You’re reading Signal vs. Noise, a publication about the web by 37signals since 1999.

Brilliant! I like the dedication and strength in their conviction. It says we have given you the best we have, we can not regroup and give you any better. We are who we are!

Best of luck.

P.S. Hope to see you again.

Without knowing the conversations that went on between the firms leading up to review this is all blind speculation.

I see hubris in the Crispin Porter + Bogusky position.

Is the world the same as it was probably 5 years ago when CP+B took part in the review that won them the account? Has the automobile marketplace changed in that time? Has Volkswagen’s place in that market changed? How does VW’s recent purchase of Porsche change the advertising strategy? Has the general business climate changed?

All of those are reason to conduct an account review. Yes it is costly for the agency to participate in this review. But, if the customer can articulate a reason for a review the agency owes it to itself and the customer to participate.

Can someone explain what this means in a little more detail? I understand the basics, but am not familiar with these company’s relationships or if this is traditionally insulting. Also, why is it costly to complete a review?

who hit www.adweek.com with the ugly stick? What happened to the happycog redesign?

I didn’t go there much before, but even less now.

sorry, I guess happycog redid http://adage.com/ not http://www.adweek.com . But that said, adage.com is much better adweek.com. I may have confused the two, but no longer.

CP+B’s recent VW work has been just awful. If nothing else it makes me NOT want to buy a Volkswagen. I’m not at all surprised VW is looking elsewhere.

I’d have an easier time appreciating their argument if they were defending a record of better work. This seems more like silver-tounged spite towards an unhappy client than a bold stand.

It may seem like it’s a bold statement by CP+B, but when an account is up for review, the current agency almost never gets renewed—the client is ready for something new.

Without knowing the context beyond the quote, it sounds a bit arrogant. They’re saying “we’re not going to, and that’s it”, but might it actually be reasonable for them to do it?

hurray! – when the client puts their account under review, it means your agency is fired. Then to save face, the client is asking you to participate (provide free ideas) in being part of the selection of the next agency. Managers in the agency are so dependant on the revenue that the will ask the creatives to spend the next few weeks or months on a lost cause—a total waste of resources.

@Joe Galietto: CPB won the Volkswagen account without a review.

I agree with scotts & Bodoni. It’s good to have policies like this in place (not participating in RFPs is another similar policy that comes to mind). Generally when an account is in review, there is such a limited chance of the existing agency getting the renewal that it’s basically a waste of resources for them to participate. They’re better off assuming the account is lost and figuring out how to fill that hole with a new client or making the unfortunate staff adjustments.

Oh, the article explains everything. That’s what I get for reading feeds at midnight after a long day.

Slightly off-topic, so apologies in advance.

I’ve always had a very favorable impression of VW and, for the record, I liked the talking-Beetle commercials. However, as a recent purchaser of a VW Jetta, I have been deeply disappointed in the quality and durability of their product not to mention the deplorable state of the service and repair supplied through their dealer network.

My advice: focus more attention on improving the product and less money on flashy advertising. Marketing is important, but not at the expense of making sure you’re truly competent in your core competency.

A bravado quote for the trades? How brave.

Who cares? They’re based in my hometown and known for working their employees like dogs.

Compare the US ads with their elegant and smart UK print ads:

Here

Details of the campaign:

VOLKSWAGEN Project: Volkswagen efficiency Client: Daniel Hill, communications manager (large cars), Volkswagen Brief: Communicate that Volkswagen offers a range of technologies that lead to improved fuel efficiency Agency: DDB London Writer: Hunter Somerville Art director: Graeme Hall Designer: Pete Mould Exposure: Print

Volkswagen of America has placed its account in review and invited lead agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky, a unit of MDC Partners, to defend. [emphasis mine]

They use such silly language in the high end design and advertising world, don’t they? It sounds like a war.

Maybe VW decided to take CP+Bs lead and just outsource to crowdspring?

All I can say is that after looking at http://www.cpbgroup.com/ I probably would have fired their asses too. WTF is that thing? A website?

I can’t imagine how such “defense” could look, so I suppose that was just VW marketing being rude to their now-ex advertising agency.