Let’s stop the anonymous vitriol
In this guest posting, Peter Bray, boss of The Brand Shop, takes issue with negative comments from anonymous posters on Mumbrella and elsewhere.
There are very few ads that I vehemently dislike. There are also very few ads that I really love. But most ads I see on Mumbrella and other blogs I can usually take something from, whether it is information about the brand, a bit of inspiration or a “watch out”. I’m open to learning as much as I can from others, and encourage those around me to do the same.
My basic assumption, however, is that because an ad has been produced by a professional agency, and had the approval from the client, then the end result must be doing something right. Therefore, without knowing the practical rationale behind the ad, for me to have a strong opinion about whether it is great advertising would be kind of arrogant. There is a reason that awards shows ask for information about why an ad was created: they are rarely judged on end product alone.
So as someone who enjoys watching the work that our industry creates, I am stunned at the level of vitriol stemming from some people’s comments in both this blog and others. I don’t know whether it is something that is peculiar to advertising, but certainly there is a far higher level of support for other people’s work in the purely digital agency world than there is in the “integrated” environment.
For some reason, the ad industry seems to have a disproportionate number of people that seem to enjoy putting down other people’s work. However, I am hoping that it isn’t that there are more negative people, it may just be that there are more negative people that feel the need to be heard.
Many commenters are not simply critiquing work, but often attacking individuals, agencies and agency groups. Shallow, anonymous comments, like schoolboys in the yard trying to outdo each other. Critique serves a purpose, but most of what is served up is just plain tripe.
Whether it is instigated by envy or personal issues I don’t know, but so much work gets savaged like the fate of the earth depends on it. Advertising as a profession is an indulgence. There are far more important things in life. Sometimes we come across an idea that can change society, but this is the exception not the rule. That’s not to say we should be passionate. I would love to see far more passion, but misdirected passion ends only in disappointment and angst.
The net effect of vehemently negative comments isn’t that the agency in question looks bad, as we all know how much gravitas anonymous comments have. It just makes the industry in general look like a joke, and discourages many people from entering such an at times snarky profession.
Judging from the comments on various blog sites, there are a lot of people who verge on obsessive when it comes to following industry news. I just don’t get why people would feel the need to attack any work that is hitting the industry press, let alone the agency. To say that there are good and bad agency brands is to trivialize what makes up an agency. Every agency does some great and some average work to various degrees. But we all try to do work that we are proud of. That’s why we sometimes put work out there to be scrutinized. However, this doesn’t then give people a green light to savage it. But some people’s real characters tend to shine through.
To think that we are able to judge the end work on the basis of a press release or the creative seems plain crazy to me. As outsiders, what do commenters know about the process that was involved in creating the work? Did they see the brief? No. Did they see the business strategy? No. Did they know the personalities involved? No.
In this climate, actually producing work that is aired publicly in any channel and has been approved by clients should be applauded. Many people want to do award winning work, but at the end of the day all that matter is whether the work works, and whether the client happy.
Our opinions on production values, creativity etc are just that, and everyone knows the saying about opinions.
If I was a client and I knew that people in my agency were even capable of writing some of the comments we see, I would run a mile. And as someone heading up an agency, those same commenters would be welcome to leave by the nearest exit. At the end of the day, everyone is trying to do his or her best. And even if you may think someone’s best isn’t good enough, what does slamming them or their work really achieve?
I am a firm believer that at the end of the day, nice guys win. Critique work fervently, but do it in a way that challenges your own method of analysis, which in turn hopefully improves your work as well as theirs.
Build, don’t destroy.
- Peter Bray is GM and Director of Digital at The Brand Shop and National Vice President of AIMIA
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
I’m grateful to Peter for starting this debate.
Mumbrella’s comment stream is often one of the best things about it. A pretty good recent example of the quality of debate here: https://mumbrella.com.au/real-consumers-dont-have-brand-conversations-they-use-search-31811
I’m genuinely interested to hear what people have to say on this issue though.
Our policy,by the way, is that I generally moderate comments that are an attack on a person, but allow criticism of ideas and execution.
On the one hand, somebody making an intelligent point can contribute to the debate in a big way, where identified or anonymous.
Where I’m less comfortable is the badly thought through (or biased, or unfair) anonymous criticism. But I’m not sure that anyone, least of all me, is capable of being an arbiter between people making a good point and people making a point that does not add to the conversation.
What say you?
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
TechCrunch has had a lot of success with using the Disqus comment system, which encourages people to use one profile across multiple sites, integrates with WordPress easily and lets people sign in via their social media profiles (thus attributing their comments to their broader online persona).
So you remove the anonymous factor, but people of course, will still be dicks. That’s the internet, nothing is going to change that.
User ID not verified.
Peter Bray: Welcome to the internet, glad you could make it.
User ID not verified.
Good piece Peter and completely agree. Its become the industry equivalent of drink spiking
User ID not verified.
Nice.
However, there is a need for ‘whistleblowing’ and the right to protect the whistleblower . . . the challenge to the moderators of the future will be to decide which side of the line the comment is . . .
Google / China, Internet filter again . . . tuff subject
User ID not verified.
In the context of mumbrella, ads that are posted often seem to be chosen because of how bad or tacky they are – eg Bank of QLD, Sugar and not surprisingly draw criticism.
I seem to reacll on the few occasions a great ad is posted eg NIKE, almost universal praise was given. So editorial selection has a lot to do with this.
Its also sad but true that there is a lot of very poor advertsing in Oz, both creativley and strategically. While some of the citiques that appear on mumbrella are puerile most comments point to one of the above weaknesses.
Having said all that I think people who work in advertsing tend to be very competitve , opionated and self absorbed. So no surprise they love slagging off other peoples work, it was ever thus.
User ID not verified.
What say I? I say this is an industry with some people who seem to think they’ll explode into dust if they’re not flapping their gums about something every five seconds. And people hate it. They do. It fatigues them to see the same self-promoters in their face all the time.
And while they will stand around and tolerate it and make polite comments at a conference, or similar, when you get behind closed doors in smaller groups of people it’s VERY common for people to be a lot more scathing about the industry and its so-called “personalities”.
So I’m never surprised to see people leaving honest, anonymous comments on here because I know the comments would be quite genuine — and the person making them simply doesn’t want to hang themselves in such a small industry by putting their name to it.
Doesn’t change the nature and/or meaning and/or truth of the comment, though.
Viva la anonymity!
User ID not verified.
Hi Hot Kitchen,
We tend to post the majority of breaking campaigns submitted to us. What tends to happen though is that some slide past without comment, and naturally we don’t tend to remember those conversations.
Additionally, if I come across an ad that hasn’t been submitted directly but is worthy of comment and available on YouTube or elsewhere, then I might post them if I feel it to be comment worthy – whether positive or negative.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
But “That sucks” is as far as my critical faculties go… Well, sometimes I can get as constructive as “That sucks balls”, but only rarely.
User ID not verified.
Agree completely. I loved Mumbrella in the early days as it attracted quality commentary from smart industry people (a lot of tech early adopters). Yet as the anonymous brigade flocked, it lost a lot of credibility for me. It’s still a good information resource, but the petty vitriol in the commentary has greatly diminished the experience. Flame wars are great for short-term traffic, but little else.
User ID not verified.
This article sucks.
User ID not verified.
I say let it continue. Our industry was practically built on skullduggery and sniping … and ponytails on men. Man I miss those ponytails.
User ID not verified.
And the coke. Don’t forget the coke.
User ID not verified.
I think a lot of sites could benefit from looking closely at gawker’s comments policy. It’s strongly hierarchical (some commenters get ‘stars’ which elevate them above others), new commenters need to audition (you won’t necessarily get through), and it’s heavily moderated. All of which sounds a bit ridiculous, but the result is that the comment stream adds a hell of a lot of value to the site
http://gawker.com/commentfaq/#whocan
User ID not verified.
I agree that this industry was established on skullduggery and sniping… and coke… however, I have also been of the opinion that as creatives and those working with creatives, we are all in the constant habit of critiquing our own ideas and work and therefore should be prepared to hear criticism from others, whether they be clients, consumers or colleagues. And, whether it’s anonymous or not, it should still be able to be voiced and heard as a valid opinion.
User ID not verified.
As always suitable for a subject of this type, I refer you all to Penny Arcade’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/
User ID not verified.
Don’t put it on the internet if you don’t want anonymous comments.
User ID not verified.
I don’t think you can or should stop anonymous opinion-giving as it is the source of much good input. Indeed, it is a principal followed in many walks of life.
That doesn’t excuse many of the negative comments, and it seems to follow that in either the written or the spoken word, negativity of opinion or experience tend to be more widely spread than positive feedback.
Hopefully the vast majority of such postings – the vitriol as Peter puts it – are seen for what they are – inane comments from small-minded idiots who either hold a grudge or are jealous/envious, or both.
User ID not verified.
I agree. Nice.
(comments like that are pretty boring, aren’t they? As a result you’re always going to get more negative comments, than positive ones. Perhaps a ‘like’ button or something for both posts and for comments would be useful?)
User ID not verified.
My general rule is ‘if you wouldn’t say it in real life, you probably shouldn’t say it online’.
I know that’s a pretty high standard and one that I fall short of often, but just carrying on with inflammatory comments behind the mask of internet anonymity is weak and immature.
I think a lot of work deserves criticism, and you’re naive if you don’t think Mumbrella exists at least partly to provide a place for the industry jokers to have a laugh in the comments thread (this is a counter-example to Tim’s link to sensible, thought-provoking comments above: https://mumbrella.com.au/smug-bastard-is-that-the-true-character-jacobs-creek-was-looking-for-23880). But there’s a line to the criticism between what is acceptable and what is not, and many comments end up being more of an indictment on the commenter than on those who produced the work.
That said, I enjoy the open comments in Mumbrella so let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater by making it so difficult or cumbersome that nobody bothers posting anymore.
User ID not verified.
who is this guy, head of the mediocrity dept?
“In this climate, actually producing work that is aired publicly in any channel and has been approved by clients should be applauded.”
is he serious? well done on doing your basic job guys – bravo.
User ID not verified.
Nice work Lou. I’ll see you promoted to Sergeant for this.
User ID not verified.
“In this climate, actually producing work that is aired publicly in any channel and has been approved by clients should be applauded.”
By that rationale- we should dedicate an entire public holiday and street parade to the pond scum and bottom feeders responsible for the Rivers TVCs
User ID not verified.
Freedom of speech (one of the great things about the internet) means you have to take the barely literate ranters, the over-intellectualised pontificators, and everyone in between. I wouldn’t want to see that change. Still, if you really believe in what you post, why not have the courage of your convictions and put your name to it. Unless you’ll get sacked.
Personally, I believe in being responsible and accountable for my views if I also want the freedom to voice them.
To all anonymous non-whistleblowing posters. You suck.
User ID not verified.
if you feel strongly enough to say something, why say it from behind a mask
User ID not verified.
The inherent competition in the industry makes it an unlikely, although laudable goal, to have the majority offering nothing but robust and useful feedback on breaking campaigns. The bigger the agency, the client and the campaign budget, the more vociferous the comments, it seems. I’d actually like to see more coverage of work being put to market by organisations that traditionally DON”T use agencies. Getting some insight into the people that are driving those brands forward and succeeding, especially in industries that are not well known for making good use of marketing and advertising at all. For instance, who ever would have thought the word ‘rooty’ would have ever been a WW trend on twitter, if only for a few minutes. Obviously someone is behind their current, quirky “postcode’ campaign (sorry non-Sydney folk who have no idea what I’m rabbiting on about) It’s sure got a lot of attention – enough to get a bunch of pollies to wade in knee deep with the great unwashed and pull a pretty decent TV audience on the night and get a heap of media coverage. Who is it? Why, what’s the strategy, whats’ the agenda? THAT’s the kind of stuff that’s interesting because seemingly no one is behind it – certainly not any of the usual suspects. Maybe if Mumbrella served to canvass the market more widely, we wouldn’t end up the same-old same-old agency rivalries being played out quite so often in this otherwise great forum.
User ID not verified.
It’s the agency wankers. Less agency wankers in Digital.
User ID not verified.
Reading the comments on any internet post is generally a dispiriting exercise. I tend to filter out the negative comments, as they may act as acts of catharsis for the contributor, but ultimate make for unsatisfactory reading. I think there is clearly a category of comment that can be edited out by an imparial moderator.
Removing “This article sucks” from a comment stream is not an incursion on freedom of speech, it’s just sensible. If the person really believes the article sucks, let them post an article somewhere else, perhaps their own website, and construct an argument around it.
User ID not verified.
“In this climate, actually producing work that is aired publicly in any channel and has been approved by clients should be applauded.”
By that rationale- we should dedicate an entire public holiday and street parade to the pond scum and bottom feeders responsible for the Rivers TVCs
^This
User ID not verified.
Bollocks.
User ID not verified.
Agree 100% Peter. If spend your life spitting venom you’ll eventually be found out to be the venomous creature that you are. What goes around comes around.
User ID not verified.
The industry was built on coke?? The free Pepsi’s are on me!
User ID not verified.
these Rivers boat shoes sure feel good
User ID not verified.
Peter Bray – unlike Treasury you are 100% right. My election budget was a masterpiece of creativity and all I cop is flak for it.
User ID not verified.
This letter is like a rule of how to fail in business. Mediocre mentality. Nice “guys finish first”? I think you mistake people who wont be honest with nice. Its nice of me to tell these people they suck balls, when they suck balls. Its mediocre of me to think that others will keep their mouths shut when my work sucks and i battle to keep my clients.
Also the title of anonymity doesnt really have anything to do with Peters article. He is just asking us to play nice, not expose ourselves. And its obvious he doesnt understand this medium at all.
Message board commenting is a skill and a platform of its own. We compete against each other, we debate and argue. Its almost like thats what they were intended for? I know, crazy hey. Sometimes the material we talk about doesnt even matter, other times it does.
Using a message board as a standard of social commentary on the creative industries reach into depravity / contempt is so mind-blowing retarded that i had to walk away from the computer until i realised that Peter Bray has no place in internet media and should probably move to HR where people aren’t allowed to say what they really mean in fear of getting fired.
And now im the stupid one for falling for this obvious troll and trying to explain something to someone who has no idea.
So I guess, Peter 1 – Me 0
User ID not verified.
“Build, don’t destroy”. Oh good grief? How very constructive of you Peter. (Edited under Mumbrella’s content moderation policy)
User ID not verified.
@ Riarn
Working in HR isn’t so bad. If we don’t like someone, we just add red flags to their personality profile.
User ID not verified.
On the internet no one knows you’re a dog
On the internet everyone thinks they know the dogs
Everybody on the internet is a dog
User ID not verified.
I don’t have a problem with people being anonymous or giving constructive criticism, but I think Peter makes a very fair point about all the bitchy, obnoxious vitriol that is posted on Mumbrella more and more frequently. I’ve been avoiding reading Mumbrella lately because the snark is just too frustrating.
Make your point and make it fairly – leave the personal attacks out of it.
User ID not verified.
Or maybe comments are just not the most constructive way of unleashing the genius of the people. Wiki projects work well, comments on the other hand are ultimately unconstructive,they are just a stream of good, bad and ugly.
User ID not verified.
Agree and disagree with everyone. let’s hug.
All the above considered, Mumbrella’s pretty tame compared to Campaign Brief and the rest of the internet.
It’s the internet, it’s going to happen. Believe what you want, ignore the rest.
Tim, the type of community you’d like to have (which probably aligns with what your advertisers want) should dictate the moderation approach you should take.
User ID not verified.
Tim,
I have had negative comments directed at me personally that weren’t moderated – my favorite was “in a more civilized time Mr Emerson would be stabbed and left to die in a gutter” – how did that make the cut?
Very little in the comment stream was positive or constructive.
The anonymity of the internet breads hate, racism and ridicule – if your going to post as anonymous at least make it meaningful, don’t hide behind it as a shield.
User ID not verified.
People can have whatever opinion they want. It’s a personal opinion.
However, there’s nothing better than getting a bashing on the blogs and walking away with a Gold lion.
Ask Jim and Cuz on Burst, or Ant and Grant on Draught or well a host of other projects over the last couple of years.
It makes the gold glitter so much brighter.
Did I mention I like
(. ) ( .)
User ID not verified.
These days online any article or blog or piece of content should really been seen as a conversation starter. And that conversation is always going to have many sides and differing opinions and Peter has the equal opportunity to jump on and answer any of the comments as he pleases.
Having said that – what’s the real reason people comment anon? The only reason I can see is that they are scared or embarrassed of what they have to say. To simply use the excuse that “it’s the internet, everyone else does it” it’s a massive cop out.
The freedom of speech thing was never intended to be from behind a cowardly mask, it was for people who believed in what they were saying enough, to stand up and say it.
User ID not verified.
@riarn u wrote ‘Peter Bray has no place in internet media’
u must be on drugs
User ID not verified.
Simon T Small,
I disagree that “Mumbrella’s pretty tame compared to Campaign Brief” when it come to personal abuse. The work might get slagged off on CB, but unlike Mumbrella, we delete or moderate all personal abuse from the comments before it goes live.
(Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)
User ID not verified.
yeah well done…………I got as far as the third paragraph before I almost died of boredom
User ID not verified.
Whether it’s common online or not … Anonymous sledging is cowardice.
If your true feelings will get you sacked and you can only vent them under the cloak of Anonymity … then maybe you need to find a new employer.
User ID not verified.
I am a firm believer that at the end of the day, nice guys win. Critique work fervently, but do it in a way that challenges your own method of analysis, which in turn hopefully improves your work as well as theirs.
Build, don’t destroy.
is this guy serious? I think i just vomited….
User ID not verified.
I could not agree more. If you’re not prepared to stand by your opinion in public, then it can’t be worth much. It’s like writing someone’s name on a toilet wall. Based on the feedback from mumbrella readers the entire Australian advertising industry should just pack up and go home. Or alternatively everyone who posts an excessively negative comment should commit to having their own entire body of work scrutinised and judged by their peers…………… so does that make you nay sayers re-think?
User ID not verified.
It’s interesting looking at the growth of “unattributable” comments across the internet as a whole – at the moment, consumers still trust reviews, comments and opinions from “unknown” sources on sites like TripAdvisor, Amazon, Eatability, etc. However, as an industry (and i’m including client side folk in this), we’re rapidly killing off this trust with Astroturfing, negative posting on competitor spaces etc.
Much as there’s a swing to consumers understanding the source of the products they buy and “provenance marketing”, so too are we creating a swing towards people wanting to understand the bias of the opinions and reviews they are reading. Bring on the global internet identity that follows you around – Disqus is a good start, and i think we’ll see more development of this space with Facebook and Open Graph.
I think Tim does a good job with his occasional expose of common IP addresses, and linking IPs to agencies – i’d guess it makes people stop and think on the odd occasion.
Whilst i don’t think we should be aiming to ensure all comments are constructive or nice, it’s good for them to be attributable. Otherwise they just become spam you have to skip over to get to real content. Not often you see vitriolic discussion and blatant personal attacks on LinkedIn forums and discussions.
User ID not verified.
Still doesn’t change what I said earlier: I’m never surprised to see people leaving anonymous comments on here simple because, clearly, the person making them doesn’t want to hang themselves in such a small industry by putting their name to it.
Doesn’t change the nature and/or meaning and/or truth of the comment, though. And that’s the real kicker. An intelligent or true comment is an intelligent or true comment, regardless of whether it’s anonymous, or has the person’s birth certificate, pictures of their three marriages and driver’s license attached to it.
User ID not verified.
Stirring much, Lynchy?
User ID not verified.
Even with a Disqus ID the commenter has a screen name of choice.
Nobody uses their real name . . . do they?
User ID not verified.
No you don’t Lynch… I’m all over your site like the clap on a copywriter.
😉
User ID not verified.
Actually I am not Lynch.
User ID not verified.
Anonymous Vitriol, can you give an example? (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) I notice Mumbrella has already moderated my original comment, which merely pointed out the article which is still on the site.
User ID not verified.
What also amuses me is the ability to post under anyones name.
incidentally, Im not Lynchy from Campaign Brief, just making a point.
User ID not verified.
The audience is now your editor. Nothing is going to change that. Least of which is a lame pontification to be nice when anonymous.
Its like Rupert putting up pay walls on his papers without adding extra features to warrant it. It wont work.
So be anonymous, be vitriolic, be amusing, be genuine.
Rouler le bon temps !
User ID not verified.
“NOTE: Anonymous comments to posts are welcome but negative comments must be attributed”.
Michael Lynch’s policy on the CB Blog circa 2007.
User ID not verified.
Dear 10.25,
Ah, 07, the summer of love, the good old, innocent early blog days.
The fact is that ad blogs can’t survive without anonymous comments – negative or positive. Even positive comments are mostly anonymous because a lot of bloggers are not confident that their positivity will be rewarded by other bloggers.
Even in this thread about the subject on Mumbrella, over two thirds of the comments are anonymous (I count 44 out of 60). But it doesn’t matter, as everyone’s opinions are still relevant, the topic is still being discussed.
Think talk back radio: almost all those who phone in to air their mostly negative opinions are anonymous (“Hello, it’s Doris from Bondi Junction on the line…”), and that format’s worked for decades.
User ID not verified.
Can i say something that i truly believe ?
Blogs and social media has replaced the power of creative advertising.
I created my own agency and 12 years later it was in the top 50 by audited billings.
40 staff in Sydney, 15 in Melbourne.
And in 2006 i published a book about the future of the communications business, in which i stated advertising was over, and other new forms of media would take its place.
The consumer will no longer watch, will no longer pay, will no longer wait, and s/he wants to create, and be heard.
Great ads and campaigns don’t work anymore. I hired Ant Keogh in his first job and the guy was always destined to be a star in whatever he chose. But even the best ads cant lift a sales curve anymore when it’s going down. And VB Neil Diamond, i will put money on the fact that its sales will keep declining.
I left advertising and started making Content and Apps. Its the new Goldrush. And now i dont have to deal with political middle mgt marketers in the global FMCG’s or tight ass crooks in the small biz area.
Peter Bray, lets build not destroy !
User ID not verified.
Bad analogy lynchy. Radio has a kill switch and a time delay so slanderous comments shouldn’t get out to the general public. On the Internet slanderous negative anonymous comments can live forever unless there is moderating.
User ID not verified.
The accountant,
On the contrary, it is a good analogy. CB has a kill switch. It’s called Comment Moderation, nothing goes live until it’s checked, so slanderous comments don’t get through.
User ID not verified.
Accountant … isn’t Tim the equivalent of radio’s kill-switch. I think the analogy stands.
The gross majority of times I post using my real name. There are infrequent occassions where it is prudent that I don’t use my name, so I do understand why many choose to remain anonymous. I’ve also had quite a chuckle at the number of critical posts complaining about the negativity on Mumbrella.
User ID not verified.
I post anonymously from time to time, but I don’t think I’m that good at covering my tracks.
User ID not verified.
Wow. Lynchy. Defensive much? Perhaps you also should declare when (edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) in this um, “kill switch” of discernment.
(Rest of comment self edited before Mumbrella removed it for legal reasons)
User ID not verified.
Tim, I don’t think your kill switch is working too well. Anonymous Blogger’s comment is defamatory. You should do as CB does, vet comments before they go live.
User ID not verified.
Surely all of you contributors have been set up, I mean Peter Bray’s article was a set up wasn’t it?
Really surely nobody could have written that seriously and then put their own name on it.
User ID not verified.
“Shallow, anonymous comments, like schoolboys in the yard trying to outdo each other”
You just described the entire industry (edited under Mumbrella’s content moderation policy)
User ID not verified.
Seems like a massdebate to me.
User ID not verified.
@Lynchy Vetting comments before they go live is a serious impediment to the flow of conversations and is a lot of overhead for the content team (Mumbrella). But I would encourage Tim to have some sort of OpenID or Facebook-powered login system through which he can allow users to be identified and then give some trusted users the ability to moderate lightly (specifically, muting contentious posts and bringing them to the awareness of Tim for him to adjudicate)
User ID not verified.
For fcuk sake. Lets stop this inane blog trail. (edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) I don’t want anymore emails from Mumbrella coz of it, & I bet the ranch Im not alone. Tim u are gonna lose subscribers, to what is otherwise something That is really a valuable industry new media initiative with real credibility. Swan dive !
User ID not verified.
If you’ve got something to say, have the integrity to put your name to it.
User ID not verified.
Not sure why I was “edited for legal reasons” coz I suggested the piece & writer was a set up. Not sure what my lawyers would say to that. Do u know how UN litigated the blogosphere is globally? Most QCs don’t even hv email, a computer, let alone know about litigating blogs. They wear wigs and gowns & uphold the values of the feudal system. Where u are either the landed gentry or a slave.
I say “its more fun to be a pirate” than a pleb in the royal navy. Rum, sodomy & the lash eh ?
User ID not verified.
Anyone noticed how much nicer the comments on other posts have been (in general) since this piece was published on the site?
User ID not verified.
I fucking hate AAMI’s latest campaign. I’m guessing the creatives that came up with that abortion must have temporarily lost their sense of hearing after going on a 3-day coke bender
User ID not verified.
Online is less critiqued in the online environment in the same way that the Bronco’s are less demonised at the Bronco’s leagues club.
If you want real feed back get out of geekdom into the real world and ask real people what they think. But don’t tear up your nightie and go home if they don’t say you are the best thing since burnt toast!
In the end if the client is happy and you keep the account does it matter if big bad johnny said on facebook that your work is crap!!
In this age of digital playgrounds the are a lot of bullys just waiting to stamp on your mouse pad.
User ID not verified.
Every time I’m attacked or have a campaign slowly pulled apart I picture Jeff Albertson from the Simpsons sitting in a dark room sipping a giant slushy.
I’m pretty sure that’s what most haters look like.
User ID not verified.
This article is a steaming pile of shit. Where is the idea? Where is the insight? Wallpaper IMO.
User ID not verified.
Dear All,
I seem to remember saying this same message a little while ago on mumbrella’s pages..
In a nutshell ~
“ANYBODY CAN BE AN ANONYMOUS JEALOUS CREEP – IT TAKES A BRAIN TO OFFER GENUINE CRITIQUE.” ~ christopher copywriter
I’d sack any internet worker who didn’t have the guts to be themselves online and anyone who listens to it, is foolish anyway…
It’s all about standards.
Can’t wait for the anonymous cowardly sockpuppets (SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) ) to follow up this comment!!
I wonder if they are ALL 12 year old kids from some uneducated 3rd world nation?
Come on – retard – bring it on!! 😛
Let’s a have a laugh at just how pathetic you can actually be!! Get it out of your system – once and for all…
Warm regards to those with a brain,
to all others I hold in disdain!!
(We’re mapping your IP address.)
Chris.
creative director | copywriter
christopher copywriter
fb: http://bit.ly/35LYBp
w: http://christophercopywriter.com
b: http://copywritingpublicrelati.....sydney.com
t: http://twitter.com/chriscopywriter
User ID not verified.