Coinbase CEO's excuse is that he sees Martin Agency as a "creative firm" not a "traditional ad agency" and he felt they "were all one team". Although it should be noted that last Tweet was posted hours after the original set of Tweets.
His 'excuse' was posted 35 minutes after Kristen posted her comment, as tweet 12 in a thread, when tweet 11 in that thread was posted 12 hours earlier.
If only there were some kind of decentralized linked list of prohibitively-expensive-to-counterfeit ordered records that he could have leveraged to prove to the world that his twelfth statement preceded hers.
Just imagine the vast set of use cases for such a data structure! Why it's enough to make one indiscriminately spam various web forums to tirelessly enumerated through all of them.
Ah, so The Martin Agency was not the entity he called "an outside agency" which "pitched us a bunch of standard super bowl ad ideas" in the second tweet of the thread?
My guess, which may be a tad speculative, is that there is an ongoing, but previously-confidential, dispute between Coinbase and the agency over whether and how much the former owes the latter for the work they did.
Coinbase hired a new CMO. When that CMO joined, she decided to go with a different agency.
A QR Code in a commercial is not novel, making the entire commercial a QR code is. Sounds like Martin Agency presented a commercial with QR codes, not a QR code commercial. Unless Martin Agency shares the slide, It’s impossible to claim it was MA’s idea.
It sounds like her reply is the result of the Coinbase CMO cutting ties with her company.
Is Martin Agency really dissimilar from the agencies that make other superbowl ads? What is a "traditional ad agency" anymore, even? And what's with the weaselly "I'd be remiss"? At this point, many hours after he failed to acknowledge them, he pretty clearly is remiss. Just apologize already!
I don't know the ad space particularly well, but the fact that Adweek named the Martin Agency its Agency of the Year for 2020 and 2021 suggests that it's not especially far removed from a "traditional ad agency", no?
Tangent, but I thought it was a funny commentary: I was watching the olympics with my kid (<12yo) and the Coinbase commercial came on (Didn't see it during the superbowl, but I assume they were the same?). And after the commercial ended my kid said, "was that... some kind of app for gambling or something?"
The Superbowl ad was a qr bouncing around the screen with some retro music in the background. No mention of Coinbase at all except a brief 1/2 second "ad by coinbase" at the end
If the CEO of a financial services company is both willing to lie to the public and is willing to have the public believe he is a liar, that is a bigger red flag than if he was just ignorant to the details of how an idea for an ad originated.
> If the CEO of a financial services company is both willing to lie to the public and is willing to have the public believe he is a liar, that is a bigger red flag than if he was just ignorant to the details of how an idea for an ad originated.
Armstrong and Coinbase are one of the most toxic companies in the Bitcoin ecosystem, they were willing to lie to new customers entering the space during Segwit all while spreading FUD; they tried to pawn off Bcash as Bitcoin to unsuspecting newbies.
They also have a LONG history of shutting down accounts, reversing purchases, locking funds with limited recourse etc... worst yet is that they are one of YC's unicorns.
Honestly, the sooner people realize why the should look for alternatives the better. As an early adopter who was excited about they could do to bring some level of professionalism after Bitcoinica and MtGox instead I'm ashamed and embarrassed to have ever directed anyone to them.
Jack Dorsey's CASH/Block is everything that they will never be.
All this characterizing as "lying" is so dramatic. Is there literally no possibility that he misunderstood something, or that maybe the caller-out from the ad agency is themself leaving something out? People are so quick to label and name-call when we can hardly say we really know anything about the situation for certain.
How can it be anything else? What kind of sane CEO for an advertising company would publicly call out a client for lying - potentially costing them future business after they've made a homerun promo - without having said client be in the loop about it?
OTOH, she is confrontational, especially in her other tweet[0], so I'm thorn. But it does seem like they could be just fabricating buzz.
It sounds like that agency was fired by the new CMO. Which seems pretty common. Advertising at that level is a big incestuous kick back revolving door of just a couple parent companies.
Google says Martin Agency is owned by IPG.
Which is like 1 of only 3 or 4 players that capture the vast % of traditional ad spend. They all own a bunch of different brands.
So it's still deceitful, just a different kind of deceit that can...I dunno, be cast as more acceptible? I'm not sure what kind of judgement either of those alternatives shows in an industry that has, I hope we can agree, credibility problems.
The convinces me further that Armstrong is damage controlling for an ad that got way less organic interest in both the short and long run than FTX' Larry David ad. When the ad failed to generate any sizable metrics worthy of story, Coinbase tried to spin this daring ad into a story itself.
You're right. The FTX ad was also a big mistake, for different reasons, but it did get more buzz, and it is replayable. Coinbase's QR code gimmick was something that sounded super edgy in a boardroom with people super-invested in the process... but entirely forgettable among the millions of viewers who are drunk, full, watching Snoop Dogg, betting on football, and inundated with ads featuring the Sopranos, Larry David, Scarlett Johansson, etc etc
I believe both ads got their fair share of 'organic interest' or news. The Coinbase ad was also discussed quite a lot after it first appeared on-screen.
This kind of thing happened all the time when I was at a software consultancy. In press releases, interviews, etc., our clients' leadership would regularly talk about creating their new website or application entirely in house, when it was really done by contractors like me, whose relationship to the company amounted to some names in a shared Slack channel. This was product: I assume it's common in marketing as well.
I always considered it part of doing business. Sometimes it was even part of the contract that we couldn't mention we worked with them. That's fine until you decide to leave, and realize you aren't supposed to include any of your best work in your portfolio!
> Sometimes it was even part of the contract that we couldn't mention we worked with them. That's fine until you decide to leave, and realize you aren't supposed to include any of your best work in your portfolio!
This is the default in all consulting/contracting/freelancing isn't it? Can't even mention your client, let alone the product you were working on. It's a real battle to get the reference rights in the contract.
In practice you mention in public documents something like "leading movie streaming service", and use the name in private discussions and sales.
I wonder if they actively promote the lie of in house expertise or simply choose not to highlight your contributions? The latter case seems less unethical… still shady to not correct a wrong interpretation though.
Martin Agency is ADweek's Agency of the Year, which directly contradicts Armstrong's statement that:
"I guess if there is a lesson here it is that constraints breed creativity, and that as founders you can empower your team to break the rules on marketing because you're not trying to impress your peers at AdWeek or wherever. No ad agency would have done this ad."
It does seem stupid, but we're talking about an economy in which ugly digital apes are selling for $300k, so nothing should be a surprise anymore or too petty
My thoughts exactly. I half expect a drove of VCR manufacturers to step forward and take credit for the concept of a logo that bounces around on your screen...
It is not about the QR code itself. It's about recommending something like that in a priced ad spot with an intent to go create virality. That is what the ad agency was suggesting and what coinbase was able to achieve. Right idea, in the right context.
This was not a viral ad. Some insiders in the ad biz are talking about it, as are some HN'ers, crypto fans and similar people -- who pretty much all have their minds made up about Coinbase a long time ago.
I don’t think it’s about the credit, if true, it was very rude to take the credit and specifically trash the industry… I would be tempted to throw out a “hey wtf!” if it happened to me!
Broadly, it seems like an _ad agency_ is one of the last groups I'd want to (evidently) lie about or otherwise irritate.
That said: this whole episode did just get Coinbase on the front of HN again, and I just learned the name of an apparently good agency. I'll laugh if it turns out this was all planned between them...
It feels like an ad agency has more to lose with appearing unprofessional in handling their clients. For better or worse, ad agencies are ridiculously highly paid to sometimes take a few punches for their clients or let their clients take the visible public credit for their work. If you're an ad agency, you have to check your ego at the door for your clients, IMO, and handle any conflict internally.
I don't particular care about this kind of nuanced back and forth, he-said/she-said type of story. In any other industry, this kind of minor drama might end up as a footnote in some industry trade blog, at best. But because crypto is attached, suddenly it gains traction on HN because people can find another excuse to take pot shots at something they dislike.
You have the people who worked on the Ad on one side and a lying billionaire on the other. It's only a "nuanced back-and-forth" if you're afraid to call a lie a lie.
There's vastly more value in being the agency responsible for "creating a winning ad" than an agency that outed someone who took credit for their work.
Because everyone wants a winning ad, and most people don't take credit for someone else's work.
Sure, obviously it’s a trivially implemented idea. It’s also a contemporarily unique idea, which resulted in an ad we’re (still) here talking about. That’s what is hard to do.
Readit News
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/14958203518796595...
Pro tip: Ninja edits don't work on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/14956369442897756...https://twitter.com/Cavallokristen/status/149581148789773517...https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/14958203518796595...
Just imagine the vast set of use cases for such a data structure! Why it's enough to make one indiscriminately spam various web forums to tirelessly enumerated through all of them.
The Martin Agency’s proposal was rejected, but the idea of the QR code that they suggested remained in some minds.
The creative firm they did the ad with was Accenture Interactive, see this: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6898989...
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/14956361148243804...
My guess, which may be a tad speculative, is that there is an ongoing, but previously-confidential, dispute between Coinbase and the agency over whether and how much the former owes the latter for the work they did.
A QR Code in a commercial is not novel, making the entire commercial a QR code is. Sounds like Martin Agency presented a commercial with QR codes, not a QR code commercial. Unless Martin Agency shares the slide, It’s impossible to claim it was MA’s idea.
It sounds like her reply is the result of the Coinbase CMO cutting ties with her company.
Deleted Comment
Yes. Something like that. :)
The Superbowl ad was a qr bouncing around the screen with some retro music in the background. No mention of Coinbase at all except a brief 1/2 second "ad by coinbase" at the end
Dead Comment
Armstrong and Coinbase are one of the most toxic companies in the Bitcoin ecosystem, they were willing to lie to new customers entering the space during Segwit all while spreading FUD; they tried to pawn off Bcash as Bitcoin to unsuspecting newbies.
They also have a LONG history of shutting down accounts, reversing purchases, locking funds with limited recourse etc... worst yet is that they are one of YC's unicorns.
Honestly, the sooner people realize why the should look for alternatives the better. As an early adopter who was excited about they could do to bring some level of professionalism after Bitcoinica and MtGox instead I'm ashamed and embarrassed to have ever directed anyone to them.
Jack Dorsey's CASH/Block is everything that they will never be.
Deleted Comment
OTOH, she is confrontational, especially in her other tweet[0], so I'm thorn. But it does seem like they could be just fabricating buzz.
0: https://twitter.com/Cavallokristen/status/149586819497588326...
Google says Martin Agency is owned by IPG.
Which is like 1 of only 3 or 4 players that capture the vast % of traditional ad spend. They all own a bunch of different brands.
Acdenure, the condsulting body shop spun off from Arthur Andersen the fraudulent accounting ccompany that perpetrated the Enron fraud?
Deleted Comment
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/13/22932397/coinbases-qr-cod...
And even other interest, such as using QR code for an ad, which in itself is a unique thing.
The ad was a remarkable novelty at the time, but the lack of replay ability is probably a big deal.
You can’t show a QR code ad on a phone, and potential coinbase users see a lot of digital ads.
I always considered it part of doing business. Sometimes it was even part of the contract that we couldn't mention we worked with them. That's fine until you decide to leave, and realize you aren't supposed to include any of your best work in your portfolio!
This is the default in all consulting/contracting/freelancing isn't it? Can't even mention your client, let alone the product you were working on. It's a real battle to get the reference rights in the contract.
In practice you mention in public documents something like "leading movie streaming service", and use the name in private discussions and sales.
"I guess if there is a lesson here it is that constraints breed creativity, and that as founders you can empower your team to break the rules on marketing because you're not trying to impress your peers at AdWeek or wherever. No ad agency would have done this ad."
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/14956368767993978...
It makes the CEO look weak, stupid, and petty.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
The general public? It has been long forgotten.
That said: this whole episode did just get Coinbase on the front of HN again, and I just learned the name of an apparently good agency. I'll laugh if it turns out this was all planned between them...
I don't particular care about this kind of nuanced back and forth, he-said/she-said type of story. In any other industry, this kind of minor drama might end up as a footnote in some industry trade blog, at best. But because crypto is attached, suddenly it gains traction on HN because people can find another excuse to take pot shots at something they dislike.
You have the people who worked on the Ad on one side and a lying billionaire on the other. It's only a "nuanced back-and-forth" if you're afraid to call a lie a lie.
Because everyone wants a winning ad, and most people don't take credit for someone else's work.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment