Let’s drop the personal attacks and get down to the business of being better
In this opinion piece Beau Curtis argues personal attacks by anonymous commenters on industry publications have taken the place of much-needed debate on the real issues facing our industry.
Earlier this week, one of the industry’s international leaders, Mat Baxter, wrote a LinkedIn blog stating his views on the global advertising shindig at Cannes.
Agree or disagree with his view, Mat has a long history of calling things as he sees them. From what I can see, the most visible response to Mat’s piece is that he is a hypocrite because he’s taking part after voicing his concerns that Cannes is no more than a party, published in local trade media.
I’m happy for there to be debate over the validity of an opinion and respect the right of everyone who has an opinion to comment on our industry.
I also ‘get’ the context of the specific environment this was published within, in that it’s supposed to be a means to hold those with the loudest voices to account, with a degree of humour. I also know, having worked with Mat in one way or another across my entire career, that he won’t have been personally hurt or affected by any of this.
“Anonymity can be a great leveller, in that it allows people to participate in the debate without fear of professional reprimand and encourages honesty.”
Exactly! Why give that up? Commenting on Mumbrella etc rarely gets to youtube levels of racism, homophobia or inanity. The Mat piece you linked to is a case in point. The commenters called him out for being disingenuous, taking the moral high ground while hard-selling his company. A fair point which maybe wouldn’t have got made if they were self-censoring.
We have a tendency to self-promotion, group-think and poorly thought-out opinions – in a small industry anonymous commenting is an antidote to that and should be welcomed.
Hi Simon,
The negative connotation on “self-promotion” worries me (although the lack of tone in text means I’m not 100% certain if you intended it that way). We’re an industry which requires opinion, recommendation and guidance if we’re to deliver the best possible outcomes for clients. If having an opinion is the same as self-promotion we should all be practicing it.
The point about groupthink is an interesting one and perhaps demands greater attention. It’s possible that we need to address other aspects of organisational culture to deal with that. We should be discussing how we can promote freedom of expression and opinion and anonymous posts are just one aspect.
I think anonymity encourages poorly thought-out opinions. If you don’t have to put your name to your opinions, you don’t have to be accountable to them and there’s no impetus to develop a considered response.
Beau,
I was one of those who commented on Mat’s post on LinkedIn. It wasn’t anonymous (no LinkedIn comments are). I commented because I thought his post was indulgent and hypocritical. It should be a celebration of work and we should have junior people there, was his point; not a non-stop party. But it is a non-stop party of which his company also fuels and he is a senior person. Going there to judge, admittedly, but I’m sure he will be attending a few parties and having a good time. And as a senior person in the industry with, I presume, the authority to send young people if he wishes, did he? Social media Beau, is just that – social. And if you publish, you should expect to be held to called out for your indulgence, limited use of facts, hypocrisy or poor judgement.
Hi Andy,
Thanks for adding to the discussion. I don’t, for a second, disagree with your point that those who publish should expect to be held to account for the accuracy and validity of their opinion. Nor should they be immune to differing points of view to their own. As you rightly point out, LinkedIn comments are not anonymous and, as far as I’ve seen, are rarely used to mount personal assaults on individuals. For me, it’s more about having a discussion around the veil of anonymity and its contribution to negative behaviour. Trolling isn’t a feature unique to our industry or comments sections like this one, but as an industry, I believe we should be doing more to foster genuine debate as opposed to allowing commenters to hide behind their screens.
No one, other than Mat, can know how or when Mat came to his view that we should have junior people in Cannes. Rather than focus on what he’s doing, I think there’s more value in discussing whether there’s merit in his opinion, and if so, how we can make that a reality.
Beau,
“Rather than focus on what he’s doing, I think there’s more value in discussing whether there’s merit in his opinion, and if so, how we can make that a reality.”
And actions always speak louder than words.
Because isn’t the essence of the criticism towards Matt though in how his actions aren’t congruent with his opinions? If they are, he didn’t demonstrate that and that’s why he’s being lynched for it.
It’s a fair point to discuss the merits of his opinion, but there’s a lack of credibility in that opinion when, in this case, he hasn’t led by example.
He make’s a fair statement. That should be discussed. Agreed. But how far can a senior and public industry figure continue to take the high road before they are called out on their incongruity? Perhaps it was a mid-air revelation, but one would expect that rather than just merely suggesting ideology, that he commits his words through action or future actions that he intends to see come true.
Because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hi Adam,
“He makes a fair statement. That should be discussed.”
That’s where I see the problem. We’re not discussing that. We’re discussing Mat and his perceived “lack of credibility”.
If the industry agrees with the view that there should be less partying and more junior people in Cannes, I’m all for holding Mat to account for making it happen within his organisation (hey, for all I know there might be a gaggle of up-and-comers from IPG already there!) and I’ll get involved however I can.
Hi Beau,
I see where you’re going, that “they” are discussing his credibility and not the issue, but I’d suggest too that this is a consequence from a lack of transparency in his published piece.
More young folk in Cannes would be great, in theory, but making the assumption that IPG folk or others maybe there is exactly the clarity that was/is needed to at least demonstrate that he’s walking the talk and not just preaching from the perch.
When an industry figure makes these kinds of claims, you want demonstrable evidence that they support their own beliefs through that kind of action. What is it otherwise? A recommendation? Great, we’ll take that on board, but that’s a bitter pill to swallow when the hypocrisy feels a bit rife.
I get your drift, but I think all he’s done is managed to stir the pot. Furthering the discussion would be much more palatable and convincing to agency management peers if we could say: if he can, you can too.
Bravo Adam. Great points, well made.