Mediacom defends Rob Moore court case: Mars ‘unequivocally disliked Rob’
CONTENT WARNING: This post mentions depression and suicide ideation and may be triggering for some readers.
If you need urgent help, please contact:
Lifeline 13 11 14 www.lifeline.org.au
Suicide Call Back Service 1300 659 467 www.suicidecallbackservice.org.au
MensLine Australia 1300 789 978 www.mensline.org.au
Beyond Blue 1300 224 636 www.beyondblue.org.au
Mediacom has lodged its defence in the court case brought against it by former executive Rob Moore.
The Group M agency’s former general manager alleges that he was made redundant because he disclosed a diagnosis of depression to CEO Willie Pang last year, but Mediacom, in court documents viewed by Mumbrella, contends that the redundancy was part of a restructure influenced by Moore’s poor performance on key accounts including Mars.
Rob Moore commenced court proceedings against his former employer in July
Can I ask Mumbrella & Brittney, why you continue to write articles the drag peoples name through the mud? You’re a tabloid. Not a news website. I get more substance from bowel movements.
Hi ‘Curious’,
You may.
These claims about Rob Moore are from Mediacom, not us at Mumbrella. It is their official, on-the-record (and publicly available) defence to his claims. We published his claims against Mediacom, so it’s only fair their counter-argument also gets air-time.
It is unfortunate it has reached this point, however, given we report on agencies, the people within them, and the struggles these businesses and people are facing (including expectations/ mental health), we decided to take a look at this one.
Vivienne – Mumbrella
I can understand. However, given the number of ‘trash mag’ comments we are seeing below – it’s apparent that your mental health disclaimer hasn’t done much to shield Mumbrella from the fact this has crossed the line. It’s not about whether it’s public record, it’s about the integrity of the publication.
Respond to the comments below in-kind, and defend that.
It’s a fine line between informative and salacious – Mumbrella’s toe is on that line.
They had to post the response after the initial article – would’ve been outrageous to have slandered Willie and then not post MediaCom’s response – should’ve been neither, but couldn’t have just been one
Is it really appropriate for Mumbrella to very publicly publish all the details surrounding someone’s struggle with their mental health?
Maybe have a think about how broadcasting it may make them feel when the very article literally quotes: “shock, distress and humiliation, exacerbation of [his] disability, loss of reputation [and] loss of opportunity for promotion and advancement in his chosen career”.
Mumbrella & Brittney are only reporting on details which are part to the actual proceedings, which is legal and disconnected from a bias standpoint. I support Rob, and it’s a shame that he’s up against a fumbling tyrant here, but I respect Mumbrella and Brittney’s unbiased reporting.
Mediacom you should be fkn ashamed of your actions here. If 2014/15 didn’t end you, this saga will. Good riddance to a toxic business beyond repair.
I agree it is toxic but disagree it is beyond repair. Most in the industry know where the “toxicity” is coming from, but for some reason nothing has been done about it. Hopefully this story will bring the bigger issue of mismanagement to light.
Unfortunately this is a recurring pattern at all Sydney agencies: the ‘race to the bottom’ has put profit way above people and product in terms of priorities – and everyone is suffering, especially staff. The volume of work senior staff are meant to pump out, at a ridiculous fast rate, is outrageous: the output has to be poor quality in order to get everything done. Producing lots of crappy work may make profit in the short term – but long term damages staff morale (and mental health), client relationships and agency reputation. This would never happen in London: quality work, that drives incredible results, wins over clients and consumers. Anyone can do cheap and nasty: Few can do breathtaking. If Aussie agencies refuse to acknowledge the disgusting, Trump-esque way they treat both workers and clients, cases like this will keep piling up – as more and more people leave the industry due to work-caused psychological injury. Didn’t we leave bullying back in high school? This story is just the tip of a very, very big industry-wide iceberg.
Genuinely feel Mumbrella has completely overstepped the line here. You are knowingly dragging an individual’s reputation through the mud in front of his peers. The whole article reads like a Mediacom communication piece and I feel for Rob, without even knowing him. Take the higher ground Mumbrella, you are not a trash rag, but this sure reads like one.
This is really inappropriate Mumbrella team. For a trade title of our industry you should know better rather than fall victim to the page impressions/ clicks obsession which is the only reason why you’re covering this story. You should be supporting people who have mental illness and respect their wishes – Which were stated by Rob as wanting to keep this confidential. Shameful.
While I get the ‘news’ angle, and balancing previous reporting with the other side of the argument, I feel really uncomfortable that this is playing out so publicly. Even if it’s just claims of poor performance, this can really tarnish someone and hurt their employability. Add to it potentially serious mental health issues and I worry that this is inflaming an already precarious situation for one bloke who probably deserves more empathy from all concerned, notwithstanding the obvious disclaimers published here.
Rob Moore, whatever has gone on here I truly hope there’s a positive outcome and you can move on to something and somewhere better.
Mumbrella, you need to seriously consider your role in impacting the mental health and well-being of agency folk by providing a platform and forum for news like this.
Rob appears to have been a ‘Media Director’ of some sort, then promoted to ‘General Manager’. The question worth asking is was he allowed to relinquish any of his existing ‘Media Director’ roles? And was he given adequate resourcing when he stepped up? The comments from other leaders in the article could be taken to mean he was still expected to lead accounts as he might have previously. Do you blame Rob for a client’s disenfranchisement in that case? Or do you blame resourcing for allowing a possibly overworked, dual-role, time-poor person to remain on their business? Every agency is doing more with less, however there is potentially a lesson on what can happen when you spread people too thin.
This is public information and Mumbrella has every right to publish. It’s an interesting and well written article so if you don’t like it, then don’t read it. It is of interest for those of us who have worked with the named individuals or at MediaCom. Particularly of value for those who also had ‘mixed’ experiences at MediaCom!
agree!
There are issues with Mediacom that were well established before Rob started working there and issues that have persisted long after he left. It’s well-known in the industry that certain senior members at Mediacom behave inappropriately after drinking but they’re all well-protected and any mention of their behaviour is kept quiet. It’s a toxic place and while it is a huge shame that Rob was so affected, his own behaviour massively impacted those working for and with him in negative ways too. The company needs to do more to protect their employees. This is an ugly situation and blame goes to everyone who pushes employees past their limit as well as those who try to cover it up.
Oh my you lot. Mumbrella is NOT wrong to quote Mediacom’s defence, we are adults and can decide for ourselves if we believe it or not.
I don’t work for WPP and I don’t know Rob. The above story does not lessen my view of him, I am a grown up and I know it’s a defence to a claim and obviously only going to state the case of one side.
If anything, it makes me think that the “redundancy” sounds more like a sacking and that would not be a redundancy at all.
There really is no value to anyone in reporting on the details of this.
It’s absolute gutter journalism.
It’s a good article as a catalyst to discuss mental health in our industry. For those who protest, we have to discuss this and not ignore! That’s how we can come together to improve the situation.
I’d disagree with the comments here that is is not appropriate for Mumbrella to cover this story. All the elements are a matter of public record. But at the heart of it, this story is being played out at different scales, and at different levels of seniority that may not get as much coverage, in every media agency, no exceptions. I know I wouldn’t want to be the public face of it, and have sympathy for all involved, who probably do not want to be as exposed. Media agencies, and I’m sure this is consistent across the broader industry, seriously need to look at how they treat and manage their people. More than a “business wide mental health day off”; the work and the clients aren’t taking a day off and the problems will still be there tomorrow. More than beanbags and chips on Friday. Agencies need to create a proactive work environment where good people are supported, where good work can be delivered without torturous compromise and where staff can have hope that positive change can occur. My hope is that coverage of situations like this can help create actual change.
It is very hard to rationalise how this piece of writing is or will be constructive for any of the parties concerned, including the writer and the organisation she writes for – Mumbrella. It demonstrates immaturity and bad judgement. Rob – I don’t know you, but I feel for you and the difficult road you are travelling on. Mediacom – where there’s smoke, there’s fire – get your act together. Mumbrella – mental health issues are serious, individual in nature and require companies and people involved to exercise deep compassion, empathy, confidentiality, support for the individuals and elevated, mature judgement. It looks as though your writer might need some training and leadership around the topic, or end up being collateral damage herself from this mistake.
To quote Mumbrella’s own press: “Mumbrella, which launched in December 2008, is a discussion of everything under Australia’s media and marketing umbrella”
If you remove emotion and sensitivity from the situation, expecting them not to objectively cover and factually report on a situation like this is ridiculous. This is a major event within the industry, and everything they are reporting is a matter of public record.
How it plays out will set an interesting and impactful precedent for the industry, and have a significant effect on large and established relationships across the board.
Remove your own sensitivities from the situation and accept that this is an interesting story. Have sympathy for those involved, of course, but there’s not need to expect the industry to stick its head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening.
Well done Mumbrella for airing this. John Steedman wants to stand out as a mental health advocate, but all his employees (especially outside of Sydney) are struggling. As an Ikon employee, I know full well how much show WPP put on about it, but actually dealing with these issues is non-existent. Media isn’t filled with brilliant people, just look at the MFA leaders video from yesterday. It’s a pretty simple industry that is being derided by holding companies bullying staff. Those that suck up and hold the line to the big shots (big shots from the 80’s I should say….brown paper bags under the table type of big shots) move places, those that don’t are victimised. The industry is an absolute disgrace and should be held accountable by publications such as Mumbrella. Reading Mediacom’s responses to Rob made me feel physically ill.
An ex-Junkee / The Feed “journalist” using someone’s mental health to drive clicks and gossip under the guise of “conversation”? Gosh, I am *so* surprised.
Just because it’s publicly available doesn’t mean it should get publicly broadcasted. It takes a degree of soul and tact to comprehend this though.
This ^. Thank you! Deplorable Mumbrella
I don’t know any of the parties involved. To be frank, I barely know anything about Mediacom.
Even even to me, this article is quite clearly stepping into a very shaky territory where ‘responsible reporting’ is overshadowed with ‘get clicks’.
These are human beings, on both sides. Neither of them deserve this, right or wrong. Remove this article and re-think your editorial integrity. I understand it probably complies with a policy somewhere. But do you morally think this is a good show?
Be better.
How can you question editorial integrity while simultaneously asking them not to report objectively and factually on an important story within the industry?
It’s a sensitive topic, but the outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the industry and people want/need to know the facts.
Thank you for this article. I get what others are saying about feeling uncomfortable about the topic, but the truth is that if the media ignores these issues, then businesses can continue to implement poor practices.
Employers generally will only be highly incentivised to act within the law and respect the mental health of its employees if they know that the media will report on their failings.
Rob has taken a stand to fight against what he sees as an unfair and illegal practice. That litigation is a public process. Publishing the details of it isn’t immature or gutter journalism – it is exactly the thing that journalists are supposed to do: report on issues of public interest. The treatment of employees based on their mental health is most certainly is obviously in the public interest.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Bravo Rob and Bravo Mumbrella
Have to agree here. The only reason it seems nasty or low is because that’s the impression you’re getting from Mediacom’s defense. Mumbrella is reporting on what the defense contains. Mediacom are the ones who have put this out there and it is on them if we want to cast blame.
Those against the reporting on both sides of a court case by journalists – do you happen to work at the Australian Government currently too?
I don’t know Rob, but having worked in a WPP agency, the general conduct towards senior leadership they wish to move aside, sounds familiar to my own experience and others I know.
In light of this and other cases, there should be a question mark over WPPAUNZ’s ongoing association with R U OK. It’s really not OK.
I do not feel like I should be reading these details.
Given that the court case is ongoing, and that there are issues of serious mental illness involved, I really don’t think this is necessary to report on here, let alone allow comments. Yes people can look up the court documents if they wish but giving it extra attention seems in poor taste.
Why don’t we all just take a moment to think about what it would be like to be Rob Moore, someone with depression, reading this. I thought Australian journalism learned [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]. You’re a disgrace.
This is really terribly misjudged Mumbrella.
Remove the article, and yes, be better than this.
This criticism is levelled at the wrong source.
The issue is that Mediacom are defending actions that are indefensible. There is no doubt Rob was/is suffering a terrible crisis of confidence and that should have been managed appropriately.
To blame clients and use the victims words to undermine his experience is reprehensible. Never mind the reference to a very private email that includes a plead for help and contemplation of suicide.
People working in this industry are so vulnerable and if they feel they can’t be transparent about their mental health as a result of this case it will only accelerate a decline that is clearly already in motion.
People are not dispensable.
You are absolutely correct. This highlights Mediacom’s lack of knowledge and compassion around this issue. They handled the matter poorly at the time and now handling it even worse – they are a joke of an agency now, seriously do not understand how the clients mentioned in the article have not left?
Someone should ask Village roadshow [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
There must be a better way to report on this as a topical subject rather than a verbatim legal transcript. All this is doing is humiliating an individual who is suffering from depression and painting Mediacom in a questionable light. I don’t see the ‘journalism’ in this piece.
This whole MediaCom PR piece is based on the assumption that none of us have ever [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] – really?
So you can be a mouthpiece for WPP and destroy someone’s career because they have a mental health issue but we can’t point out anything as to the character of those involved?
Hi ‘Been Around’,
I wouldn’t call Mumbrella a mouth-piece for WPP. Those within WPP certainly don’t see it that way, particularly given the accusations/ allegations against WPP and Willie Pang, as we reported here:
https://staging.mumbrella.com.au/former-mediacom-gm-rob-moore-takes-agency-to-court-alleging-willie-pang-made-him-redundant-because-of-mental-illness-591350
Both sides have been reported, and we are not performing a PR function for either.
Vivienne – Mumbrella
This is why employees can be cynical about agency mental health projects. Ridiculous way to treat someone who flagged a real concern
I know Rob. I know his reputation too. Neither side of this story is good. Good luck to both parties, seems like they’ll need it.
there are no winners here
For agencies, the easiest excuse is to “blame it on client, and say (client complained)”. Why don’t these clients complain about these agencies, who are known for rebates and media cost markups. Because agencies do profiling for their clients, clients will turn a blind eye to rebates/media cost markups.
Mumbrella please remember that Rob is a real person struggling with his mental health, and you writing every detail of this case for the gossipy ad industry to read is not helping anyone. Not your readers, and certainly not the people involved. Please be more responsible.
Don’t confuse an event company blog with journalism. Mumbrella has the journalistic integrity of Love Island. This is really plunging into new depths.
Like most of the others commenting here, it saddens me that this has been reduced to reporting “claims” with an apparent lack of empathy for the individual involved.
I think there are a number of “elephants in the room” that don’t have a place in the courtroom, which the press do have license to be asking questions about:
– The continual use of “redundancy” to get rid of people who don’t fit the cookie cutter mould
– The deflection to EAP’s in lieu of taking responsibility for actual working conditions (which employees often can’t impact)
– The precedent that the treatment of staff at a senior level has for those at a junior level who may need support in similar situations
– The disparity between the treatment of those suffering from “physical” medical conditions versus those suffering from “mental” medical conditions
As the fourth estate, the trade press should be questioning the context surrounding the entire situation and why it even occurred while being mindful of the actual humans involved, beyond the paper the court-appropriate claims are written on.
Rob is a demonstration of one individual brave enough to call out the “elephants in the room” and should be applauded rather than painted as incapable. I’d certainly want his bravery clear tenacity applied to my account if I were his client.
Efficient Media.
The real scandal here.
I’ve seen this a fair bit on Mediacom posts. Does someone want to explain for the rest of us?
Just ask willie pang how efficient media is going?
All SEM teams were shut down and the activity was outsourced to a company called Efficient Media. Look into who owns it…
And how does Rob Moore feel about you publishing all this? It’s a bloody small industry, and I notice no other Australian news sites within the advertising and marketing industry publishing these details. Whilst I’m sure it was thrilling to do some primary research via the court documents viewed by Mumbrella, I’m not convinced of the need for broadcasting this.
This story is a minefield in so many ways.
As an agency person, I have regularly and often had “the clients feedback is XYZ” to justify a direction / action / ouput that someone else wants me / my team to deliver on. Hiding behind the client is an ingrained tactic in agency land. This is exactly what has happened here. If this agency behaviour can get called out for the bullshit that it is, agencies will keep people who want to work for them and will also drive leadership that is based on outputs – not fear. Currently, Australian media agencies are in the reserve grade for leadership ability and integrity.
More importantly. The information above detailing Rob’s personal poor health problems are not in the public interest at all! These have to be removed. It is chilling to read the detail of a person who requires help and this is information that should not be given a platform to the masses.
Question for Britney / Mumbrella; Does Rob / his family (i.e wife/kids etc) know that this information was going to be published and has he approved of or expressed any concern over this? I cant see the public interest angle of publishing this information that outweights the private negative impact on innocent, yet crucial, people impacted by the matter. Can you please provide an answer to this?
Hi AB,
The quote you have expressed concern about has been removed.
I can’t discuss your other concerns here, but thank you for the feedback. All the feedback (both the ‘was this necessary’/ ‘this went too far’ outrage, and the positive ‘this needs a light shone on it/ is indicative of a wider problem’ responses) have been noted.
You are correct it is a minefield, and we are listening to and considering all the feedback/ proposals put forward here.
Vivienne – Mumbrella
With respect Vivienne – you are not doing anything. The story remains (both the original one and this defence one).
There are clearly a lot of people angered by you putting all the details on your story, others who dont have a problem.
Please recognise that by leaving it on your website you are taking the side of those that say we need to “shine a light”, and thumbing your noses to the many who say the juicy details of the case do not need to be re-broadcast. I wonder have you actually asked Rob Moore or sought his permission to broadcast these details and the defence, to check if the mental-health-suffering person is okay with that? Probably not.
In Viv’s defense, the story has since been slightly edited to remove some of the over reaching personal sensitivities that were in a earlier iteration, while keeping to the core premise of the story.
For what it’s worth, the discussion prompted on this article shows that the relationship between agencies and their employees is complex (not in a good way) and this is what this article – particularly these comments – have highlighted.
Agencies or more accurately holding groups and potentially most specifically WPP are now so lost that they no longer have a compass for professional business protocol and in turn fair and reasonable protection of their staff (to state the bleeding obvious…)
From the evidence presented there are so many levels of dysfunction and ‘blame’ baked into every level of the business:
1. Why would the CEO put someone in a seat if they didn’t have full support across the business? Down-grading the title does not in reality change the scope of work and pressures of the role. Did it give GrM an excuse they could use if they wanted to remove the seat?
2. Why did the CEO not show some professionalism and dig deeper with Mars on their ‘dislike’ of RM? Clients do not always like staff but good leaders find a way to move conversations from the personal to the professional?
3. Building on this why would MediaCom allow their clients to bully their staff & are Mars complicit in this behaviour? Are Mars aware of the impact of their behaviour? Are they happy to be blamed here…(ouch)
4. Why was the GM effectively acting as the client lead on the account? Was the role GM in name but Client lead with some trimmings around the office? Is it possible to hit KPI’s for x2 roles?
5. Did the CEO really decide not to escalate the issue internally? Did the CEO’s self-belief really mean that he would take on the role of supporter/ psychologist when there was so much at stake?
6. Why was the decision made to off-load RM due to client feedback? Wasn’t RM removed from many client facing duties (as he was focusing on internal areas apparently?) Why was the Chief Client Officer/ acting MD not accountable for the malaise in client scores? See #2
7. Why was RM allowed to stay on and look for work? Was it because there was a sense that he was being scape-goated? Had he failed at his duties or had he been slowly left to rot?
& so many more ‘reasonable’ questions…
That MediaCom would present this as a defence show cases that blame culture is so deeply baked into their DNA that they no longer have a grip on fair and decent protection of staff and individuals.
Knowing it exists is one thing, but, changing it will be much harder…
Really disappointing to read this. I get the need to publish both sides given it’s a public legal case but honestly, have some empathy for Rob. I don’t know the guy, but I imagine if I wake up on a sunny Thursday morning to read this article which in detail goes through my mental health issues for the entire ad industry to read, I wouldn’t be feeling too great. Zero empathy and incredibly disappointing.
This is a total hatchet job by MediaCom – really distasteful.
I was in the agency at the time. If Mars didn’t like Rob it may have had something to do with the fact that he was parachuted in to try and fix the fact that MediaCom signed up to completely undeliverable deals (with zero input or care from the people that actually made the deals) and there was only ever about 2/3 of the team on the account that Mars was paying for. Given he was permanently on the back foot because of the previous, it probably didn’t do wonders for his relationship when he then had to go in to Mars and talk to them about accusations of them bullying MediaCom staff. I wonder how many people would have the courage to raise this directly with a client?
Rob was always a really popular person in the agency and it’s sad to see how this is playing out.
1. Would anyone say this article should not have been published if it was about his alleged poor performance due to physical health issues? If that’s fine to publish, then why are the commenters stigmatising mental health issues?
2. Publishing these details is the way our legal system works. Parties who don’t want these sort of details in the public domain will settle as early as possible.
Wow, I didn’t think Mediacom could go any lower…..but they have. All their submission has done is enhanced Rob’s stance of what his mental state was and shown them to be the bullies that they are.
What has become of this once great agency. I am so surprised the clients mentioned are still there – surely they would not want to be associated with Mediacom – you have to question what is keeping these clients there???? No wonder Mediacom Melbourne have not won a local pitch for a long long time (Fact) – seriously who would want to go there now.
The only way to address the wider issue of agencies taking blatent advantage of employees is to publish.
Let’s remember, that there are 10 times as many junior employees going through the same or worse who don’t have the resources/knowledge to fight back the way Rob has been able to.
Respect the need for Mediacom to deliver their defence, however the publisher’s Content Warning applied no consideration for Rob and the impact publishing such a compressive report might have on his wellbeing. 100% blame the messenger.
Everything about this saga only serves to support my decision to leave an industry I once loved.
This is a very sad tale and I feel for Rob. Other employees in this situation will be far less likely to take action against their employer or disclose mental health issues as a consequence of this article and reporting. Who would want to risk their highly personal difficulties being broadcast? Really poor form Mumbrella – your excuse for publishing this story that it’s “in the public domain” is not good enough.
Must feel pretty degrading to work at mediacom right now.
No – it’s a genuinely great place to work, we all know what has happened here
Hello, not sure that’s the case – [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
We clearly have opposite experiences working there! Maybe you were the team always getting to go on lunches whilst we worked until midnight?
We worked until midnight for months straight, people crying in bathrooms and being told you weren’t allowed to go to any media events or the ongoing joke of “half day?” when you left on time.
You must be from the Sydney office.
Would love to know your staff retention rate out of curiosity. Seems to always be a lot of jobs going on LinkedIn.
Could not disagree more
May be you were part of the big-boy gang.
If this is Robs experience, imagine all the junior staff who were made to feel guilty if they were to leave on time, who were asked to cancel plans with friends and family to stay back and work while earning less than there friends in other industries.
Like Rob has been publically shamed here in name of legal defence, why doesn’t Rob come forward and shame the agency for their wrong doings on client Mars. I remember sometime ago there was a huge debacle on misreporting KPI numbers to clients.
The real victims in this case are all of the junior staff who don’t have the resources or financial security to sue MediaCom for the damage they sustained during employment.
Staff turnover was horrendous and the co-ordinators and executives suffered the worst. Bare minimum pay, inhumane hours, constantly pressured to work through sick/annual leave, outright told to cancel plans outside of 9-5:30pm because they were expected to be at their desks for up to 18 hours a day.
After all this is said and done, those co-ordinators and executives will still be suffering.