I agree totally.

This may totally ruin my chances of ever working at Agency.com again (LMAO) but they pulled a total wuss move. Unless they show up with the burger king account there is no way in hell anyone will believe there was a real conflict. Now they look even more stupid because they don't even believe the sh!% they tried to shovel on the client. Failing to win would have made them look foolish, but cutting and running has made them lose serious credibility. This has gone from bad to worst surprisingly fast. "If we crash, we crash big". BooYa!!!

Oh my! Goodness me, Agency dot BOMB just dropped another one. They dropped out of the Subway new business pitch, because in reality they knew they blew it big time with their "when we roll, we roll big" nonsense, which has caused them enough embarrassment. So to save face, they invented another ridiculous pitch. . . "a conflict with another piece of business the agency was pitching". Sure thing Agency dot CON, anything you say . . . . . . .

Two balls and ten hours and Adholes could create something twenty times better. Just sayin', is all.

Yeah it's not too hard to launch a blog - even if it has to go through a 57 point approval process.

To clarify, it's apparent to any serious potential client that Agency.com dropped the ball, and anything positive coming from it is accidental. Yes, I think it's cute that they launched the blog and are "taking it well," but hey, it says more about how they *can't* do! I mean, when you realize you blow it, you should be out there working exponentially hard to prove that you can land it. Surfing by on accidental attention isn't award-winning, but worse, it's not a display of serious ability.

The blog is retarded. Even the link you posted links to something that is mush to someone wanting to learn more. EVERYTHING about agency.com's effort on this is weakness or inability, followed up by inability and pathetic and weak inability. So sure, they've got a shot. Because they've got offices in New York City. Odds are they actually may land the gig!!!

I just watched the video again and its so pathetically lame that I think no spoof would do it justice.

I'm down for the video whenever. Set the time and I'll be there, camera in hand.

Well, if it doesn't go well it's been a learning experience for the whole industry. In creating the blog they are continuing the conversation which is a lot more than can be said for clients who are still terrified of getting involved with things like blogs and social networks out of fear that people will ridicule them. The best thing to do is own the ridicule because then you can manage it. Even if they don't win Subway another client might thing they are nice people from the video and give them an RFP. So when are we doing this Adholes video?

Yeah, I actually found this page too and I think it is a great way to jump on the bandwagon that they helped create. If they had planned this, it would be genius. As it is, they are appearing creative and smart by accident.

Marc, Kevin, Kaza- Are we meeting in the Corner office? If we roll we better roll big. Here is the next chapter in this whole thing- http://www.whenwerollwerollbig.com ... sure this was an after thought and not planned from the beginning, but give them credit, they have embraced the phenomenon and are making the best of it. I'm curious, if Agency.com wins the business will you grudgingly give them credit for doing something unique?

Marc, I can be in the Apple if you give me two weeks notice and make sure it happens on a weekend. There's no doubt in my mind that Adholes could put together a lean team of smarts that could spank the Agency.com effort.

Maybe Adholes should do a video and "pitch them." Show em how it's done. Kaza - you got your camera ready?

9 minutes of this crap? This can only help a few middle management egos at Subway. Cut it down to 2 minutes and it could be a fun way to introduce their creative pitch. David, I hear what you are saying. They could have been extra serious and it would have been self-deprecatingly funny. Or they could've done claymation and been spongemonkey silly. What they did in real-life was just lame.

Wow, I'm late to the party. The video absolutely blows and agencies have to realize that "viral" isn't really a strategy. In their defense there are some great creatives there but they really laid an egg and its sad and funny to see at the same time. They're owned by Omnicom so they're not going under but this video and their growing reputation for wanting creatives to do everything under the sun will atleast hurt their ability to recruit hot new talent in my opinion.

The whole idea is just blowing hot air. If you are going to create a 9 minute video of yourself, it better be good and it was just laughable - not in a good way. The Agency.com employees did a horrible job coming across as the creative team that they were claiming to be. If they wanted to genuinely show this, they should have actually rolled up their sleeves and done something creative. Sure their idea was original, in a sense, but it's like an author writing a book on how to write a book - it was bound to be a creative failure. By the way, here's a shirt that some company created to commemorate this fine video: http://www.spreadshirt.net/shop.php?... am officially putting it on my Christmas list.

I will have to say, as a "boutique" agency we would never, I repeat never, look this bad. We have been pitching like mad over the last few months and our dinner relies on how we come across. If they were in our shoes, they'd be blowing homeless guys for bus change. Big shops are not performance-based operations and this proves the point.

Nah it definitely won't be their downfall because you can see even here the comments are pretty mixed so if anything they're dividing the room and as many people think it's stupid thinks they're great. I think they're big enough that if someone didn't like the video they could go "oh well those people won't be working on your account..." :) I think they are a top-100 agenc – they have some pretty big clients.

I thought agency.com was a small boutique. They aren't known in Canada so I guess I didn't get that part of the video. after reviewing your points, I "get" what you're saying, I just don't think it will be their downfall.

The video itself is certainly pedestrian.

Capers, I can understand that you have a differing opinion from mine - I'm sure a lot of people also looked at this video and think the same as you. I'm pretty jaded and all - but honestly, if you had the budget Subway has, would you spend millions of dollars to hire the 'talent' portrayed here? It's one thing to like the video, it's another to give someone millions of dollars in fees for it.

Noel - I take it as negative because, having gone through so many of these big agency new business pitches myself, I think the video exposes them for not being very knowledgeable, in control, expert, or creative. I'd expect this out of a boutique agency and it might be more quaint. Anyone who works in advertising knows boutiques load up on young, naive talent during economic booms and try to get by on their "energy" and "enthusiasm." When a big agency like Agency.com does it, they quite frankly look like a bunch of clueless idiots. From the new business guy's staged "let's get everyone into the corner office" to taking the soda out of the garbage and giving it a second longing glance, as if he's the friggin "Thinker" scultpture just cements this video as being totally disingenuous. I have a few questions: 1) What in the world does working at Subway have to do with promoting their brand? Their benefits have always been about health. Who cares how they put the sandwiches together? It seems like the only insights they tried to glean was why people got a 6 inch instead of a 12 inch (because I don't want to wind up fat or I'm just not that hungry?) If their angle is to try to sell existing customers bigger sandwiches, they obviously haven't been paying attention to the backlash McDonalds has been getting in the past year. Another question is, does exposing your "process" benefit you? I'm sad to say that, as bad as they look to me, they are as head-scratching and clueless as every other agency I've worked at on these types of assignments. Do you want to expose your client to the smoke and mirrors of "ok we have a bunch of wacky people who can't come up with a single idea without first working in your store?" In the job I have now I frequently have to come up with campaigns without ever experiencing the brand, what it does or who its target is, yet I've been successful at it because we have good strategies. I didn't see any mention of a strategy before they "hit the street

I think if anyone thinks this will have a negative effect on agency.com they are in the wrong business.

Noel, I already have. (Pass the cream and sugar will ya, thanks.)

Pursuit of new business is always a risk, everythng you do is subject to negative interpretation. It really is a accelerated attempt to forge a relationship. There is no way to truly understand a client or solve thier issues in a three to four week period. They key is to form some type of personal relationship with the decision makers I liked the piece, it did a reasonable job of showing how approachable and genuine the people were. It is a testament to agency.com that they didn't over analyze the video and got it out quickly. Does anyone know the outcome or when the decision is going to be made?

Michael I don't see how this will turn into a bad thing for agency.com. Maybe I missed the whole story about this and what you're refering too is something I simply didn't see. care to fill me in?

When addressing the underlying essence and controversy involved in this ‘VIRAL FIASCO’, involving agency.com and their new business pitch for the Subway Restaurants account; there is an old advertising adage that comes into play: "Exposure is exposure, as long as they spell your name right" . . . well, agency.com is about to find out, how this adage applies today, and what the negative-side-effects and aftermath associated with it really are. My guess is, agency.com will get a lot of exposure, but they will end up with the side effect of a negative image that will be remembered, alongside, of their newfound notoriety. Agency.com will be famous for being stupid and naïve and non-discreet and having poor judgment (just what their clients do not want their agency to be). The predicament that agency.com finds itself in, is very similar to the negative-side-effects, that formed the current negative images of athlete / actor OJ Simpson and actor Robert Blake; after their involvement with the murder trials of their respective wives. It is also very similar to the to the image and career Michael Jackson had BEFORE, his pedophile accusations and trial; and the image and career Michael Jackson has now AFTER those negative-side-effect events. What was the image OJ Simpson and Robert Blake and Michael Jackson had BEFORE their trials? What is the image OJ Simpson and Robert Blake and Michael Jackson have NOW? What will these respective celebrity images be like, in the FUTURE? Yes, exposure is exposure, but a negative image is also a negative image. When one positive circumstance (a lot of free publicity) happens simultaneously with a negative circumstance (you shouldn’t have done that), someone ends up being famous for the wrong reason, or famous in the wrong way. A negative image, no one, regardless of who you are, can afford to have.

Thanks Michael - I actually linked it above in the blog too - it just want's noticed I guess :)

Oh, sorry, there it is above, hidden away (now you have it twice)