Culture matters: But do BRW and Best Places to Work understand the media industry?

These BRW lists have always been a joke and they are clearly mostly false. For example “EWeb Marketing” always use to win best search agency and best place to work for many years. Tho in reality they paid all the staff next to nothing to work their as “contractors”. It is easy to tell your staff all to fill in a survey and give top marks as well.

The media industry suffers from high employee turnover. You have a great opportunity to share what some of the companies in the industry are doing to engage their employees and reap the benefits. Why have you chosen to go on a witch hunt to find something negative?

Good read. It’s all a bit confusing and makes the awards seem like a crock.

“We check that via the VPN of the email addresses.”

Does she mean IP address…?

Because I am pretty sure VPN is a virtual private network….

So is UM a media agency with less than 100 employees or is it a connections agency with more than 100 employees?

The mind boggles. Now back to more important issues like scratching my arse.

The funny part is that if you put UM into LinkedIn there are clearly far more than 100 current employees … Not the most scientific source.. But a good indicator to ask the question…

To make some assumptions:

– I believe Zrinka Lovrencic means ‘IP addresses’ where ‘VPN’ has been said.

– It’s possible that someone based in the Sydney office could be completing the online questions when not actually in the Sydney office, giving the illusion of a wider geographical spread. Or even using a VPN to log in through company systems.

– I don’t know enough about the actual questions asked, but it can be easier for smaller sample sizes to return results much higher / lower than larger samples, since larger samples tend to regress results to the mean (and are more reliable as well).

I work at a boutique agency with very low staff turnover (well below the industry benchmark). If we considered the $2,195 entry fee a useful investment in our agency brand, I am sure we’d give UM a run for it’s considerable pile of money. As it is, I’d rather put the $2,195 towards rewarding my team in small but tangible ways that matter to them as individuals.

I thought UM wasn’t a media agency anymore?

Or maybe they have 97 people who work in the media agency part and exclude the ‘other people’ who are PR/Connections/Creative/Activation people?

Or does that mean they have even LESS people who work in the media agency part and can technically enter the “Start Up”/”Emerging” category next year?

I’m confused. According to the link below, just last year UM won “Network of the Year” which surely would suggest that it employs people in more than one State? Also on the link, rather interestingly UM Sydney won Employer of the Year (for employers OVER 100 employees).

https://www.umww.com/news/2014/11/um-australia-repeats-as-media-network-of-the-year

#rortingthesystem

Good to see the organiser of this rigorous survey taking the time to craft a nuanced response:

“Why have you chosen to go on a witch hunt to find something negative?”

Doing some basic fact checks counts as a witch hunt now?

UM entering sydney only is the ultimate F U to their melbourne office. Assume this vanity project will change in the future.

LinkedIn says 201 – 500 employees

Well done Nic for calling out Great Places to Work, they need to be more accountable on the criteria. The MD needs to address properly and disqualify UM for the cheating. UM tell RECMA 200 people you cant have it both ways.

No one is doubting UM isnt deserving of an award for its culture (the fact it keeps attracting serious industry talent is a good sign), but Zrinka/GPTW should just admit they got this wrong.. by no means in UM less than 100 people Nationally. They didnt check Linked in, they didnt get check RECMA, they didnt get a signed sworn statement form UM HR on employee staff numbers, nothing.

Either they do an easy fix to change the award to “UM Sydney”, which would be appropriate if that’s all who responded. Or they admit the error, but say they will not change it now and will ensure better processes are in place for next year.

To try and defend what is on obvious mistake – does not serve GPTW or Zrinka well

I have to take this article with a massive pinch of salt when there is a conflict of interest between mumbrella as an events and awards organiser using its editorial arm to dish dirt on a competitor in the same space.

@Sour Grapes – there isn’t ‘dirt’ here being fabricated.
Have you read the article – its a very valid point being made.. UM is NOT under 100 people, but Zrinka is still maintaining that it is and she is “pretty sure”

Well done UM; a fairly won & well deserved achievement. It’s a shame that this has now been tainted & overshadowed by the incorrect, negative nit-picking of some. Enjoy your new accolade.

@mumbrella @The Truth

Then please explain this from paragraph 5:

“culture awards are a barometer for staff choosing their next move. It’s part of the reason we have a category for them in the Mumbrella Awards.’

@Sour grapes. Please explain how UM is under 100 people.

@The Truth

I didn’t write the article, numbnuts, it’s not for me to ‘explain’ anything. I am asking a legitimate question that @mumbrella has sidestepped.