Appreciate the feedback. I’ve been mulling David’s opinion over and I’ve had a discussion with a friend of mind who worked in PR who has the same frame of mind as David’s.

I’m starting to realize that the two sides are really argueing different things: “attempt at innovation is great for its own sake” v. “crappy innovation isnt innovation, its just crappy”.

As for: “In fact, the only thing that is viral about this is the DEBATE that it has stirred.”

I think for Agency.com, it would be crazy for Agency.com to not know a debate would rage among Internet marketers.

Indeed, the video was made for the marketing world as much as it was bad for Subway.

Thanks for the comment.

The subject line “Why the Hate?” was a little cheeky of me, maybe I was slightly (wrongly?) inspired by the cheesiness of “We Roll Big” lines.

I noticed the Hasidic comment too. But I assume that its not so much a mockery of that man, but rather the portrayal of a clueless, ignorant marketer.

I guess a another point of view of this is that humor (which I think is intentional) is a tricky subject, and for a lot of people it came off as not coming out as funny, seemingly untentionally bad humor, or as you said most simply “the content was ugly.”

By the way, Karl at ExperienceCurve shares a similar view as mine, and I think states his position more eloquently:
http://blog.experiencecurve.com/archives/why-the-agencycom-youtube-subway-pitch-ruled

Want to know why I used the Aztec comparison? Because the content was ugly. I found the mocking of a Hasidic Man ugly. I found the satire, intentional or not to be unfunny. I don’t hate it. I just don’t like it. I’ve said this a bunch of times. Big points to them for doing something different.

But the content of the video itself was just not good. Not good at all. Nothing to do with hate. Actually, this is about love. I love good work. And this wasn’t.