Nonsense--- you placed to much trust on the idiot who okay-ed the damn commercials in the first place. Dodge all you want, but the ad company didn't make the decision, you did...
Calm down. Sheesh. The ad firm happens to be the best in the business. Mason said he was relying on their expertise for the ads because they had never done anything as big before.
Really? For me, those Windows Phone 7 ads fall into the category of "make me never want to do business with you". I guess I don't identify myself as a douche doing "more clubbing, less staring" or whatever.
Um, that's why Mason was apologizing here - it was his call. He was the idiot. He knows that, and he's coming clean.
Keep in mind that an agency relationship is like any other where you're after the (supposedly) superior understating and judgement possessed by whoever you're hiring (e.g. doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.)
When these relationships work well, it's often because the client puts a lot of trust in their partner. Kudos to Mason for swiftly realizing that his trust was misplaced, that responsibility for that was his, and for responding promptly. Also note his announcement that they'll be a lot more involved in their brand management from here on.
In other words, it looks like this really was a hard, nasty shock that they're taking seriously, and are responding to accordingly. That's very different from simply canning one agency, and replacing them with another who will continue to function in the same way as the first, which is far more common.
Consider that quote not from the perspective of a (briefly) outraged public, but as a post mortem delivered to investors, who seriously want to know if something similar is likely to happen again.
If these guys guys deflected all blame from themselves and tried to focus it all on their partner, that would be a bad sign. But if they also blame themselves for having selected a dicey partner, and have figured out what errors led to that error, then I really think they're handling themselves - and the situation - quite well.
They succeeded in starting conversations, which is clever advertising.
Still, I think Groupon ends up on the wrong side of the controversy here - the ad just makes them look kind of insensitive or ignorant/ambivalent towards an issue many people feel strongly about. I'm curious whether the net effect of the extra publicity generated by the controversy outweighs the negative backlash.
"I enjoyed the ads and thought they were rather clever."
Would you still have enjoyed them if they riffed off (say) the 9/11 attacks [1] in an attempt to be "edgy"?
Imagine ...
"The Twin Towers were destroyed, five planes blown up or crashed with all on board, 3000 Americans died ... but New Yorkers still make the best burgers..."
Would that be equally "clever and enjoyable" ? Or would you be outraged?
[1] I assume you are American. Feel free to replace with any atrocity you have a resonance with. And fwiw I believe "edginess" is a poor excuse no matter which specific incident of innocents being killed is used as background for the "edge"
I thought Andrew Mason had said essentially the same thing in gentler terms within days of the Super Bowl, when he apologized for the ad and said that even though it was created by a professional agency, he shouldn't have approved it.
The famous miscalculation in the ad was that it was too easy to misinterpret as making light of Tibet rather than of Groupon, but another thing that felt wrong was that the humor didn't quite match Groupon's voice. It was an outsider trying to speak in it, and that rarely works out well.
Ad agencies overemphasize creativity because their jobs depend on them believing that it is important. If Groupon had a direct marketing background it would have been clear that this ad needs to be tested before unleashing it. I wonder how many signups they got from the ads?
The whole Tibet commercial was totally fucked from the start, on one side by Groupon's attempt to expand into China, and on the other by the feelings of the rest of the world. Trying to play the middle ground like they did? Crazy, imo.
I'm surprised "Tibet" isn't a taboo word to Groupon like it is to the rest of the international business community.
23 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 58.2 ms ] threadKeep in mind that an agency relationship is like any other where you're after the (supposedly) superior understating and judgement possessed by whoever you're hiring (e.g. doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.)
When these relationships work well, it's often because the client puts a lot of trust in their partner. Kudos to Mason for swiftly realizing that his trust was misplaced, that responsibility for that was his, and for responding promptly. Also note his announcement that they'll be a lot more involved in their brand management from here on.
In other words, it looks like this really was a hard, nasty shock that they're taking seriously, and are responding to accordingly. That's very different from simply canning one agency, and replacing them with another who will continue to function in the same way as the first, which is far more common.
doesn't sound quite like coming clean.
If these guys guys deflected all blame from themselves and tried to focus it all on their partner, that would be a bad sign. But if they also blame themselves for having selected a dicey partner, and have figured out what errors led to that error, then I really think they're handling themselves - and the situation - quite well.
Still, I think Groupon ends up on the wrong side of the controversy here - the ad just makes them look kind of insensitive or ignorant/ambivalent towards an issue many people feel strongly about. I'm curious whether the net effect of the extra publicity generated by the controversy outweighs the negative backlash.
Would you still have enjoyed them if they riffed off (say) the 9/11 attacks [1] in an attempt to be "edgy"?
Imagine ...
"The Twin Towers were destroyed, five planes blown up or crashed with all on board, 3000 Americans died ... but New Yorkers still make the best burgers..."
Would that be equally "clever and enjoyable" ? Or would you be outraged?
[1] I assume you are American. Feel free to replace with any atrocity you have a resonance with. And fwiw I believe "edginess" is a poor excuse no matter which specific incident of innocents being killed is used as background for the "edge"
The famous miscalculation in the ad was that it was too easy to misinterpret as making light of Tibet rather than of Groupon, but another thing that felt wrong was that the humor didn't quite match Groupon's voice. It was an outsider trying to speak in it, and that rarely works out well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFT2yjk0A
I'm surprised "Tibet" isn't a taboo word to Groupon like it is to the rest of the international business community.