Aug 2, 2006
How Agency.com Pitched Subway Via YouTube
Agency.com get’s my vote of “agency of the month” for what they have done here. This is a viral video of Agency.com pitching subway.
It’s been viewed almost 10,000 times in the last 3 days here’s the location on youtube
For all the snark that bloggers send agencies way, this one deserves massive kudos, and I mean huge. They’re not claiming to know everything, but they are experimenting at the edges, and guess what, that’s what agencies should be doing. Talk about transparency, they even have outtakes posted.
UPDATE:
a hysterical response from Coudal Partners, not on youtube but you can watch the video on their site:
Now there’s a T-shirt inspired by the spot, wtf?
26 Comments, Comment or Ping
Scott Weisbrod
I like your perspective on this. I commented, on my blog, that Agency.com hasn’t necessarily connected all the dots, but this effort it true to the spirit of “put it out there”. If its got legs, it’ll run, even if the idea is only half-baked. There’s a certain fearlessness involved in exposing themselves to ridicule and cheers.
Aug 2nd, 2006
Scott Weisbrod
Coudal Partners respond:
http://www.coudal.com/unsolicited.php
Aug 2nd, 2006
karl long
Oh no he didn’t, that was so awsome
LMAO
Talk about authentic, I have to agree with him, much as subway prints money, the sandwiches do suck. Which begs the question, why wouldn’t subway hire coudal? They are clearly the agency with a more realistic view of the subway brand, and therefore could do the most for it, no?
K
Aug 2nd, 2006
Matthew
I don’t know if Agency.com has connected any of the dots.
It’s not viral if you have to call it viral…
Aug 2nd, 2006
Paul McEnany
Matt - But it is viral if people talk about it and pass it along…
I understand that the video was a little stereotypical and a little ridiculous, but it definitely showed some balls. They get some points in my book, as well.
P
Aug 2nd, 2006
Matthew
Paul, but that’s exactly my point.
The people who consume the content can make it viral by interacting with it in a certain manner - usually sharing it because they feel compelled to share it. The people who create the content cannot make it viral just by suggesting that it will be viral. Posting something on YouTube does not make it viral, even if people talk about it. Viral marketing is subtle and compelling, and makes individuals into advocates of the viral content.
I agree that Agency.com showed some balls. But they also showed that while they may have understood that they can get people talking about their work, they don’t understand the nature of the beast enough to guarantee specific (ie, positive) results. The feedback so far seems to be mixed. Some are haters, and some are impressed, but they are all talking about the wrong thing.
If Agency.com was framing this as a pitch, they missed some key pieces. Their experiment didn’t show Subway that they (Agency.com) could effectively use viral marketing to build Subway’s brand. All of the discussion surrounding the video is centering on Agency.com. The fact that the client is Subway is lost in the mix. If Agency really wanted to impress Subway with their chops, they would have made Subway the star, and made everyone talk about Subway.
In addition to this, Agency.com didn didn’t really get in touch with Subway’s customers. Customer research is not chasing down random people on the street for soundbites. Where’s the insight? Where’s the focus on the relationship between the customer touchpoints across environment? How does the customer’s experience in the line at the sandwich shop relate to the same individual’s perception of the Subway brand on the web? I know that this was just a quick pitch and Agency.com only had a couple of hours to do the customer research, but they focused on cute at the expense of focus.
Froma 50,000 foot view, viral marketing always seems like a good idea. It’s the execution that’s the killer, and my opinion is that Agency.com hasn’t shown that they can deliver the goods with regards to viral marketing. They’ve shown that they can start a conversation, but they had it with the wrong individuals and couldn’t guide it in a positive direction.
Again, I agree that they’ve shown balls. It’s a big risk to try something like this, and I think it’s great that they’re tying new things. I can’t say they’ve done a good job, however - if they had, we’d be talking about Subway sandwiches right now and not Agency.com.
Aug 2nd, 2006
Christopher May
Agency.com’s attempt kind of reminds me of the guy who laugh at his own joke - and doesn’t tell the joke to make others laugh. I agree with what Matt was saying about missing the point of the pitch. This seems more like a publicity stunt then to truly address the challenges of subway. You could literally place any brand in their movie and still have practically the same result. How are they addressing the unique selling proposition for subway? I don’t get a sense of what business or user challenges they were trying to address - excluding the “look at us! we can do viral!”?
Aug 2nd, 2006
Scott Weisbrod
Matt/Chris - In defense of Agency.com, you, as well as commenters on countless other blogs (Adrants, AdFreak, etc.) may have missed the point.
This video is *supposed* to be about Agency.com; *not* Subway.
Agency.com wasn’t framing this video as a pitch. It was framed as a “get to know us” video, which Subway asked all of the agencies it shortlisted to provide (albeit, they asked for a 5 minute intro, not 9 minutes plus).
The questions you raise are good ones; but lets maksure we’ve framed our conversation properly!
If we’re going to judge the merits of the content, is it fair to base it on the above assumptions outlined above?
Aug 3rd, 2006
Paul Adams
Whether or not the video is ‘viral’ is academic. ‘Viral’ is a buzzword. The point is that a lot of people have seen it and there is a healthy debate.
Agency.com should be commended for putting the video out there and trying something new. Their aim was for it to spread, and to their credit, it has spread like wildfire. Unless Subway have their heads in the sand, they’re undoubtedly aware of this.
However, YouTube is only the carrier. The message is what is important. In this context, the video/campaign can be looked at in two ways:
* It is a stroke of comic genius - the highest level of satirical comedy and it will all come together in ‘Going to work for Subway: Part 2′
* It is a face value attempt to show Subway how ‘cool’ Agency.com is.
My gut feeling, and that of everyone I’ve spoken to about it, is that it is the latter. If so, the idea was good, the execution was terrible.
Ultimately, it is the content that will win/lose the Subway account and the content is poor. It is boring and cheesy at best, patronising and ignorant in places at worst. By jumping on the latest ‘buzz’ / ‘fad’ technology bandwagon to promote themselves, they have actually shown that they don’t understand the medium. Also, they project themselves as a hierarchical, reactionary organisation. There was no evidence of strategic thinking - just some footage of one of the worst ‘brainstorms’ I’ve seen. There must be a negative impact on the Agency.com brand?
There is no evidence anywhere in the 9 minutes of video that Agency.com can deliver insight and results to Subway. Their methodology to ‘understand the Subway business’ is fluffy:
* What about all the other customer-brand touchpoints?
* What motivates people to go to Subway in the first place? They would have learned more from sitting in Subway for a day and directly observing customer and staff behaviour. Research should not only take place behind the counter - it should take place in the world outside the Subway store (this doesn’t include asking random people meaningless questions like what sandwich Subway should do next) - it should start from when a potential customer begins to feel hungry - what are their needs, goals and expectations? Many of the insights are gained from understanding people’s behaviour before they have entered the doors of Subway.
* What about their competitors’ customer experience?
Finally, it does show that Agency.com couldn’t deliver a clear message and meet the 5 minute brief. They used almost double the time - with no clear message.
Or this is a stroke of comic genius and I’ll be proved wrong.
Aug 3rd, 2006
Rodrigo
I found it content free, totally lame.
The only thing I think it’s got going for it is that it is well-produced.
The questions agency.com ask people on the street are marginally funny (the hairdresser), pointless (asking church goers to pray) and potentially insulting (can the Hasidic Jew speak to women). They don’t show any customer insight.
The only source of ideas came from college students in Miami!
There is no indication of findings or ideas of how they might help Subway; let alone the approach. Agency.com doesn’t provide any evidence to the client that they understand and would be able to help Subway achieve it’s goals.
Aug 3rd, 2006
Matthew
Scott,
We’re shifting gears here, but I don’t feel that people are missing the point. Rather they’re questioning the point.
We all know that Agency.com did this as a “get to know us” video for the Subway Pitch. That’s fair…but why would you make it viral? There’s no added benefit to the pitch if it’s targeted at a few people (Subway execs) who are already easily reachable.
As a marketing piece for Agency.com, it’s pretty standard and forgettable navel-gazing. Which is fine as required self promotion. But Agency.com suggested that they were going to “make it viral”, and go above and beyond the average pitch video. In this respect, they’re underwhelming and missed the opportunities surrounding the viral concept. They could have demonstrated that they were really creative and gone well beyond the typical pitch. Instead they’ve just uploaded their video on YouTube and shown that they really underestimated the negative fallout they would receive. Agency.com lost an opportunity to really show Subway how they were different, and brought the conversation to a bunch of haters and apologists.
I hear your point, but I don’t think they should be defended by narrowing the context. They tried to go beyond the context of the pitch video guidelines in an attempt to show that they were creative and innovative, and I feel that this makes it perfectly legitimate to evaluate them in the broader context. I’m still going to give them two thumbs down. Yes, they went for broke, but in the end I don’t see this as a success - in your context, or mine.
Aug 3rd, 2006
Scott Weisbrod
Matt,
I agree with all of your points. As David Armano points out (http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2006/08/whats_the_big_e.html) this was a great idea gone bad by poor execution. As you’ve outlined above, they missed a huge opportunity to connect the dots to a much bigger picture rather than just uploading to YouTube.
My point, in my previous comment, was merely to make sure that we judge this effort as a success or failure within the appropriate context; that this video was intended to act as an introduction of Agency.com to the execs at Subway.
Aug 3rd, 2006
karl long
Wow, great comments guys, some are better and more thought through than my original post
I totally agree that brand experience, customer experience, and research basically fell by the wayside in this, and Agency.com. I personally hated the beginning with all the “corner office” ball swinging, and don’t think that put them in a good light. And some of the man on the street interviews were cringeinly awful… “are you allowed to speak to women” to the hassidic jew
But is it viral? i agree you can’t create something and dub it viral, in face agency.com previously fell at the first post with their non-viral “don’t read” campaign for Audible.com, (BTW we need a catchy name for things that aren’t viral, benign advertising? inoculated campaigns?). Anyway, it is viral, it’s viral because people are talking about, sending it around, and watching it 20,000 views since july 31st, that’s 10,000 yesterday since I posted.
Let me give you some insight why i think this is a big win, no matter what the fall out. In a world where agencies shit their pants at the idea of failure they tend to be more conservative than the companies that hire them. They cave to clients cost constraints, and totally skip the important “creative” bit at the begining and then waste a tonne of money on the execution. That being the cast Agency.com just did an experiment in the “fuzzy front end”, no money on the line, no deadline, just some ideas and some playtime.
Todays marketing and advertising environment is totally turned on its head, and now is the time for experimentation and prototyping. To succeed every agency needs to have about half a dozen cheap, experimental projects like that running all the time, and many need to fail, and fail fast. If you are not experimenting with social media then you are an observer and you will get fucked if your business is to understand it better.
Now i’m sure they do just have a couple of execs to deal with on a deal level, but what is the impact on the franchise system? It is one of the biggest franchises in the US so they have an awful lot of stakeholders, I wonder if a viral pitch is a way to gain recognition by an incredibly wide audience? If the two execs hated it but 20,000 franchise owners were all a “buzz” with it, would it sway opinion? A subversive pitch?
Anyway, thanks for all the conversation,
Karl
Aug 3rd, 2006
David
Excellent conversation here. Nicely done all of you and Karl for being such a great host.
My position on this is that it was a good idea poorly executed. I’m sorry Scott, I agree with you that this was about agency.com and not Subway but content matters.
The video came off as bunch of AD people acting along wit an inside joke that kept running to long.
My post here talks about the importance of Execution:
http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2006/08/whats_the_big_e.html
I think what we witnessed here is what agencies everywhere need to be careful of. Giving glory to a good big idea and letting the execution fall to shit.
Karl, I didn’t react as positively as you the first time I viewed, but initially I was enamored with the move. Then I watched it a second time and each time I watch it—it goes downhill. In my post I use the Pontiac Aztek analogy. First time I saw one I though “hey—that’s new. that’s bold”. Then I got a closer look and now I wince when I see one of those on the road.
Agencies should not be afraid to fail. And to try. And to experiment. Just learn from it.
Aug 3rd, 2006
Anthony Butler
‘Matt - But it is viral if people talk about it and pass it along…”
People are probably blogging and pasing along Mel Gibson content at the moment… Let’s agree that it’s not a positive if 20,000 people watch something and 18,000 of them decide you’re a bunch of total wankers… If I were the Subway client I don’t think agency.com would be on my short list. Beyond posting a video to youtube.com they revealed no insight on how new communications technologies might be used to advance the Subway brand or business. Just 7 minutes of self-congratulatory comments from various “VPs” on how ‘cool’ this was, and 2 minutes of unintentional commedy.
Aug 3rd, 2006
karl long
LMAO, nice one Anthony, I love it
Interestingly they are claiming on their blog that they did this deliberately, ie. acted like wankers so everyone would talk about them:
http://whenwerollwerollbig.com/the-reason/
In which case they are geniuses…. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between
K-)
Aug 3rd, 2006
Tom O'Leary
A successful viral campaign is only successful if it is viral with the target market. All this video shows is Agency.com’s ability to work the Internet. I’m sure that they could use the same process to create a viral piece for any demographics that Subway requests. As a pitch goes (and remember, that’s what this was, not an ad campaign,) I give it two thumbs up! Today, I’m sure that such a pitch would interest accounts more than a traditional boardroom presentation. Why? Because most accounts are trying to make the shift from traditional channels to the Internet.
All the best
Tom
Aug 3rd, 2006
Steve
Brilliant.
Any publicity is good publicity.
Aug 3rd, 2006
Steve
Hmm… an ad agency creating a (huge) buzz. And, how is that a bad thing?
Aug 3rd, 2006
Scamp
I thought the Agency.com video was fratty and dull but more importantly - the only people who are talking about it are people who work in advertising.
I think we can all agree that for creatives it’s all about the awards, so from that perspective they’ve certainly captured the attention of the right audience. But does this video represent an effective viral strategy for either the client (Subway) or the agency? Not if nobody outside of the advertising world is watching and quite frankly, I doubt they are.
People who work in advertising (myself included) forget that nobody outside of this business gives a shit about how it works. This is an interesting case study for ad geeks but in my opinion a miserable failure as an actual piece of marketing.
Aug 4th, 2006
Reply to “How Agency.com Pitched Subway Via YouTube”