August 3, 2006Beware generic brand names |
|
Like pets.com, business.com, computers.com or let's say agency.com.
That's why differentiation is so important...
By now (as in the past 18 hours or so), you must have been living underneath a rock (as I almost way) if you haven't heard about Agency.com's self-proclaimed risky and differentiated stunt of uploading their Subway pitch video (per brief) to YouTube (not per brief) in order to demonstrate their proficiency with respect to viral. As of this morning, the video has been viewed 19,000 times...
The question is whether this will be looked at as an act of genius or complete stupidity and either way, whether it's fair to judge this solely on whether ADC gets the business or not.
- As of this morning, the AdRants post had generated 67 comments (mostly negative I might ad, including the original post).
- It's already generated a spoof from Coudal Partners (who are currently pitching Arby's...you'll see why when you watch their video.)
- I've already spoken to a trade reporter about the incident.
- Seth and I will discuss this on the next episode of ATS
Karl Long supports the effort; what about you?
SPONSORSHIPJaffe Juice – brings a fresh new marketing perspective and commentary from industry thought leader and author Joseph Jaffe. Click here to find out more about sponsorship opportunities. Jaffe Juice continues below... |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/307546/5581963
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Beware generic brand names:
» Agency.com Pitches Subway For All To See from Twist Image - Mitch Joel Blog - Marketing and Communication Insights
To earn the Subway Restaurant interactive marketing account, Agency.com (along with a slew of other agencies) was asked to produce a five-minute video pitch. Agency.com played along, but added a twist. Instead of sending the video over to Subway HQ,... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 3, 2006 9:27:00 PM
» Agent from Agent
By Aileen Gallagher, January 4, 2006 University of MemphisA solo agent has her eye out for mysteries and loves smaller ... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 16, 2006 7:54:04 AM
Comments
Joe,
Of course I blogged about this several times already ;)
I don't share the same view as Karl. I don't think this is a debate about it being viral or not. It's viral, the video has been viewed thousands of times. End of debate.
But is it good? If something is viral, does that automatically make it good? I liked the idea. I feel it fell short on execution. Let's be honest. The only audience who cares about this will be industry people like us and maybe some potential clients. Not the average Joe.
Unlike Coke/Mentos, this video is not a mass appeal effort. So I give it high marks for them having the balls to do it. But in the end, I feel like it's a bunch of Ad people hamming it up in front of the camera.
I have no predictions on how this will turn out for agency.com, but in my gut—I just feel the whole effort could have been better executed. More real, less acting. And maybe even getting some real customer insights out of the whole thing. Imagine that.
Posted by: David Armano
I fall into the "average joe" category.. this isn't my field of expertise. But I didn't like the video. There wasn't the air of professionalism with the video that I would have expected from a company trying to gain Subway's business. I think it could be a good idea, but wasn't well-executed. Reminded me of a losing team on "The Apprentice"... This agency should have been able to pull together something more professional.
Posted by: Amy
Well Agency.com seems to be claiming that it was all done in parody, and was all a send up targeted to the ad industry.
http://whenwerollwerollbig.com/the-reason/
"Let’s just say we wanted to prove how we could reach our target audience at the lowest possible cost. That audience was the ad industry, and the cost was nothing. You do the math."
I think the truth is somewhere in between, and they have shown they can react to it, they have certainly been listeing, look at all the bookmarks in delicious tagged "subwayrfi" http://del.icio.us/neonarcade/subwayrfi
Anyway, my main reason for applauding them was for not being scared and doing something risky.
The point about execution is important, and the fact that agency business models are designed to make money of the execution is a problem. Execution in the social media space costs peanuts, blogs, podcasts, viral videos are all pretty cheap to make, it's the ideas that agencies need to start selling and its ideas that clients need to start buying.
Ford Bold Moves failed in this arena, and yet their movies were polished, they met the "client communication" goals i'm sure, but they lacked the surprise that makes something remarkable, or viral.
The coke show quietly failed, not through lack of execution, it was beautifully crafted, but it did not spark any participation (it launched with 14 videos and now has 10). If anything it was too polished, too well designed, but it failed to engage the imagination of potential participants who were all on youtube and not at coke.com
Posted by: Karl Long
Karl,
I'm busting you for copying and pasting! ;)
Let's start here since I am part of the intended audience that they admit to:
"targeted to the ad industry."
And I thought the video made them look like an old traditional agency trying to be clever. The staffer harassing the Orthodox Jew at the end "are you allowed to speak to women?" was the final nail for me.
Was that polished? No. But it wasn't funny. Wasn't clever. And was actually borderline offensive.
I still give them props for the guts. But it just came off all bad. And execution has nothing to do with making something beautiful. It's about making something people want.
Posted by: David Armano
There's such a thing as trying too hard - these guys fell into that trap. They just ended up looking like a bunch of pretentious dorks in the end. A classic case of what happens when people try to use the Net for the wrong reasons - proffit rather than enlightenment? Jesus Christ! I must be reading too much Christopher Locke lately...
Posted by: Mark Lauter
Agency.com's YouTube video effort achieved the effect they were looking for: generate some buzz for the sleepy Agency.com brand.
Negative or positive; they've generated tons of buzz for them and the industry - which I think is great. This video has single handedly galvanized the industry by generating all sorts of conversation across the web about the nature of the video, and the meaning of viral and social media.
The content of the video is questionable. They may feel vindicated if they win the business, but in doing so, Subway would find themselves under scrutiny from our community. Undoubtedly, we'd be asking Subway, "why?"
Posted by: Scott Weisbrod
The new agency blackmail: threaten to upload all your agency's old pitch videos to YouTube.
I can't imagine that this is really the response agency.com wanted. Reading the comments, it would be hard to imagine any human thinking, "oh yeah, this is GREAT!" Beyond the Coudal viral there's another, even more negative. Intentional? I don't buy it.
Whether this is what they wanted or not, however, the whole incident left a bad taste in my mouth.
When does the "conversation" end and "school-yard crap" begin? So many people who left comments (both good and bad) didn't bother with leaving legitimate contact info. People didn't choose to stand behind their words. I think that's gutless. Some might say ADC got what they deserved. However, I'm left wondering if bloggers shouldn't demand transparency from comments, positive and negative, as well.
Posted by: American Copywriter
I submit that the rubicon for becoming a "new agency" is shedding the egotism. The stroll down the hall of awards, the corner office bit; not at all charming. The "viral" juice of this thing is its grotesque self-aggrandizement. Which, to my mind, is *the* halmark of the old agency.
Posted by: Eliot Frick
Bottom Line: The video is getting play because it's so freaking awful. On so many levels.
And no amount of "ummm, we really just meant it as a spoof" from ADC is going to slow down the spin train on this. Can't tell you how many emails/phone calls/hallway convos I've had to tell me to check out what fools they made of themselves.
What's worse is it just confirms all the stereotypes general agency guys have about interactive shops: that they're a bunch of hacks who couldn't make it in a "real agency," that they have no business being in the ad game, no idea what they're doing and that they're going to be displaced by general agency creatives "as soon as you can put TV commercials on broadband"
As for people not giving their real names, American Copywriter-- why would they? It's a small business, you might be working for the people you're dissing and many agencies don't take kindly to their employees offering public opinions on the weather, let alone other agencies ad campaigns. Especially if the other agency is owned by the same holding company.
Posted by: Alex Cross
Oh, I get that Alex. And people are entitled to their opinions. I'm not saying people need to give real names. Just real contact info so dialogue can be continued. An employer can't tell much from a gmail address. The point is that people are using total anonimity as a shield. Saying things they can't see fit standing behind. Bloggers are called to be "transparent." I am beginning to wonder when that same transparency should be required of those who want to join the conversation.
Posted by: American Copywriter
If they win the business great. If they don't, they gave it a go. So, they still win. Nothing is more tiresome than someone without the balls to take a risk, pointing the critical finger...except perhaps the buttoned up, cynical, too cool for school ad person pointing their risk averse finger.
They clearly want the business enough to throw a new idea at it rather than a collection of besuited zombies who only come alive on pitch day to spin comforting rubbish for cash.
Adding theatre to a pitch is always a risk. It's usually poor in the execution but the smart client recognises the passion and courage necessary to take the risk and do something different.
The smart client isn't expecting Robert De Niro doing a cameo in the Cirque du Soleil.
The smart client knows that the passion can translate into great work when they get back to their specialist subject.
The smart client knows that those who play safe in a pitch are the biggest risk of all.
There are not enough smart clients.
How smart are Subway?
Posted by: Ross Cairns
AC: How many general agency creatives who read Adfreak actually have a yahoo or hotmail account? One that doesn't read john_david_smith@yahoo.com or some variation of their name?
That's why they don't put email addresses on their comments.
Posted by: Alex Cross
propecia generic as
Posted by: generic discount propecia
