It’s time for publishers to stamp out anonymous trolling, the coward punches of public debate
WPP interim AUNZ CEO John Steedman has a strong message for media outlets – one that Mumbrella itself doesn’t adhere to – stop allowing anonymous comments.
Anonymous trolling is not a new phenomenon. But this ugly side to online communications has reached a tipping point and we need to act. These comments are the coward punches of public debate and the ability to comment anonymously simply acts as a shield for unacceptable behaviour. It simply has to stop.
During the past couple of years, I’ve seen a concerning decline in the quality of online comment sections in our industry media. People are being attacked for their sexuality or appearance, for their perceived ability or public statements.
Anonymous comments are a cheap laugh for the people behind these posts, and those who trawl through them, but it often causes real and lasting damage to those on the receiving end. People who are going about their daily business, striving to deliver results like the rest of us and share honestly held opinions on important topics of discussion.
This is another grubby example of the lack of respect in public discourse – a cancerous trend that now pervades politics, business, the media and the workplace.
I couldn’t agree more. Pathetic, anonymous, incorrect or miss-leading comments have caused damage to my business over the years. People forget there are real people with real employees and real families. It has reached the point where promotion of a good initiative is a bad idea from a business perspective. Would love to see mumbrella only allow comments by people who subscribe with real names. I understand the flip side aswell though in that it allows a forum for people to speak up when they normally wouldn’t (as i am doing now) but i think the downside is greater.
Well said Steady. Completely agree and you can be sure the comms council will support you in this long-overdue initiative.
Beautifully put Steady.
That’s why you are one of the captains of our industry.
Got my support.
Pretty sure most people visit these sites for the comments
I find the anonymous commentary much more interesting than the article itself in most cases.
@yep. Exactly. Mumbrella is a great example of where anonymous commentary works, albeit sometimes you can tell that Holt Street or 2GB Alan lovers, have hijacked the thread, spelling mistakes aside you can just tell 😉
In more seriousness, you read the drivel comments on Linkedin (where people are themselves, however cannot be themselves vs anonymous where you CAN be yourself and put across truths).
Publishers / editors who take the comments section seriously, can ensure that the balance is correct, without spitefulness. Ultimately, publish facts and both sides of the story. Then you win and the audience gets a very rounded and polished account.
The comments on Mumbrella will often call out BS, something that rarely happens on Linkedin because people do not want to rock their professional apple carts…
i do
Well said John.
It is a childish and grubby practice and debases the publishers that allow it to happen.
Trolling anonymously here…
It would be interesting to hear Mumbrella’s present view, given Tim’s 2011 article argued that moderation was better than banning anonymous comments. I wonder how that perspective has changed, if at all?
https://staging.mumbrella.com.au/moderation-still-seems-a-better-choice-than-banning-all-anonymous-comment-64785
Thanks for the question.
The issue is one I’ve thought about a lot, across Mumbrella’s 10 year plus lifespan. As you’ll be aware so far, we’ve come down on the side of retaining anonymous pre-moderated comments in the interests of a genuine debate about the industry, rather than limiting it to only those who feel safe enough in their seniority or role to be able to do so.
It’s worth making the factual point that some of the type of comments referred to by John Steedman would already not make it through our pre-moderation process. Human error at our end is possible, but I’d hate to think you’d find examples where we allow somebody to be attacked for their sexuality on this site.
But there does seem to be an escalation to group that with people being challenged for their “public statements”. My instinct is that could be healthy.
But that said, it’s also healthy to reflect on this from time to time. So I’ll be giving it further thought over the next 72 hours, and will address it in more detail in Saturday’s Best of the Week email.
Ahead of that, I welcome people telling me what they think below or (if you’d prefer to do it privately, directly to tim@mumbrella.com.au)
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Tim, it’s probably also worth considering the sharp decline in web traffic you might experience as a result of banning anonymous comments on the website.
The comments here are a real drawcard, and while every platform runs the risk of misleading, harmful or hurtful content being uploaded, a moderation policy at least allows you to provide a platform for robust and honest discussion.
You ask people to sign up and confirm their identity and comment openly, most people just won’t do it.
A few questions Tim.
1. Do you admit to letting malicious and personal comments through on occasions that personally suit you?
2. If you respect anonymity why check up on peoples IPs and make comments about them and this when it suits you personally, is this to scare them from using your comments forum when the comments dont suit you?
3. Do you believe you are a troll?
4. Why do people have to email you, why are you encouraging this, why cant people have an open discussion here – are you afraid of your past behaviour and that your #TrollMeToo moment may be coming.
5. Can you respond to this please without sarcasm or being derogative?
6. Will you block these comments because they relate to you?
Thank you respectfully, am also posting questions elsewhere.
Hi Anon,
Thanks for the question.
1. It does sound like rather a loaded question… If you actually think that’s the case, I’d invite you to offer an example. But to be clear, no. And it’s worth pointing out that it’s been a number of years since I’ve been the moderator on this site. These days, it’s only when I’m doing a newsdesk shift, which is sadly less than once a month. Our moderation policy is to not allow personal comments. Sometimes human error might allow a borderline one to slip through, and when it’s pointed out we remove it, with apologies.
2. Our policy is to not allow anonymous comments to be used for astroturfing, or as a weapon to mislead our audience. Where we believe this is going on, we call it out. For instance, if we get a large number of comments praising a particular ad and pretending to be from a series of individual, independent commentators while they turn out to be all from the IP address of the agency that made it, we call it out.
3. No. Do you believe that you are?
4. As I say above, people are welcome to email me if they want to have a private conversation about this. You may note the dozens of comments on this post. That’s, um, the open discussion. Nobody has to email me to have their say. You do know, you’ve made a comment here, don’t you?
5. Shit. I wish I’d read that before Point 4. Well played, Anon. Well played.
6. Nope.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Try enforcing indentified comments and see how many comments you get, Similar to AdNews….. One or two per article just praising whatever the author wrote.. the other 90% will just be a thought kept to yourself.
Nah, comments must be anonymous or there would be no comments at all. Who goes to b&t or Adnews, ever? Every time I visit, which is rarely, I can almost hear the tumbleweeds.
I could do without CB’s comment section honestly, but you can consistently find gold in Mumbrella’s comments and it’s because you never know what you’ll find. Thoughtful albeit long-winded critiques, outraged conservatives (where do they come from?), different takes, support and stories. It’s fun in here.
Please don’t turn trade rags into soulless press release factories.
Thank you for speaking up Steady
A very important issue, especially with mental health in the industry being such an problem.
While it’s true the industry has a mental health problem as indicated by the recent “Mentally Healthy” study, it feels like it is a stretch to say ending anonymous commenting will have significant impact on this problem.
In an industry where staff of holding companies consistently work long hours and weekends, feel pressure to work while sick, overworked, stressed and generally are underpaid (WPP is known within the industry as ‘why pay people’) this open letter feels like a well-intentioned but token effort.
An interim CEO of a holding company has the power to incite real change to address the mental health problem within the industry. Structural change.
To everyone that isn’t in a senior position this feels like an empty stunt. A backslapping exercise for those who publicly come out in support it, most likely for their own professional gain.
Totally agree , if you don’t have the strength of conviction to identify yourself you don’t deserve to comment .
Now if Israel had stayed anonymous it would saved one hell of a furore !
This is a very positive initiative. Often inarticulate, poisonous rants from anonymous bottom-dwellers can be quite scarifying. We will all profit from more elevated, accountable debate.
Wrote this a few weeks back, the more voices the better.
It Is Time to End Anonymous Commenting
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-end-anonymous-commenting-peter-bray
In spaces where you have attributed comments (LinkedIn is a great example), you get meaningless, nothing comments from people trying to toadie up to each other. “Great post!” “Love this!” “Your insight is fantastic and I’m only saying this because I hope you’ll notice my name and look on me favorably in future.”
Rightly or wrongly, people feel freer to speak openly when it’s anonymous. I’d rather actually know what the industry thinks about issues than read a whole bunch of vacuous yes-ing. If the cost of that is a few bad apples who attack others just for the sake of attacking, it’s a price worth paying. Ignore them.
To be honest this whole article smacks of “someone hurt my feelings and I’m not used to that happening to me because everyone’s scared of me in real life.”
Amazing! Great post. Loves this. #humbled #proud #blessed. Oh wait, this isn’t LinkedIn..?
Absolutely it smacks of ‘someone hurt my feelings’. That’s the point. When you post an attack under the cloak of anonymity, it makes you forget that your attacking real people with real feelings. Granted this blog does a better job of moderating than the other. Most of us who have been around for long enough are savvy enough to take trolling with a grain of salt, but what about the junior who’s just busted their ass for a year on a campaign who has to read such caustic comments and goes home at night questioning themselves and their ability. It’s no wonder that our industry is double the national average for signs of anxiety and depression. It’s not the future of the industry I want for myself or young creatives.
Yes, we’re all very glad to see the CEO of WPP doing everything in his power to address anxiety and depression in his agencies. Now excuse me while I continue to bust my arse off to pay for someone’s ticket to Cannes.
Pseudonym still holds up nicely.
Ryan, don’t pretend this is about concern for juniors. As many have pointed out below, the only ones leaving their names in this thread are directors and above (yourself included). It’s the juniors who benefit most from anonymity, because they’re the ones who face the greatest risk of personal and professional repercussions in voicing their (completely valid) opinions and experiences online.
If your belief is that anonymously providing ‘feedback’ in an online forum will affect change in your agency or the industry for juniors then you’ve got a problem. All that does is create a perpetuating cycle of bottom-up, unconstructive and inactionable criticism. How do you expect that change anything? And yes it is about protecting young creatives because guess what, I used to be one. So now that I am senior, I’m voicing an issue through my junior self that I believe needs to change. I encourage you to do the same when your time comes.
It’s not about “providing feedback,” Ryan. It’s about having a voice and feeling safe in being able to share it to see if you’re the only one feeling that way.
As seniors (I am one, by the way, I’m just also a big fan of anonymity), we should respect the fact that people below us aren’t going to be happy all the time, and that having an outlet to voice those frustrations is healthy. It can also be insightful for us, because again – people say things online that they would never be able to say to us in person.
Juniors don’t need our “protection,” they need our understanding and support. And if you come back at me with a “we need to support them to say these things in person” argument, I’m out – that’s simply not how human behavior works and never will be.
Well then allow me to borrow your Pseudonym and say I ‘Completely Disagree With This Sentiment’. If you think voicing frustrations anonymously on an industry blog is healthy or in anyway constructve then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’d recommend a healthier outlet like ‘the Gabberish’ if you want understanding and support.
You’ve just spoken on behalf of the ‘juniors’ in the industry which you admit you’re not a part of, Ryan.
Because of your stance on real ID – juniors on the come-up can now quote *you* – a senior in the industry – in an industry context – as saying:
“If you believe that anonymously providing ‘feedback’ in an online forum will affect change in the industry for juniors then you’ve got a problem”.
“How do you expect [bottom-up] criticism to change anything?”
And if juniors don’t agree with these sentiments (which I’m assuming they don’t because only senior people are commenting with their names) – what’s to stop them from holding you to account (anonymised or not) when they are a bit more stable in their careers?
I say this as someone sitting at a mid-level, and who was more recently than you a junior myself.
You’ve mis-quoted and misinterpreted me. The argument is that industry blog forums like Mumbrella and Campaign Brief are not the place to create the change you’re seeking. Feedback from juniors is vital, and this is not the forum to affect such change.
Ryan, I see that you work for an agency within WPP.
If you were to hypothetically disagree with John Steedman’s sentiments, would you honestly be putting your name to these comments right now? Where would you realistically feel comfortable voicing your disagreements if not a public forum that allows for anonymity?
Feedback from juniors IS vital. And anonymity is the only way contrarian and honest views can be expressed in such a tight-knit, ‘every CEO knows each other’ industry. It also lets other juniors know that they are not alone in their perspective.
If there’s no anonymity, there’d only be yes-men like yourself left.
@Completely disagree
How right you are!
The vacuous yes-ing on LinkedIn is sickening and aside from the “someone hurt my feelings sentiment” it also reeks of an old bloke that hasnt been hardened by post 2010’s reddit era.
Cry me a river old timer, I just want honesty (anonymous or not)!
Agree totally! It just becomes meaningless PR spin which our industry is renowned for. Our industry leaders need to be kept accountable and sometimes their needs to be anonymity in order to do this
Yeah – nah.
Sure, you want to stop online abuse. That’s a no-brainer.
But with public ID – what you’re essentially opening the door to is being able to publicly shame / isolate / fire people who’s opinion doesn’t align with the community or who may criticise someone/thing else.
So if I was to say something like: “this is shallow, thoughtless opinion that could only have come from someone without any real knowledge of online communities or how online discussion got to this point.”
… and if I was a WPP staff member – what’s to stop you from identifying me and demoting / changing my role / letting me go (for any reason you choose, but with my comment as the catalyst)?
That’s gonna become real gestapo, real quick.
Look, I agree there are alot of rants, accusations and the like that emerge in the comments sections of press sites like this.
The question we really need to dig into is what is driving these people to do this, I’d imagine those who do it for fun make up a small percentage.
A general observation is that there can be alot of adversity towards how businesses are run and the leaders in some of those businesses. Right there we have a potential cause, a leadership and talent issue which we know exists.
Good article, we as an industry need to determine route cause and manage
I agree with the sentiment but I’m not sure troll is the right word to use here. I’d guess most commenters genuinely believe what they post online. They are real people. Calling them trolls suggests they’re just doing it to cause a stir. This is a wider social issue – people feeling emboldened to share their bigoted and hateful opinions anonymously or not.
It’s the same as Trump using the term “fake news.”
Calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll is a convenient excuse for avoiding self reflection.
True trolls – people who post purely to get a rise out of others – are rare, and exceedingly so on articles about a professional industry.
Not a lot of folks popping over to Mumbrella from 4Chan…
What utter nonsense. Truly spoken like someone wielding power through name and title.
A true thanks to Mumbrella for keeping their comments open and free through moderation, allowing all opinions to flow together (whether we personally like them or not). As my good friend Anon said above, it’s all too easy to slide into the territory of hackneyed press release regurgitation without it.
Sounds familiar? 13 years ago and eight years ago.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/adlands-had-enough-of-the-blogs/news-story/b0d733aeb1dfccf857bce7d288eeb8ef
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/nameless-blogger-bile-hurts/news-story/8460be0b1c90fcb7fc4febdde5770fb8
And I copped plenty for these two pieces in the Australian when I wrote them.
We all behave a lot better when we know we are being watched..
I love George Orwell!
The author liked the world more when people were afraid of him (which they were and we all know it) … now it seems comments also have power so he wants those shut down.
I just looked up everyone that has commented using their real names. They all hold senior positions. They all agree with the author’s opinion. It’s just powerful people publicly congratulating one another. How boring. Implementing such a policy would scuttle Mumbrella.
No one on Mumbrella is truly anonymous… Tim Burrowes knows who we all are 😉
I’d like add my voice to the chorus – anonymity is the saving grace of the internet for users and universally loathed by media owners bent on controlling the narrative.
I am hugely appreciative of Mumbrella allowing us a fig-leaf of anonymity. The comments are often better than the articles (see the recent ridiculous anti-sex Honey Birdette piece and the anti-alcohol diatribe that have been published here on Mumbrella in the last few days)
Please don’t give in to hysterical boomers like John Steedman. Sites that get rid of their comment section are smacking their readers in the face. “Don’t have opinions, just consume content and advertising passively”
How good are the comments on the anti-Honey Birdette piece!
Keep Mumbrella as is Tim, nobody wants this site to become boring, old (heavily moderated) AdNews.
As I said to someone who was on the receiving end of anonymous comments – it’s one thing to blame the commenters & blogs, but perhaps you need to reflect on your own behaviour when you worked with many of these now anonymous people.
Industry blogs are not filled with comments from ill-informed strangers. Many have first hand experience working with those they’re commenting on. And yes, they have a fucking axe to grind.
You reap what you sow.
Until agencies place better emphasis on agency leadership and improve HR & talent management, nothing will change, least of all because of a plea from WPP.
Bingo!
Anonymity and ‘advertising supported’ are the two cardinal sins of the web.
Both, a scourge. Both dragging society down, with the latter — as Hoffman so clearly points out — ushering in a surveillance society without historical parallel.
Sadly, neither are going away.
But bravo for sticking up for what’s right.
How is Anonymity a ‘cardinal sin’ of the web when early internet communities were purely build on anonymity? That’s a laughably bad take.
Gonna echo Bottom-dweller’s sentiment here – the only people showing their names and agreeing with this are those in power and chasing clout.
Thanks for ruining the Internet for us, you ignorant pearl clutchers.
Sorry? You say anonymity AND a surveillance society are both scourges? In the same breath?
Bravo
well said
A captain of the industry
All from named accounts
Stop anonymous comments and you may as well do away with comm nets all together. It will just be a LinkedIn-style flow of brown noses.
Don’t the “captains” of this industry just hate it when they lose the power to control criticism!?
Pathetic Steady. Truly pathetic.
Hard to argue with the fact that the anonymous posts are often more insightful than republished opinion pieces and industry news, and certainly more amusing.
Also true that cyber-bullying and for that matter social media narcissism have emerged as major digital era forms of harm.
For sites like Mumbrella, I think it’s a balance better achieved through the moderation policy than forcing people to identify themselves however.
Completely agree with many of the sentiments here. Those who comment on posts with their identity revealed are often senior leaders in positions of power who are agreeing with the opinions expressed. Keep in mind those junior staffers and middle managers who rightfully fear the repercussions of expressing their opinion, particularly if it goes against the majority.
Far worse for most businesses than anonymous comments:
agency groups that never ever pay their bills on time.
You can’t silence the anonymous masses Steedy!
Surely there are bigger things to fix at WPP than to be worrying about this?
Fix WPP AUNZ or stop on-line trolling. Not sure which I’d nail first.
I’ve made this point many times over the years. The issue is NOT anonymity the issue is a lack of active community management. There are myriad healthy anonymous (or pseudonymous) spaces online that are safe, welcoming and productive spaces where anonymity is a key component of that success. The difference is that they actively set the tone and culture, and they both moderation and community manage these spaces.
Here’s an article I wrote on the issue last year:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/give-man-mask-hell-show-you-his-true-face-why-we-should-michalk/
So he wants to use publishing platforms for self-promotion, but wants to be totally inoculated from scrutiny or criticism? Clearly that’s the case. What people like this fail to appreciate is the power imbalance between them as economic power elites, and the rest of society (or industry) who are not. The rest cannot comment candidly in their own name, unless they want to commit career suicide. The advertising industry is infamous for its vendettas by the powerful against the powerless. The only possibility of candid comment is to protect those who do not wield that power from the inevitable payback. Guess who else demands and gets publicity without any possibility of candid criticism? Kim Jong Un.
Methinks he protests too much,
Megalogenis said it best “my blog my rules” -but the legal liability always vests with somebody picking and choosing: if you select content, you acquire obligations for content accepted.
I have never met John Steedman, but I do know a few of the named ‘captains’ here, and some of them are my friends. However, I have to respectfully disagree with this proposal, with a caveat: as it relates to Mumbrella and our industry. I myself have posited that unmasking pernicious, nasty cyber-bullies on Facebook et al would be no bad thing; in fact, bring that on. But having returned two years ago to work in the Australian advertising and media industry after several years in New York, I can attest to the liveliness and quality of the debate inspired by Mumbrella’s articles. This simply does not exist overseas. And yes, in my opinion, the vast majority of insightful – and truthful! – comments are made anonymously, for the reasons that many others have expressed above. I read the comments often and can’t recall any I have considered ‘troll-like’. Some are misinformed, some very cynical, but none of them nasty – clearly the Mumbrella staff do a good job in moderating.
In 2002, my first year working in the states, I wrote a letter to Ad Age (pre-website days!) responding to an article by the late, great media planning guru Erwin Ephron. My letter was published. Shortly thereafter I received a call from Omnicom PR advising me that no letters were to be sent to any trade press without their prior approval. Now, it may well be less draconian in Australia, but ultimately that is the default intent of all the holding companies and their associated senior agency managements. I believe blocking this avenue for candid and robust opinion and debate would be a significant professional loss.
This is my article from 10 YEARS AGO calling out Mumbrella and Campaign Brief to pull the negative comments.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.a.....ticle=9633
This very healthy, 50 comment deep debate would not be happening without anonymity. If I want to kiss the arse of disillusioned chiefs I will use LinkedIn thanks.
Some good points yet equating anonymous commenting with trolls is wrong, and suggesting people use their real names seems naive. Well moderated, active communities of anonymous and well informed people can be a great thing.
How many jr media execs would tell the CEO or management team what they need to do better? Or better to join the Linked In cabal of backslapping and self promotion?
I agree personal or nasty comments should be removed but doesn’t mean debate can be stifled because an agency group has an agenda.
Sorry Steady but you don’t speak for me.
Can you imagine for a moment what would happen if a WPP employee posted something other than a laudatory comment? Or for that matter the employee of any company that could identify that person? I think you’re gonna have to harden up Mr S and accept that you can’t control everything and/or everyone in the world.
While I can see and respect Johns views here, I believe anonymity gives a voice to those who struggle with or fear speaking up. Often there is considerable tension between an agency and their suppliers and at times questionable on how business is won that anonymity provides an outlet to voice an opinion or suggest a change. I strongly do believe more good than bad come out of this. However, no one should ever be bullied and it’s up to the publisher to moderate those comments.
In principle, it works.
In reality, it doesn’t work that well.
My favorite footy site implemented a Facebook login to comment last year.
A few things happened
1 – the volume of comments dropped. A lot.
2 – half the people logged in with their real Facebook profile
3 – the other logged in with Facebook profiles made just for their soccer comments
How do you police people setting up “fake” profiles?
How are you verifying that everyone is who they say they are?
If you can’t do the above you don’t stop the behavior you are trying to police.
I think writing the word “police” a lot when discussing ideas also isn’t a great place to be.
I completely disagree with the suggestion to have log in or ID comments. It would stifle meaningful and honest debate as many here have suggested. I am actually curious to understand why Steady and others believe this is such a problem. We are talking here about media industry sites, if I’m not mistaken. I cannot recall reading personal attacks of a sexual or physical nature and I am a regular reader and contributor. Vigorous and robust commentary yes, but not abusive. The opinion piece does read as something of a repetitive rant and it’s not clear to me there is sufficient evidence of a widespread problem within media industry websites. I could be wrong as I don’t read AdNews / B&T (does anyone ?) The comments are indeed anonymous but Tim and others no doubt at Mumbrella know who we are. This acts as an effective filter as obvious conflict and abuse can be called out or filtered. Comparing trade media commentary to trolling such as bullying of children or vulnerable adults diminishes the seriousness of that problem and I believe misses the pint of what trolling really is.
Tricky issue! Ironically, anonymous posts on this article speak volumes for the predicament. They also indicate the problem – “Cry me a river old timer, I just want honesty (anonymous or not)!” says it all.
It appears some get confused in thinking honesty and respect are mutually exclusive. Anonymous commentary, whist an avenue for some to share opinion they may not have otherwise offered, also amplifies disrespect. The industry has always been a place where think skin comes in handy, but it’s heading down a dangerous path and quite frankly an ugly one. Have the ‘anonymous’ camp thought that by putting your name to a thought (no matter it’s controversial nature) you quite possibly will be more respected for having an opinion.
Obviously there are multiple issues involved with this – anxiety and the longer term impact that promotes an environment of ‘honesty’ over respectful, considered, robust debate are just a couple. Yes Tim traffic will drop from people who get off on reading and fulling industry gossip but hiding behind anonymous posts doesn’t help the bigger picture and Mumbrella has a big part to play in getting it right.
I can’t help but smile at the placement of the SBS ad for “A Ghost Story” next to this thread……
Ah Paddy, a man who knows the virtue of being smacked about by an anonymous comment or two (yes Paddy, I remember that incident on the Mediacom article a few years ago!!).
Come on Paddy! Fire up and ‘Paddy Bomb’ us all again!
The glory days of 2015 are upon us again!
Consistency please people. If you want us to read your precocious, KPI forced puff pieces written purely with purpose to put your name out there in the goal to be shortlisted for one of a myriad of pointless shortlists, then best use your name all the time.
We are a bit too far along now to try and control this. I tend to enjoy and get more truth from the anons. Long live the anons.
Toothpaste…I recognise this easter egg in the comment section!
This thread is like a trip down memory lane…
Ark up Paddy, your true fans are waiting with breathless gusto!
Thank you for your support Long Time Fan, but once bitten, twice shy…….
Sounds like the author can’t handle a bit of criticism. When you’re at the top like he is, all that surrounds you are sycophants. You actually become thin skinned as a result.
Long live anonymity. If you can’t handle the incoming fire, quit your job steedman
Says the person who comments anonymously. Coward.
Way to put your name to your counter argument.
Oh wait…
Did you even read what you were posting before you hit submit? Far out.
If you want honest commentary, let people stay anonymous and let trolling be policed by moderators. If you want sycophantic back-slapping from people scared of bruising industry egos to the detriment of their careers, log on to http://www.LinkedIn.com
Anonymity isn’t the issue here and in multiple community forums, such as those considered high-risk, can be seen as a chance for members to be open and honest with what is happening in their life. What is needed is effective community management, that is, real-time monitoring, engagement and moderation of posts. Too often we see pages that only see value in social media as one way – posting content but not actually adding to any further discussion. This is akin to having timed lights on a holiday house. But soon enough, people are going to realise that no one is monitoring and that’s when the free-for-all begins.
Brands, organisations and agencies need to finally realise that social media and community management is not a junior position and is, in fact, an asset to the overall operations of the business. You wouldn’t have an open office without backup security, so why are you leaving your social channels unchecked?
[Editor’s note, 11 July, 2019: The author has requested their name be removed from this comment]
Chill Erin, your colleague Alison already got a plug in for Quiip above. We get it, you guys do community management…
This is fully deja vu. For those with a global perspective and some memory, AgencySpy overseas went legit and made people use Facebook logins to comment. It made a highly active site with lots of open (and occasionally dodgy) discussions turn insipid with no one commenting anymore. (For a short while people created pretend Facebook accounts, before giving up). Admittedly at times that site went wayyyy too far (it was not moderated to high standards like Mumbrella is as Tim Burrowes rightly points out here), but if you want an example of taking away people’s outlet to express themselves freely – Agency Spy is it.
Let’s face it too. Australia is not in the league of some other Western countries when it comes to expressing ourselves freely either. We have some of the strictest defamation laws in the world. We have no strong whistleblower legislation. We live in an era of social media stacks-on over here for very minor things. We also all have employment contracts that rigorously control our online behaviour and can end our employment in a snap if we put the slightest foot wrong.
In a climate like that, being able to actually comment freely as you would in a cafe, restaurant or pub is a true blessing. I agree that rude, insulting, bullying, discriminatory comments are no-go and here you have a bouncer to boot you out in the form of an editor. However just because an Agency head might get their ‘puff piece’ questioned occasionally (and that ‘may’ be what’s between the lines of this assault on Mumbrella and CB) shouldn’t be a reason to shutter our comments.
Mumbrella is our pub of free expression. Leave our pub alone Steady!
Thanks Steady. Your leadership is both admirable and stands out.
I’m proud to know you.
How many showers did you need to take after typing that sycophantic bile? [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
Nicola Lewis did you get the job?
There will be no freedom of speech and persecution of those people who criticise various government departments or big businesses.
Hard to take these moral lectures from the author. Instead of lecturing others on how you want them to behave, look at some of the actions that have defined your media agencies over the past two decades.
Mumbrella Ad Nws CB B&T Tot
Agree (22%) 14 2 4 5 26
Disagree (58%) 60 0 8 0 68
Making another pt (13%) 9 4 3 0 16
Publisher Commenting (7%) 7 0 0 1 8
Total 90 6 15 6 118
B&T and Ad News – don’t accept anon comments
Mumbrella/CM – accept anon comments
Did you log these stats into Salesforce for the weekly WIP?
The stats here so far:
Of all the comments on all four industry titles so far on Steadman’s post:
22% agree to no trolling, 58% disagree, 13% are making another point or rambling, and 7% are publishers commenting.
Mumbrella has 90 Comments, B&T and Ad News, six each, and Campaign Monitor has 15 comments.
There are no disagreeing comments on B&T and Ad News.
B&T and Ad News both do not take anonymous comments.
Lordy this has really made my afternoon, been crying with laughter.
I am
1)Senior
2) Female
3) eternally grateful for anon comments which allow us to say what we really think
4) Harden up Steady
As the dust appears to be slowly settling on this debate it would be fascinating and appropriate for the author of the opinion to respond with any impact the feedback has had on his thinking and whether he still holds the same views as when he wrote the piece.
I don’t think you can judge what the view of the industry is regarding trolling or anon comments from analysis of a sample of commenters views from this forum. The sample is naturally biased towards those who already enjoy and use the anon comments sections by nature of the fact that the anon comments section is hosting this discussion. I recognise of course that there are many positive commenters and readers.
What I do know is that the issue has become general conversation among the industry outside of this forum, in our agencies, at our client meetings, in the pub and with our partners and while I have had many a chat about it now I have met very few people who support anon comments at this time although the principle of stating your views in an anonymous capacity is generally seen as a positive and reflection of free speech.
The general feeling is that Mumbrella itself has allowed, over sometime now, trolling of people and organisations to take place. There is a further view that this has been manipulated, perhaps not even intentionally, to avoid larger Mumbrella partners suffering while those who dont support Mumbrella are more open to situations where trolling related to their businesses or personnel are allowed to pass unedited. There are a lot of examples of this and indeed this view was shared by an ex Mumbrella editor just last week.
This is the view that seems to be more widely shared by those chatting outside of this forum.
It simply didn’t exist before Mumbrella prompted this or perhaps more fairly created a platform for this type of attacking each other behaviour which has brought out the worst in many people within the industry.
It’s a bit like the argument of the arms industry when they say guns don’t kill, people do. Clearly with no guns, more people would be alive and well. Without Mumbrella’s approach to anon forums, we would not be in the state we are today.
Adnews has remained resolute in its fairness of moderation and its business has suffered because of this. It has failed to grow online at the same rate that Mumbrella has. With anon comments on its forums Mumbrella’s growth has soared and Mumbrella should be recognised for its excellent strategy here in fuelling a human instinct of mans interest in the macabre, the suffering of others, of tall poppies falling etc. Mumbrella has now successfully sold and clearly achieved its goals after developing a large online audience to promote too. Well done.
My hat goes off to Adnews who may be suffering financially but who exemplify integrity in the industry. Well done James, what you have done is important and significant.
But Mumbrella cannot expect the industry to take it seriously when it now attempts to position itself on the moral high ground while simultaneously denying culpability in creating or co-creating this stench in our industry today.
Again, Mumbrella should be recognised for its aggressive and successful growth strategy, its world class. But Mumbrella cannot claim to have clean hands.
To judge yourself by the comments or support observed in your own forums or from the supporting nod from an industry veteran over lunch is comforting no doubt, but it is at best very naive and at worst perhaps narcissistic.
Sometimes it’s difficult to tell the difference between a really pathetic attempt at a wind up and just a pathetic attempt. Take this post for example. Firstly it chooses an emotionally loaded pseudonym vaguely suggesting there is some link no doubt with history and antisemitism. It then suggests that the sample of comments is biased because many of them are pro anonymity. He then claims “ our agencies , clients and suppliers” as somehow with him in the “ general conversation ” and then suggests Mumbrella are manipulating the issue. The motivation here being a long term strategy to improve the value of Mumbrella prior to its sale. It invokes the much less popular example of AdNews as an example of how Mumbrella should have behaved. The empty emotive theme continues with the description of “the stench in our industry today”
And , in a staggeringly ironic twist does all this, and more, under the very cloak of anonymity.
Cant tell if this comment is John Steadman or Ben Shepherd in disguise?
Attack attack attack
Abuse abuse abuse
Ridicule ridicule ridicule
Troll troll troll
Feedback only works when, kept anonymous. Steady you might have many things to hide, hence bothered about it.