This article has been removed
The article at this URL was originally cross-posted under Creative Commons from The Conversation which has decided to remove the piece from its UK and Australian sites, and Mumbrella has followed suit.
The article dealt with communications issues around the Malaysia Airlines disaster, but was penned before the full circumstances became known by the author, a UK academic.
The decision by The Conversation has been explained by the site’s managing editor Misha Ketchel in a blog pos. He said that the piece might be restored and updated later on.
Unbelievable. Let the families mourn.
User ID not verified.
Too soon to be grabbing attention for yourself mate.
On the bloody nose.
User ID not verified.
Not appropriate.
User ID not verified.
What steps will you take after posting such an inappropriate and insensitive article? 295 people died and the first reaction is, “oh I know, I’ll write a post on crisis management!”
Horrendous.
User ID not verified.
What the hell is wrong with you?!
User ID not verified.
The not-so-golden hour
User ID not verified.
Mumbrella has lost its direction. What a joke…you should be ashamed.
User ID not verified.
This is offensive
User ID not verified.
FFS, are you serious? 295 people gone in an instant, and you think Malaysia Airlines has the communication problem when you see fit to write a post about it from a PR perspective?
And Mumbrella, bad enough this guy wrote in the first place, but to then cross post it? Have a look at yourselves.
User ID not verified.
Really Mumbrella? Atypical of global media looking at ways to milk a story for their audience, the problem is I don’t think your readers give two shits about what Malaysian Airlines should do, and I don’t think Malaysian Airlines gives a f$&k about the ponderings of this ‘expert’ – have some respect.
User ID not verified.
This is pretty bloody atrocious no matter which way you dice it. There’s little in terms of public interest or good to be gained from (re)publishing this. I don’t think there’s a justification that makes putting this up right here and now the right thing.
Clickbait headline further annoys me to the point of actually bothering to comment. Ugh. Appalling.
User ID not verified.
Thanks MARKETING website. Are you insane?
User ID not verified.
Straight up disrespectful to the bereaved families for whom this PR ‘disaster’ is a personal tragedy. This isn’t topical and edgy Mumbrella, it’s plain insensitive.
User ID not verified.
FFS.
User ID not verified.
No respect. Get some class.
User ID not verified.
this piece should come down
User ID not verified.
I hope no-one is buying adverts on a CPM basis here, as the spike is not going to be targeted.
User ID not verified.
Idiotic. If anyone should know better…
Absolutely disgusting. Trust academia, for which I have no respect at all, to write something like that at such an inappropriate time. And Mumbrella, you need to get a grip. Appalling judgement to republish it.
User ID not verified.
Cue, self-serving, holier-than-thou response from mumbully, which belittles anyone who criticizes them and justifies their right to publish what they want. All in the name of page impressions.
User ID not verified.
Thanks for your feedback. As you will know, this happened while many of us in Australia were still asleep.
As regular readers will be aware, we regularly crosspost from academic website The Conversation. The Conversation, which has both an Australian and UK operation, publishes insights and analysis from expert academics around the world.
In this case, The Conversation invited an expert in the UK to write a piece on the leadership and communications challenge faced by the airline’s management.
Bearing in mind the much criticised failings of Malaysia Airlines to communicate effectively after the loss of MH370, this is clearly a highly relevant issue. And given that we are an professionally-focussed website for the communications industry, it’s a relevant piece for us to republish. (The Conversation makes its content available under Creative Commons).
Our intention by republishing this authoritative and level-headed piece is certainly not offend those affected by this tragedy. Given how extensively other media are covering this issue, I’m confident it will not do so.
Best,
Alex – editor, Mumbrella
This is a pretty shit act guys …
User ID not verified.
Alex,
your intention may be to not offend, but that response is up there with the kind of mock-apology that begins with ‘if I have offended anyone I apologise’.
And using the ‘The Conversation posted it too’ defence is a little like those defending scam ads by saying ‘other agencies cheat as well’. This is all sounding a little hypocritical from Mumbrella.
I think it’s worth manning up, being honest, and admitting that you rode roughshod over the obvious sensitivities here in favour of getting in first.
Not your finest hour.
User ID not verified.
Alex,
you may feel like your explanation makes sense from an intellectual standpoint but morally it’s wrong and if you don’t believe so, your judgement is awry
Not only is it a mistake in isolation but put in the context of a certain amount of moral crusading Mumbrella has been doing of late on other matters, it destabilises the soapboax from which you’ve been broadcasting those pieces.
I repeat, you should take it down
User ID not verified.
Alex, the republishing of this article does nothing but offend those affected by this tragedy, and that is clearly demonstrated by the response you have received.
In regards to what you refer to as an “authoritative and level-headed piece”, if the academic Morgen Witzel was truly concerned by what Malaysian Airlines may or may not do in response he should shoot off a quick email to the airline offering his advice – not jump on-line and pronounce how wise he is!
User ID not verified.
This is a seriously misguided post. I think you should admit the mistake and remove it. It just reinforces negative stereotypes of the PR industry.
User ID not verified.
Wow, people are quick to be offended and outraged. Last time I looked Mumbrella was a site talking all things media.
The plane goes down and they post an article talking about it from a media relations perspective.
Seems fair enough to me.
User ID not verified.
Sorry Brendon, this isn’t a story about some people missing out on winning a car in a promotion. Hundreds of people have died. Families are still hearing the news. There may well be a time to analyse the PR approach. But this is not that time.
User ID not verified.
Visit my website to read my latest post!
“Five Steps Mumbrella must take after it posts inappropriate and tactless article”
User ID not verified.
Mumbrella, stick to advice on organising promos, ad-land people movements and “top 10 resume fails” type articles. The adults are talking, and they sure aren’t talking on this site.
User ID not verified.
“19 cats who just can’t handle the MH17 news right now. #16 made us ROFL!”
User ID not verified.
Humanity before pages views guys. This article is tone deaf and tasteless.
User ID not verified.
Screw the brand. I think the guy that wrote this article should look at his own brand first; that of an insensitive, page view hungry leech.
How can mumbrella, that has done such a great job on the scam cannnes awards, be the same mumbrella to publish this shit?
User ID not verified.
so the Conversation has removed it, you have removed your facebook post about it and all comments… now when will we see this story actually removed?
Or tomorrow you might have to be posting up a story on yourselves!!
User ID not verified.
You should have removed it on your own accord let alone not post it to start with. Not wait for them to remove from their site then follow like a good little sheep.
User ID not verified.
This article has been removed from the site following on from a decision by The Conversation to remove it from its UK and Australian sites.
The article, posted under Creative Commons, was written by a UK academic shortly after news of the incident had appeared, and whilst the circumstances were still emerging around the incident, on the communications imperatives for Malaysia Airlines.
Whilst Mumbrella cross-posted the article this morning we acknowledge it was insensitive given the circumstances around the incident.
Alex -editor, Mumbrella
I respect Mumbrella for not deleting comments on this thread and for being up front and honest, acknowledging the insensitivity.
I am in adland and have an interest in all things ad / marketing / comm’s.., like I am sure the majority of users of Mumbrella do.
A colleague of mine today asked me what I thought about how Malaysian Airlines should react to this disaster. Is it now too late for them or could they still re-establish the brand? It would involve a marketing effort in a half to come back from this wouldn’t it? I saw a Flight Centre Manager removing Malaysian Airlines signage from their window this morning, I wonder if that was a coincidence?
Truly awful tragedy and thoughts go out to the victims, the families and the good staff at MA.
User ID not verified.