when you encourage Subway customers post a video. That's called feedback. It's another when someone trying to pitch your business does so without your permission (at least it seems). That's called lame.

Second, the video is now getting mocked by others. Worse, bloggers are beating it to a pulp.

Finally, Agency.com didn't just hurt their reputation with Subway (at least that's my bet). They set their entire credibility in the social media space back eons and maybe did the same for other interactive agencies. Was it really worth it?

::Later: There have been lots of links to this post. It's quite a polarizing video. One person even says I lost my mind. Consider this though. The bar for Subway and whomever wins the word of mouth business has been set MUCH higher thanks to this stunt. "Get us more links than the Agency.com video" is what I would be telling my agency if I worked for Subway (but I don't).

::Even later: Agency.com crows about their stunt with an equally lame blog

Tags: subway, agency.com

Comments

[Ted]

I don't see how this puts Subway's brand at risk. The only brand at risk I see is agency.com. Personally, I think they look like a bunch of dorks trying to be cool which is exactly why Subway shouldn't hire them.

But, I don't think they do any harm to Subway by posting this.

[Nick Rice]

I don't disagree that it was risky. Agency.com now has footage of an interview process, a hopefully satirical look at how they handle new business and a lot of bloggers in the advertising industry badmouthing them.

But they also got the business.

Subway isn't a stupid organization. They've grown into one of the largest food chains on the planet. And I'll give them the benefit of the doubt by saying that I'm sure they've worked with enough agencies to know which is the best fit for the organizational goals.

Either way both Subway and Agency.com are getting a lot of free press about the pitch. There's no way think they could've predicted how buzz has been generated.

[Leo Bottary]

I think lame takes it a little far. I agree with some of what you said, but I think on balance we should applaud the risk. Agency.com probably figured that the only way it was going to differentiate itself from what I'm sure is formidable competition was to take a risk - probably a huge risk. Don't risk you lose, risk and lose, whatever; risk has put them in the game. I'm also not sure it matters what "most in the blogosphere" are thinking about this. If this served to raise their profile and help them connect with just a few key people equipped to hire them, then Agency.com is the big winner.

[Derek Tutschulte]

The really sad thing is that Subway might have never known the good from the bad. Thanks to the criticism voice in the 'sphere, they know now.

Also, Subway wins big here from all the great e-publicity. A demographic that never gets to see Subway advertising, now gets an affirmation of important they are.

[Steve]

How exactly did they hurt their credibility in the Social media space?? By proving they could make a fairly entertaining video, and get thousands watching it and talking about it?

Steve, you really seem to have a huge double standard. Only a couple of weeks ago you were trying to convince us that the amateur hair-swooshing during Amanda Congden's stint on Rocketboom qualified her as the next Katie Couric about to take the entertainment world by storm. Yet in my opinion this video surpasses anything Rocketboom has put out even on their best day. And I say that as someone who watched hundreds of video podcasts when I was writing reviews for PodGuide.TV.

You really believe most New Media companies are some chic, cool environment filled with geniuses? That's really not my experience - I worked at both digital consultancies and ad agencies, and this video struck me as a pretty honest, slightly tongue in cheek & clearly dramatized look at how pitches often happen.

Here's my suspicion - Agency.com may or may not get the Subway acct. Doesn't really matter, because I bet their new business guy has been busy fielding calls from multiple brands ever since. Brands who would relish this kind of disruption and the ability to generate dialog in their own marketing campaigns.

There's only one thing worse than being talked about and that's not being talked about.

[Andy]

Don't you think it was deliberate?

It's like "the Office" or Spike Jonze.

This is getting viral attention *because* it is lame - and people like to see smug people falling over.

Was it clever/the right thing to do for this pitch? No idea.

But I bet there are people (who might have dreamed of one day hiring Spike Jonze), who now might call Agency.

[karl long]

I think interactive agencies are in desperate trouble and are hanging onto banners, intersticials, and flash orgies for dear life. What agency did should be applauded, because the experimented and then they watched what happend. You can see my full response here: why the agency.com youtube subway pitch ruled

[Russell Page]

I totally disagree with you. Who gives a rats rear what bloggers are writing about.

20,000 people willing watched a commercial of people eating subway food.

I'll bet money Michael Deaver would say this as well. When he served as whitehouse spokesman under Reagan, he had one of the networks do a story on all the PR tactics the whitehouse used to create a good image. Jelly Beans, beers with the common man, etc...

The story was supposed to make them look bad, but Deaver let it happen because he knew that in their effort to do this, the visuals would win out, and the visuals were of Reagan doing everyday things with the people . . . eating jelly beans and having a beer at a Boston bar.

[Terry Heaton]

Steve, I think I disagree with you on this, although I'll admit that I'm not in the PR biz. Every spoof or blog reference or comic relief or news article only advances the virus that agency.com set free. If I was Subway, I'd wait a bit before passing judgment. After all, they did spell the name right.

[Mickeleh]

Here's what a brand manager might find offensive: agency.com borrowed design elements from the Subway brand identity to use in their title design (white and yellow font colors, swooping arrows). That's presumptuous. If you're Mad Magazine, Wacky Packages, SNL, or the Daily Show, you parody brand ID for a living. But if you're an agency looking for new business, you respect the investment that a client has made in building a brand identity and you don't get flippant and screw around with it on a first date.

[Stuart Bruce - BMA PR]

I don't see how it hurts Subway's reputation. On first impressions it damages agency.com reputation because they don't come across entirely well. But it doesn't matter. They've demonstrated they can create that buzz, they've boosted the Subway brand and got attention for themselves. If I was a marketing manager I wouldn't care that they don't look or sound hip. I want results so in the long-term I don't think they've damaged their own reputation either.

[Todd Zeigler]

I actually think this is a clever idea. The problem is that the video is really bad. It is neither funny nor a real behind the scenes look at how you put together a pitch. All of it is just really phony and forced.

[Angelo]

They got the second part right when they called it a 'viral experiment.' But as an agency, they should have known better than to show themselves in such poor light, if they wanted to impress a client into choosing their lab. What's so *creative* about working at the restaurant? Haven't agency people done it for years?

[Tom O'Leary]

Agency.com demonstrated their awareness of online advertising with the Pitch video - exactly what many accounts are looking for today as the shift from traditional to online channels grows.

Part of me agrees with others here in that "who cares what bloggers think". We are amoebas in a big ecosystem. What is the current stat for blog readership? 6 percent of the 1 Billion Internet users? But, influencers are influencers, and those who propagate a good viral campaign can also have a hand in making it a bad one. I'm somewhat surprised by the reaction in the blogosphere, because bloggers are generally early adopters on the Internet and I would think that they would applaud innovation of this kind, understanding the value of viral marketing/advertising.

All the best

Tom

[Bjoern Ognibeni]

Has anyone seen this site yet: http://www.whenwerollwerollbig.com ?

It belongs to Agency.com and it claims that "You are all talking about it, so it's working" !? Was the clip a stupid mistake or a deliberate provocation to get people buzz about Agency.com!? I don't know.

But I think, I do know that Agency.com won't like what they (or potential future clients) see, when they google their company's name in a few days...

[Shel Holtz]

What bothers me most about this post is the sweeping generalizations -- that Agency.com is getting beaten to a pulp and mocked by others. I've spent hours reading posts and comments, and while they take both sides, I've definitely read more that like what Agency.com did than not. Just look at the comment thread to this post -- every one to greater or lesser degrees endorsing Agency.com's approach. If you're going to say they're getting mocked and hammered, it's only right to note that they're also getting praised.

[Steve Rubel]

Shel, while there was some balance lots of bloggers took it to task. See this post for the round-up.

All, here's how Subway gets hurt...

1) This childish stunt ends up in Google for searches for Subway when it could have been avoided

2) When they're ready to launch something that's consistent with their brand they have a higher success bar thanks to the dopey agency that decided to capitalize on their brand

3) Subway is now (hopefully temporarily) associated with cheapo content that sucks.

End of story.

[Daniel R]

Steve,

Great post. Maybe have been critical of the content, but not of the idea and delivery. I think the content was supposed to be cheesy, so I dont understand all the criticisms on that.

My question is: Did Agency.com have Subway's permission to release the video with their brand and logo?

Agency.com states: "When Subway called us with a Request for Information and the option of submitting a video, we snapped."

So did they get permission or not? Hopefully, we'll hear from Subway on this.

[Mike Abundo]

My biggest beef with this video is that it isn't even funny.

[Tom O'Leary]

Steve, is having a higher success bar something bad? Hopefully, we all have loftier goals with each campaign.

Also, having a high rank in Google isn't a bad thing. I doubt that too many people search for Subway looking for quality content, publications, etc. Subway is fast food. Fast food is fun. Or it used to be. McDonalds has a clown. Burger King has a King. I think that by protecting the brand too seriously by being over-cautious would do more harm in their market than not.

Mike - a viral campaign doesn't have to be funny. I found this piece more interesting than funny. Just how they put it together. Of course, humor is the most viral content, being spread faster and more often than other types of content. But the viral nature of something isn't driving soley by the level of humor. In this case, it was the uniqueness of watching a reality-style pitch to an account. An inside view (albeit staged).

All the best

Tom

[Tom O'Leary]

Besides, does everyone here think that the Mentos/Diet Coke stunt tarnished either of their reputations or brands? Of course not. The experiments were cheesy and often amateurish. But that's what we like today. Real people telling us real stories. Not taking themselves too seriously, unless, perhaps, you are a financial institution. The old corporate polished plug is old-school and stale. Kudos to Agency.com for stirring the pot.

All the best

Tom

[Jeremy Pepper]

Wait, in the past you did applaud agencies that went a little underground and posted videos. There was that agency in Canada that did ads for beer, that you loved and apploauded ... and that wasn't even a response to an RFP.

Or, well, the Nike ads from your former podcasting partner. Those were not approved by Nike, but you loved them to the point of embarassment. Should Nike have been pissed, and thought it was hurting the brand.

This post smells more of jealousy. It's cheesy, yes. It's not that great, yes. But, it's getting buzz for both companies - and isn't that what you recommend to everyone out there, to use the blogosphere, MySpace, YouTube to get that buzz - either astroturf or real.

[Marketing Headhunter.com]

Tie goes to the runner: If people can't decide whether Agency.com won or lost street credibility, then they won. Moreover, I read above that Agency.com won the actual Subway business. If that's the case, then their success speaks for itself.

[Herb]

2 cents from the sidelines -

Here is what I think most people missed –

This video was not “THE” pitch, it was part of a pitch. Agency.com wanted to show that they understood how to create buzz/viral/whatever to a relevant audience. Instead of doing another power point presentation with lots of interesting stats they went and did an instant case study. I’m guessing that for all those who thought this video was the real “get to know the agency, this is our process” are all starting to get seriously laughed at.

In my opinion I thought they did an excellent job. They demonstrated, not talked about, that they understood how to effect a target audience. They created a relevant and contextual piece that stirred up their audience for very little dollars.

In the end, a bar has been raised. And we’ll see who really “got it” and who is just full of hot air.

[Shel Holtz]

Steve, your round-up had very few posts in it. As I said, I spent a couple hours -- too much time, in fact -- reading blog posts from marketers and PR people, and it was close to even pro and con, weighted a little more toward the favorable side.

And what do you mean, "end of story?" Are you closing off comments?

[Steve Rubel]

Shel, just a figure of speech. I don't close comments off.

[Rob Skinner]

Struck me as a self-obsessed agency posting a 'dull day at the office' home movie. I can't help thinking that they agreed its release with Subway, though.

[Rob Skinner]

Struck me as a self-obsessed agency posting a 'dull day at the office' home movie. I can't help thinking that they agreed its release with Subway, though.