I know I said I’d shut up about a certain topic, but…
Kevin left a comment asking what I thought of his opinions on the Agency.com thing. So I thought the least I could do is take a look. He makes some very good points, however, as I said before it’s all just speculation without knowing how Subway have been engaged.
My favourite part of his posts is:
First, they might honestly be trying to win the interactive account for Subway… the tagline “We roll BIG” sounds pre-meditated and fabricated. Also, based on the control of the logo as viewed on the “explanation” site, it appears to be along the same identity guidelines as would be typical of Subway. Could they be suggesting a strategy that focuses on Subway’s sandwich rolls?
Doh! Of course. Roll BIG, BIG Rolls. How could I have been such a fool. Such a patsy (or a patty if we’re in the game of sandwich related wordplay). And to think, I made them a t-shirt ;-)
I noticed that the guy had a bottle of Microsoft Brainwash on his desk. Surely a funny gag that’s been put in there by some kind of prankster.
But no, it’s real! And very very rare, it’s selling for $80 a bottle at Sodaking.
Don’t forget to have a look at Photosynth – it’s a really cool concept that stitches together loads of photos from potentiallly loads of sources to create a 3d environment. It’s pretty far out.
A response from the Agency.com camp regarding the Subway video. It’s basically saying: “we did it, we got people talking, that’s the whole point”.
I’m sure the debate will rage on around whether this is just a good piece of post-rationalisation and speedy ass-covering. Or a cunning master-plan that was in place from the start. (As an aside, if it’s the latter I think there’s a much better way of presenting this, a making of the behind the scenes video perhaps? Showing the point at which the decision was made to target the advertising community maybe?).
On their site ‘Jeff’ is quoted as saying:
“They made this for ad people to watch, think about, talk about, and spread. And that’s what we’re doing”.
But did they? I thought the whole point was that it was a video for a Subway client. Or is that all part of the subterfuge as well? Maybe they made a 5 minute boring ‘meet the team video’ and sent that to the client too? Along with a pitch based around:
“See how much noise we can generate with one video clip within the (online) advertising community, imagine how much noise we could make with 5 clips and a decent budget within the food eating community…”
If that’s the case then maybe they come out of this looking like genii…
But, based on the original premise (as we, the audience, were shown it): “we need to create a video for a client” (a private piece of communication), “let’s put it on youtube” (a very public communication channel). I think the naysayers were right to pound this tactic for it’s apparent naivety. (An interesting conversation starting tactic maybe?).
Whether they’re very right, or incredibly wrong I don’t regret being part of the spreading this meme. I called it as I saw it. I made the t-shirt, and I’ve either helped them look smart (or not). If I’ve been ‘duped’ into being part of this whole thing I’m glad, I’ve been a part of an ‘evolving, collaborative, dialogue driven online experiment’ – and that’s the kind of thing that we should all be doing. Whether I have or not, I guess is still the question.
The great thing about the web is that at some point the full story will come out. There will be winners, there will be losers, but as my P.E. teacher used to say “it’s the taking part that counts”.
In case it matters (and it probably doesn’t), the fact that the domain name ‘whenwerollwerollbig.com’ was bought yesterday doesn’t indicate all that much forward planning in terms of the meme ‘going viral’. But that might just all be part of the plot…
Oh, and I’m pretty sure that the line in the video (as pointed out to me by others) is ‘if we roll, we roll big’. So I corrected my t-shirt yesterday. On the site they feature the old shirt, with the erroneous line on the front. But their domain is “when we roll, we roll big”, so maybe my old t-shirt was right after all. Or maybe we’re all as confused as each other?!?
Ultimately whether this works or not depends on how you measure the value of conversations and noise. I’ve seen a few comments where people have said things like “it’s better that people are talking about you than not”, but I don’t buy that. And I can think of a few examples where brands would probably agree. Coke with their Desai water launch ‘conversations’ in the UK. The noise around Hoover and their Free Flights offer. The awareness driven by Mercedes and their rolling cars. These are much more serious examples than a pitch video on YouTube. But you get my point.
I’m going to stop now. This is way too meta for me.
OK, I’m going to give credit where it’s due: hats off to Agency.com for nailing their colours to the mast (in a very public way) and for using web stuff to talk about web stuff. Credit over.
Maybe it’s just a cultural thing. But this video really hurts me. I’m not quite sure why, I think it’s just because it feels really staged and makes people who work at online agencies look like a bunch of chumps. As I was watching it, the voiceover felt like it could, at any minute, morph into moments from ‘The Truth About Advertising‘ (version 2.0). Videos of the inside of agencies always end up being self-referential to the point of embarassment (at least the ones I’ve seen do). This is no exception.
And, furthermore…
What are Subway supposed to do? Give their feedback via YouTube? If that happened I’d forgive the whole thing and give everyone a massive pat on the back (almost).
Whether Agency.com win or lose the pitch, the result will be public, and scrutinised. Which is the bit I gave them credit for earlier.
But this whole thing leaves me with loads of questions:
Now they’ve put their clip out there are they getting behind the monster they’ve created?
In a way that demonstrates that they get the world of web 2.0?
Or is it just a cheap gimmick?
And most importantly: if something gets passed around because people dislike it, does that mean that it’s still viral? I’m guessing it does…?
By the way, I think Agency.com do some really good work. For me this just isn’t, at all. But I’ll be interested to see if there’s a different set of reactions to it from other parts of the world. Or other industries.
Faris from Naked talks about the fact that viral ‘just is’. Also uses the nice ‘real world viral’ example (oh, hang on, that’s just a virus isn’t it?) of the 118 vests. Also mentions a foul Coke example of labelling videos as ‘viral 1, viral 2’ on a website. Yuk. That reminds me, I’m not a fan of ‘virals’.
There’s further breakdown of the user generated content on the site. But interesting to see that ‘real’ ads have been more viral than ‘viral’ ads. Goes back to the whole viral is bad, viral is good (stuff) argument from before.
Here’s a little site I’ve been working on. I’ve been keeping it a bit quiet because it’s a bit laddy (well a lot laddy in places). But it is appropriate for the target audience. It is for Zoo Magazine after all!
The site documents the exploits of Steve and Richard who’ve get given £10,000 to do interesting stuff rather than make glossy TV ads (yeah yeah I know). So far they’ve taken Keeley Hazell (a page-3 model) out to the seaside for the day (including a game of strip crazy golf), flown a fighter plane, and most recently (and impressively) built the biggest Scalextric track in the world. Check it all out here: ZooTube.co.uk » Scalextric
It’s really interesting to see what kind of distribution and reach you get by just using a blog and a few video sharing sites. Not sure I can give away exact numbers, but they’re looking pretty interesting – and with a bit of detective work I’m sure you could figure it out for yourselves ;-)
Stay tuned to see what happens with a little experiment in user generated content too…
I hate the fact that ‘viral’ appears as a line on media plans.
I hate the fact that people now call them virals. With an (s) as if it’s a genre of film like westerns.
I hate the fact that clients can be fobbed off with “if we add a ‘send to a friend’ link to it, that’ll make it viral”. Not all of them. But watch out for it, you can spot it.
A wise man (Rei Imamoto from AKQA in San Francisco if you must know) said in a meeting: “Viral is a consequence”. A truer 4 words have I rarely heard spoken.
Of course you can do things that might encourage people to talk about something. Or even send it on to someone else. Or blog about it. Or anything else that ‘spreads it’. But that’s just about making something that’s relevant. Something that I want to share because I love it. Something that ticks the right psychological boxes. It’s not about sex, or shock, or violence, or any other crass ‘too hot for tv’ tactic.
Make something entertaining (sure, it could be stupid, sexy, whatever…), something thought-provoking, something that makes someone’s day in a small way. Just make something good. Your audience are the ones who decide if it’s ‘viral or not’. They’re not dumb carriers of your disease. They’re willing participants in the distribution of your content.
Right, what got me started on this little rant? Oh, that’s it. I saw this: TIME.com: Viral Videos that Swept the Nation. And you know what. They’re right, these are viral videos. Videos that ordinary people have decided are great. I would talk about some of them. Others leave me cold.
But the interesting thing is that only 1 out of 8 of them has any (real) connection to a brand. (I’m not including Star Wars Kid as I don’t think Lucas would have signed that one off).
I’ve changed my mind. In the spirit of positivity I like viral. I like the notion of people sharing great things with each other. As long as we never forget that the audience are the ones who decide what is, or is not, viral.Â
A wise man (Rei Imamoto from AKQA in San Francisco if you must know) said in a meeting: “Viral is a consequence”. A truer 4 words have I rarely heard spoken.