Gettin' closer to your customers...or your ego?

Not sure how many of you have seen the Agency.com "viral" video created to help them win the Subway account and circulated to, well, supposedly it was circulated to show how close they are to the core of Subway's customers (it certainly showed they can make videos that go viral, dude).

I hesitated to post my issues with it because I support experimentation in this newest of new media--and I've no gripe with agency.com--but this blog is dedicated to getting closer to our markets and there's a lot we marketers can learn from this. First, here's the 10-minute video (for those who are receiving this on a feed, the video is here):

Now, here's the core lessons I take from this exercise:

#1: Oh Mr. Rockefeller can you spare a dime? One day working at a Subway sandwich shop does not place you intimately in touch with the core customer. Nowhere near. But nice job on making bread. Since you say your goal was to show how "immersed you are with the customer" then you might have chosen a location better reflective of Subway's core customer, not a shop located at Rockefeller Center--where the lunch crowd is comprised of the top 5% per-capita income of the nation. Guys, I too live in NYC. You could have hopped a real subway to, say, the Bronx and gotten a sandwich-making gig there...and perhaps gotten a real feel for the core customer.

#2: Meet you on the corner of Fifth Avenue & Myopia Blvd. Then you proudly showed us the Fifth Avenue sign and shots of St. Patrick's Cathedral. While I've never worked for Subway I'd bet good money that Subway's core customer segment does not live or work on the same avenue that hails such tony landmarks as Tiffany's and Cartier.

#3: It was about THEM, not you (...or was it?): You worked hard on the video, boasting 18 hours of footage cut down to 10 minutes. Why not make those 10 minutes really count? Instead of showing us 10 minutes of YOU--your logo, your corner offices, your logo again, your baking bread, your brainstorm process, your uploading the video to YouTube, your logo again--why not show 10 minutes of real customers, real insights?

Please marketers, when we set out to connect with our markets let's make good on it. And if we're going to circulate videos that advance our own agendas, let's make sure they advance the marketing community, too.

Here's the blog that Agency.com created to discuss the feedback. The name? WhenWeRollWeRollBig.com. No ego there. Alas, I guess big agencies win big press and, yet again, little customers lose.

Comments

[nvineberg]

First, I represented Agency.com on the PR side during a former stint at Golin/Harris. Having said that, I think the video was a brilliant move from their standpoint. You and 10,000 other people in the industry are talking about it. If Agency.com set out to create 'viral,' they did it. They obviously did this to promote themselves...they were trying to win the pitch. They were out to demonstrate that they could create viral.

LESSON: the new marketing is all about being non-traditional, non-conformist, and breaking all the rules is step 1.

I say give them props because they rose above the clutter and differentiated themselves. The nay sayers will be the ones sitting around the conference table saying, 'geez, I wish I'd thought of it.'

And whether or not they won the Subway account, they already won. Because the challenge of ad, PR and marketing agencies now is proving that we can function effectively with 'new' media. They just proved it.

Just my take.

[David Armano]

But CK, didn't you get the joke? This was all SATIRE. It had nothing to do with winning new business. They just wanted to open up a debate, and we are talking about this so it all worked.

Right. I've stated in other places including the Roll Big blog—my issues lie with the execution of that. Like you, I don't criticize the experimentation. But many of us have to live with the side effects. I worked with agency.com for six years, so my reputation is on the line too. And also, I think if some of the people I want to recruit who are hesitant to work at agencies. They are not Ad people. They would rather work at the Googles and Apple's of the world.

So when they see something like this, and they are on the fence about working for an agency, I fear it will tip them over and confirm their suspicions.

That said, I could be wrong on all of this and maybe it does the opposite. But every time I see that video, I get a "there's something just not right about this" feeling.

[Mack Collier]

"You and 10,000 other people in the industry are talking about it."

And at this point, that's the key. As I told David, I really don't see what the big deal here is, although I can see where David has a personal stake in this. Was it the best video I've ever seen? Of course not. But at least they took a chance, and tried. How many clients are going to say 'Oh yeah...and make it go viral!'. Of course this sets up Agency.com, for better or worse, as being able to say 'Hey we can do that!'.

Now back to the 'people in the industry are talking about this' idea. They are, but that's a double-edged sword, because at least half those people in the industry that ARE talking about this, are ripping it to shreds. Any time a client comes up to another agency and says 'And make it go viral....you know....like that Agency.com Subway video!', all that agency has to do is show them a Google search of industry 'experts' ripping the idea, then ask 'Are you SURE you want to be 'that guy'?'.

Now having said ALL of that.....if this video gets big enough to cross over and get MAINSTREAM exposure, then it's a home-run for Agency.com. But at this point, it seems that the buzz is cooling, and if this were going to get picked up by MSM, it would need to be hotter than ever right now, and I don't think that's the case.

So I guess they get an A for effort, a C+ for execution.

[Neil Vineberg]

Completely agree with Mack on the scoring. Another big success for Agency.com, however, is that this IS all about them...and not Subway. Yea, Subway got some promo benefit, but Agency.com is really what this story is about. Even with a crappy video....more props.

[CK]

Thanks, guys. Good points and POVs for me to digest. Yep, they sure did prove they could take a video viral -- and they certainly proved they can open a discussion. Moreover, they'll be credited for a long time on all the buzz they generated. I get that.

But is the message that we can create a video that's edgy/ballsy enough to get buzz, just for the sake of showing we can generate buzz? Or that we should be creating videos that advance better buzz practices? My bet is that many will run with the former (me focused). I'd like to see them run with the latter (WE focused).

Because video is such a new marketing and communications platform I'd like to see more videos setting positive platforms...not just buzz for the sake of buzz. That just clutters the channel and gets us even further from our customers--isn't getting closer to our customers the point of this new medium?

I will say that I'm happy we can hold the debate, that's what I love about this new medium. And for that, I give Agency.com props.

[vaspers the grate]

This rottenly boring, unimaginative, and totally pointless video is a wonderful example of What NOT To Do.

I hated it within seconds and my hostility toward all these lacklustre sandwich eating faces made me want to vomit, and I love Subway.

"They probably make more than we do here" that ditzy chick says, is about as offensive as you can get. A Subway sandwich artist makes about $7 an hour. An ad executive makes from, well you and I know what you guys make.

I worked at Grey Advertising on Madison Avenue in Manhattan, so I feel like I can speak about this ad agency video.

Don't let ad agencies do your video. Calling something "viral" is like calling it "best seller" or "top of mind choice" prior to it happening, and is just pathetic whimsical wishiness.

Nothing funny happens. Nothing smart is said. Nothing watchable. Nothing memorable. It reminds me of an Apprentice episode. "You're fired."

I hope all the Subway workers are angry at this wretched "I wanna go viral" piece of grinding mediocrity and visual fatigue.

It's an attempt to imitate the popular trends, but it is so empty of content, so predictable, so un-USP it stinks worse than even the most repulsive Hardys soft porn hamburger commercial.

No where do I see a reason to go to Subway or to this wanker agency for anything to eat or view.

[vaspers the grate]

I could do a two minute video with just me and a Subway sandwich, and get it done in under 3 minutes, no edits, no post production, no scripts, just a spontaneous reaction to their tripped out delicious tuna sub or any other magnificient taste bud bedazzling soft designer bread sandwiches.

Anyone could do a better "I wanna go viral" commercial for Subway, I'm not bragging about me, you try it at home.

Bite a sandwich, chew, swallow, then say the nicest, most original thing you can think of, upload it to YouTube, and there you go.

Not ad agencies anymore. Commericials from now on will be made directly by companies (CEOs mainly) and response videos by the customers themselves.

The new arena will be devoid of middlemen. Companies touching customers directly, humanly, intimately, and consumers reciprocating...spontaneous, unedited, real.

[David Reich]

Too often, like it seems in this case, it's about the execution rather than the message.

One campaign I couldn't figure out is American Airlines' "We know why you fly" series. Nice execution that tries to make you feel good, but nowhere is there any real info on WHY I should fly American -- good service, great rates, lots of flights and destinations, etc. But maybe the campaign is succeeding in putting butts into seats -- just not mine.

In the case of Agency.com, wouldn't it be great if one of your readers, ck, is from Subway and can tell us if the video really had an impact on their hiring decision.

[vaspers the grate]

"We'll do a video about doing a video as we do a video to do a video for a client who wants a video".

Pure Genius. And eating the client's sandwiches (which I adore, no kidding) too. How on earth did they think of that?

Twenty seconds into I it, I was looking for poison to swallow to kill myself, I was so tediously bored and angry.

[David Armano]

*Sigh,

I posted this comment over at Karl's Experience Curve.

http://blog.experiencecurve.com/archives/five-implications-for-the-social-media-agency-inspired-from-agencycom-youtube-pitch

While I don't normally do the 'ol cut and paste, this comment is probably the best summary of my thoughts on the subject matter:

...I’m going to provide a personal opinion on this whole thing in regards to a bigger issue which is the role of the agency in light of all things “2.0” for the lack of a better phrase.

Let’s start with the agency.com video. As I’ve said a few hundred times. High marks for idea—for the willingness to take a risk and try something new. Really, I give them serious props. But I also give them un-props for the video itself because they made a mockery of what an interactive agency can potentially offer.

So what can an interactive agency offer? Here is my theory. And again, this is personal opinion. Agencies and marketing firms need to become more like the innovative companies that provide amazing products and experiences. And we need to treat our own products (marketing efforts, sites, touch points, campaigns, etc) as just that—products. These products need to provide simply positive and valuable experiences to anyone who encounters them.

Take any agency who is in a “lull”—like Motorola was a couple of years ago. That agency should overhaul their creative dept like Moto did with their product design dept. and simply produce killer “products” just like Moto did with the breakthrough RAZR. One product that provided a desirable experience has transformed Moto. Take a look at their stock performance over the last 5 years:

http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote/Quote.aspx?ticker=MOT

The stock started performing again almost in sync with the release of the RAZR. Agencies, especially the ones that are more nimble, need to take a lesson from Trader Joe’s which turns the supermarket experience on it’s head. Small, intimate, easy to navigate, friendly, quality. From the easy atmosphere to the wonderfully architected checkout experience—Trader Joe’s is a delightful shopping alternative.

Agencies need to provide delightful marketing alternatives that work across an entire landscape which is changing almost daily.

So back to the agency.com video. Maybe this was an attempt to do something that had nothing to do with Subway. But if I’m Subway, then I’m looking at the competition around me. According to mister poll, Quizno’s has Subway beat in perception of being “better”

Quizno’s (62%)
Subway (38%)
(source: mister poll)

So if I am Subway, then my question is “How can the Social Media Network persuade those Quizno’s people to give Subway another try?”

Now assuming that the agency.com video had absolutely nothing to do with Subway, then as a marketing professional working on the creative side, I can only judge the effort based on idea and execution. Good idea. Bad execution. And being polished has nothing to do with it as the video needed to be more raw, more believable and more likable. The mentos viral video delighted me, it made me want to e-mail it for all the right reasons. The agency.com video didn’t.

That’s how I’ll end this. The role of any agency should be to provide delight. Not controversy. Trader Joe’s delights me. I enjoy WiFi at Panera. I experience product lust every time I see a RAZR. I enjoy the friendly service on Southwest. Make no mistake about it. Agencies actually have a product. We “produce” things. We MAKE things. AT the end of the day, both product and service are what agencnies provide.

Advermarketing needs to produce “marketing experiences” that people crave—just like any other company who wants their brand to be coveted. That’s where this all is going in my opinion. These marketing experiences can be polished. They can be raw. They can be user generated. They just have to be good. They don't even need to feel like marketing. They have to get people talking for the right reasons. Whenever I get a chance, I tell people about how great Trader Joe’s is because they provide me with an exceptional experience.

Advermarketing needs to provide great experiences that people will want to discuss, share, and take action upon.

[Adam Rakunas]

**And whether or not they won the Subway account, they already won. Because the challenge of ad, PR and marketing agencies now is proving that we can function effectively with 'new' media. They just proved it.**

Oh, bull and shit. This video and the follow-up site proved that Agency.com has no clue how to deal with the web. Like George Nimeh showed here:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2006/08/fool-me-once.html
...Agency.com didn't buy whenwerollbig.com until two days after their video hit YouTube. That whole blog was nothing but damage control to cover their asses for a failed "experiment" that bit back with a vengeance.

You want to use the "new" media (and, sweet mother of God, it's 2006; can we retire all this "new" and "so new" and "so really wicked hella new" garbage? It was annoying as hell in 1996, and it hasn't improved with age) effectively, then you use the web what it's good at: conversation. Collective smarts. Sharing ideas. And letting go. Agency.com shot themselves in both feet with an elephant gun and gave everyone the perfect template for What Not To Do Online.

What do you do? For starters, be funny. Be honest. Be aware. And, for God's sake, shave before you go on camera.

[karl long]

What a great conversation, and what incredible polarization, no ambivilance here :-)

In many ways I think focusing on the video is a bit of a red herring. What matters here is the "story" of how Agency.com created a viral video to try and win business, and that 50,000 people watched that video.

Clients and agencies alike are desperatly trying to figure out how to engage via social media, and the story around this video does a lot for Agency.com credability around that.

I'm baffled by the overall negative reaction to it. In the end companies like subway don't care if their agency acts like dickheads or not, what they want is to get people talking about subway, and hopefully in the door to eat a sandwich.

[RakDaddy]

Karl-

Whether it's the method or the message, Agency.com failed. Of the 50K people who saw the video, how many of them weren't ad/marketing/PR people? How many of them were average schmoes who watched and said, "Hey, that was funny as hell! I'm going to share this with my friends!" I'll be that number is abysmally low.

And the message? What did it say about Subway? What in that ad would make me want to eat one of their sandwiches? Nothing, especially after finding out that the rocket surgeons over at Agency.com were the ones laying on the mustard.

And, as I said before, Agency.com has completely flailed with the way they've handled the conversation. Their viral video has burnt out on Technorati, and the vast majority of the conversation has been this video was an unfunny waste of time. Agency.com has done nothing to engage their audience at their damage control blog; they've done nothing but put up more self-congratulatory, "look how everyone's talking about us" garbage.

You want to run a successful online campaign? Be brief, be memorable, and be ready. Agency.com failed all three.

By the way, you know who's been Subway's ad agency of the year for the past two years? These guys:
http://www.masonandmoon.com/subway.html
They're in Oklahoma City.

[David Armano]

"In the end companies like subway don't care if their agency acts like dickheads or not"

Karl, are you joking? Companies don't care if their agencies act like dickheads? That makes absolutely no sense. I've only been on the agency side for eight years, but I can tell you as fact that companies care how their agencies act. Especially when their name is involved.

I watched HP fire one of their ad agencies because they started a blog without getting formal approval from the appropriate people at HP (and the "blog" caught hell from real bloggers which set the whole thing off).

Why are we supposed to ignore the aweful content of that video? Most everyone I've seen who is defending it thinks the video was at the very least "cheesy".

"this video does a lot for Agency.com credability around that."

I think it's premature to say that this gives agency.com credibility. They've proven that they can generate mostly negative buzz. That's about it. Credibility comes with how they turn that buzz into something more positive. Here's a simple way to look at this. Agencies get remembered for their most talked about efforts. A few examples:

Goodby Silverstein = YOU + HP
Crispin Porter = Subserviant Chicken
R/GA = Nike ID

And currently agency.com = We Roll Big

Personally, I would rather be associated with Nike ID.

[CK]

Thanks to everyone. I've enjoyed the conversation at this blog, at the We Roll Big blog and a score of others. If you haven't checked out the comments at the We Roll Big blog, it's worth an hour to scan the comments and go to all sorts of interesting sites and meet enriching people from there.

In fact, I've come to the conclusion that I need to send a thank you note to Agency.com (should I send chocolates or hoagies?). Seriously, Agency.com's video...be it rooted in egos or viral experimentation...has given and/or confirmed a lot for me, including:

a. New colleagues: Whether we've agreed or not, I've met some interesting new folks and I hope this will be the first of many conversations (but on scads of other subjects meriting our attention).

b. Best practices: It showed me how NOT to produce a video (but I think I knew this already). So we'll say they confirmed it. 100-fold.

c. Bad practices: It showed me how NOT to launch a blog to open the discussion two days AFTER the video was uploaded.

d. Them not Us: Confirmed that when your goal is to connect with customers, connect with them.

e. Truth: Showed me how wonderfully self-policing the blogosphere really and truly STILL is (and will always be).

f. Good company: Showed how many marketers among have empowering agendas and our customers at heart.

And I'm serious about sending a thank you note to Agency.com. Good did come from this--many thanks for your comments.

[vaspers the grate]

I hope this also shows everyone the WORST aspect of this grinding mediocrity of a video: Tainting the Client.

I refer to it as the Subway video disaster. Not the Agency dot com video disaster. This horrid little ego video not only portrays the agency as clueless, unimaginative inepts, but it also brings Subway down with it.

It's not Subway's fault that these wankers made a video about making a video to try to land the Subway account. Subway can't control that. Or can they?

The big question in my mind is this: will companies start sueing agencies and consultants who do "wannbe viral" videos, post them on YouTube, and create a blog, to try to create a buzz.

People don't read very closely. Many will miss the point that Subway did NOT commission this video. Many will think it's an actual Subway authorized imitation of The Apprentice.

This is what Agency dot com and other wusses need to fear now.

[Karl Long]

Good comments, CK, David, and Vaspers.

First off, I'm quite clear on the fact that subway did not commision this video.

And David, your quite right to call me on the "companies don't care if agencies are dickheads" clearly they do. The point I was trying to get at is that the actual video itself, will fade into the background and what will emerge is the story and the myth around the video. I believe that the story and the myth surrounding the video will be better for Agecy.com than the actual video. I think we care more about the video than most advertisers will who read about it in adweek, media buyer planner, ad age, etc.

We all talk about subserviant chicken but who the hell still goes there, and who goes back every week? And yet we still talk about it endlessly.

I think the issue is, what can Agency.com do with that story and the myth.

And CK, yes we should thank them, and we should also bare in mind that they did not do this because business was rosy, I think they did this because they needed to reinvent what agency.com could be.

Looks like David already did http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2006/08/thankyou_dot_co.html

[Jordan]

Me thinks vaspers doth protest too much.

I suppose they could have done things differently (by this I mean not different from the status quo at all) and not become the topic of EVERY agency person's discussion, resulting in hordes of links and tons of attention for a client they don't even have yet...

Like it or not, the video wasn't cheesy enough to paint Subway in a bad light, and they would be crazy not to be thankful for the exposure.

Like Mack says above (below?) all manners of clients will be asking for the phenomenon to be replicated, whether it can be or not.

I for one wish I'd thought of it, and I'm not too jealous to admit that fact.

At the end of the day, there is this one truth: Great marketing polarizes people. As Howard Stern (and now Agency.com) can tell you, sometimes your dissenters can make for a nice big audience, and create more publicity than you ever dreamed of.

[Jason wallace]

Really a nice source