‘Find a moral compass’, Atomic 212 chairman tells Dooris as Telstra becomes latest brand to deny client link
Atomic 212 chairman Barry O’Brien told his chief executive Jason Dooris to “find a moral compass” in the days before Mumbrella published its investigation into the agency’s exaggerated award entries.
Dooris: Colleague told him to “find a moral compass”
Internal emails seen by Mumbrella show O’Brien berating Dooris for his leadership and instructing him to “grow up”. In the terse email, O’Brien adds: “This bullshit layer is a disaster”.
The email, dated December 4, came days after Mumbrella confronted Dooris over dubious claims of spectacular “all media” client wins made to award juries and 72 hours before Mumbrella published the story.
Bullying tactics here. Why don’t you crucify the man. I am sick of this modern business world going for the jugular at any cost. Shame on you. Can you not win awards on your own merits instead of putting another contender down the tubes. I am not in the business but as an outsider looking in Mumbrella you need to look at yourselves before targeting some one else.
Dooris has clearly lied about quite a lot of things here, and some of the people he’s slighted are understandably pretty pissed off about it. Why do you think that an industry publication should not report on an item of considerable industry interest?
“Can you not win awards on your own merits instead of putting another contender down the tubes.”
LOLOLOL, as the kids say.
Anyone who knows anything about atomic has to suspect that this is written by their PR.
I know they’re nominated for PR agency if the year, but do they do PR?
No.
Shame on you mumbrella, this is bullying and crucifying one person in a huge industry. can you not win awards on your own merits instead of personally hurting one person in the industry that is a contender in the awards. Disgusting behaviour from mumbrella .. this is business not school yard bullying tactics
Wait a minute Anon – you are saying that a liar and (what appears to be) a cheat, cannot be sounded out by the industry rag? If Mumbrella is not allowed to report facts, then what on earth should Mumbrella be doing? (Turning a blind eye?) This industry needs to be cleaned up and this article and Mumbrella’s stance is a step in the right direction. If you have the audacity to lie and enter your company into awards based on what would appear to be fictitious claims, then you deserve to pay the price if found out.
The truth sure does hurt and without Mumbrella’s investigation, the truth may never have got out. (It certainly appears that AdNews looked into it with their eyes closed and continued to honour Atomic’s award with them… Lets see if that changes?) Keep up the great work Mumbrella!
Dear MFA
Good to know that you’re telling members to act responsibly and be on their best behaviour
But – what if they don’t ?
What do you / will you do ?
Without any consequences, your words are meaningless
I judged MFA’s one year and when I questioned the claims many entries had the person running it basically told me that it wasn’t my place to judge whether they were true and everything had to be taken as read. Naive at best, reckless at worst.
I have also been an MFA judge. Multiple times.
I’ve seen potentially winning entries removed from the finalist list because of errors, false claims, and basically hyperbole. When such issues are raised vigorous (and lengthy) debate naturally follows. If the majority of judges aren’t comfortable awarding the work – out it goes.
Mumbrella should be applauded for revealing the true facts & lies of Jason.There must be consequences for his actions …
Campaign Asia ,CEO Magazine, B&T & AdNews should disqualify them and give the awards to the runners up.
Yep this is definitely the Lance Armstrong moment of the industry. Singling out a single high profile individual to take the fall for widespread BSing at awards.
For an industry already tarnished by under the table deals, distorting the truth and lacking in substance, the Dooris story feeds that narrative.
We need to clean this industry up or we’re all “down the tubes” !
Their staff retention rate is the easiest claim to investigate. I’ll be surprised if it’s over 80%
having been one of the people that have left, alongside MANY others, i can guarantee its way below 80%
Mumbrella should be applauded for its work in this investigation and I hope that many other agency leads learn from this.
Overstating one’s credentials and capabilities is rife in the industry – in fact it’s not uncommon to present something outside of an agency’s skill set, and hope that specific questions aren’t raised by the client in the lead up to the project (if successful).
I’ve also come across a few people in my time who have claimed awards for work they didn’t do – the organisation may have won the award, but the person either didn’t work on the project directly, or the project finished by the time the person started working there. The people i’ve come across doing that are usually the most incompetent.
@Mumbrella you guys didn’t go this hard even with the Mediacom debacle a couple of years back. Why don’t you tell us the story behind the story?
Hi Lol,
If you subscribe to the Mumbrella “Best of the Week” email, do have a look at Saturday’s where I did set out some of the circumstances behind this.
If not, I posted a shorter version to LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-mumbrella-investigated-atomic-12-tim-burrowes/
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
I second Anon’s comments above.
Absolute bullying of the highest order. There are many other agency high-ups who do this. Why single Dooris out?
This is reminiscent of Joe Aston’s pursuit of Alex Malley in the AFR.
Mumbrella, what do you want the outcome to be? I recognise you’ve rallied for a better industry approach to awards (good), but what is the end game you’re after with Atomic. What’s an acceptable outcome in your opinion? It’s not clear where you want this to end, if at all. Careers and livelihoods are on the line, or is this collateral damage when pursuing a story?
So holding CEO’s to account for their actions (particularly when their board has failed to) is a bad thing in your opinion @creativetype?
To begin with I want to be clear, I have never inhaled, I never spoke to the Russians and I never had sexual relations with that woman. Thank you.
So what is the real story behind the story. @LOL you are right, it stinks.
The Omnicom link will be its undoing I reckon.
What I know.
1. Tim Burrows thanks and credits OMG PHD buddies for helping start Mumbrella. Google 10 questions with tim burrows in the Australian by Sharri Marcson. Big call out to his buddies at OMG PHD who “named Mumbrella” . Me smells a conspiracy.
2. OMG CEO Amy Buchanan leaks information to Mumbrella fucking Adnews and B&T. Me smells a bad lady and a conspiracy.
3. Mumbrella are alwaysssss nice to OMG PHD OMD. try and find a bad story. Me smells a nice plug for OMG to this post, if posted.
4. Barry OBrien not a friend of OMG. Me smells, really? Me smells weirdness.
6. Mumbrella finalists in Asia this year:
…Atomic 212 (Australia)
…OMD (Australia)
…PHD (China)
…PHD (New Zealand)
…PHD (Singapore)
And the winner is ……. bom bom bom bom …. OMG PHD. Me smells .like I should be buying a lottery ticket.
7. And what about Australia Mumbrella Awards.
Australia Mumbrella awards winner … bom bom bom bom . .. you got it OMG and PHD again. Thats right the guys who names Mumbrella and leaked to Mumbrella.
8. EVERYONE in Melbourne knows why Margie left OMD but did Mumbrella cover this … not when it involves the leaker Amy. Me smells are you serious, the Amy vs Margie thing was a big story?
7. OMG love spending money with Mumbrella. At least it looks this way. Me smells a great investment.
THE AWARDS LINK
1. Mumbrella big strategy is awards and awards in Asia
2. Mumbrella have been bashing other awards programs for years, getting worse and more aggressive recently
4. Terry Savage we love you
Me smells smart strategy from Tim although a little sociopathetic. (get it, pathetic meets sociopath).
Tell me baby could this be true
That I could need someone, like I need you
Best of luck and Merry Christmas to all readers, lovers or haters, I wish you all well, I wish you love and peace.
Hi LINIIP,
Intriguing theory. And one that only took nine years to unfold.
1. Yes, as I’ve written about at least twice – including here https://mumbrella.com.au/mumbrella-is-three-thanks-for-supporting-us-68175 – it was during a drink with Mark Holden, who then worked at PHD Australia, that the name Mumbrella emerged. He’s a mate, always will be, and during his time here we never gave him an award for anything.
2. I don’t talk about sources.
3. OMG would tell you differently. We’ve had plenty of robust conversations over the years.
4. Not sure what you mean. Barry worked at OMG for years and, as far as I know, is still well liked by his former colleagues and vice versa.
5. You forgot number 5.
6. Our juries do the shortlisting, not Mumbrella.
7. Yes, after nine years, PHD finally won Mumbrella’s media agency of the year in June, for the first time. We were all super patient in having this plot unfold, weren’t we?
8. Actually I don’t. Please feel free to tell me. (I can’t promise to publish your reply if there are legal risks, by the way.)
7. (You’ve already used 7. Do you mean 9? Or 5?) Really? Actually, no.
Your second no 1. No, our big strategy is exactly the same as in Australia, build a community and create events and services which may be of use to our audience. Our recent biggest play has actually been Mumbrella360 in Singapore.
Your second no 2. It hurts all organisers of awards when some have low standards or take short cuts. When some awards can be bought, it hurts us too. Yes, I’m against that, and will call it out.
You forgot no 3.
Your second 4. Good on you.
Hi Tim (and Dean) Slight tangent – but not really, when it comes to cleaning up the industry. I’ve always thought Mumbrella to be a crusading and positive vehicle for strong industry debate. (Which is desperately needed across many areas). But why do you continue to allow anonymous postings and comments? It does little for you, or the industry. If people don’t have the conviction to stand behind their words, why would you give them the opportunity? Take a stand for open and transparent debate. Best, RB.
Hi Rcihard,
That’s a legitimate debate, and one we’ve gone back and forth on over the years. A couple of times we’ve polled our readers on it. While there’s no consensus, the view has tended to be that the opportunity to comment on important industry issues that somebody’s role might not otherwise allow is valuable, the major downside can be that such comments can be made with less responsibility taken. Over the years my view has edged closer and closer to disallowing anonymous comments. We’re not there yet. But one day I might be.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Anonymous comments allow people to truly speak their minds on industry news. Ever notice there are no comments on anything on AdNews?
Removing anonymity would reduce comment sections to self congratulations and circlejerk.
LinkedIn and AdNews are great examples of why anonymity is better for everyone, for better or worse.
Signed, anon.
Perfect, Tim.
Hello,
@ MFA judge too
Why aren’t we hearing about all that work that gets disqualified?
Reading Mumbrella I assumed this was just an Atomic thing?
Weird.
Any chance you could score for and against here? I lose count. I keep stomping my hoof but I lose it in the dust after about 24 stomps.
Can’t you install a meter on your stories or something that gives the running score after every new comment? Not essential, but would be helpful. My hooves are sore.
Feels like the scoring is significantly against lying and cheating, and for exposing it. Which is a relief, even for a donkey.
And should say just a little something to those people here who are abusing Mumbrella for being a messenger on something that is pretty serious – deception and in a donkey’s view, fraud. Is it Ok to let that go? By saying, no negative vibes here? We aren’t having negative stuff published in this indstry? Move on…everyone?
Wow. Feels like the ‘for’ Dooris and Atomic people are going for a tactic that the Don loves – just attack the living shit out of the messenger hard. And keep doing it until you obscure what is going on.
What is going on is cheating. And what seems to be stoking so many comments is that it’s an issue in this industry. And not just in agencies pitching their award entries. There form here. And it needs to be aired.
The irony is the Atomic CEO supporters are doing it anonymously (I am an actual Horse by the way, not a donkey so I get it), and, they are doing it without any facts, or reasoned argument. They just throwing abuse and shit about making noise and hoping I guess for smoke. That’s a tactic we’ve become familiar with in the last few years.
Like the Don, its beat the shit out of someone and sooner or later there will be smoke and confusion.
But if this story is significantly scoring on the side of the journalism being good and the behaviour by Atomic’s CEO, being bad, which feels clear (just for and against count everyone, nothing more) , did anyone notice that B&T, Ad News, and even the Australian Media section had a nothing on this story, except for B&T and Ad News’s pre-roll stories, based on Dooris sending them a statement in an effort to head off Mumbrella’s expose.
None of them have done any follow up at all that I can see. Why? Nothing more to see here? Let Mumbrella be cast as the bad one? We are just here for the positive stuff guys?
The initial stories of B&T and Ad News were clearly shown up to be very badly done by the evidence Jones put together – not researched in any way, not even a phone call to check stuff, just responding to a statement from Dooris and trying to defend their award judging.
After the Steve Jones story was published and all that hardcore evidence got listed what did we hear from these fellow trade journal travellers – crickets just after dusk.
Given the nature of all that evidence – there was a lot – is there any reason the other two just decided to leave it alone after their initial, poor efforts?
I’m sort of hoping that they aren’t falling for that troll line in the other comment stream – that B&T and Ad News are positive forces for the industry as evidenced by them just writing positive stories. That was the Don saying , CNN is fake and bad, Fox News good. That is not good for anyone in this industry.
Ignoring stuff like this, especially after you published an article based on a statement sent to you by Dooris, feels very weak, or worse.
Let’s ignore fraud shall we? Really?
That’s not support. That’s some form of tacit collusion in bad behaviour.
Having only Mumbrella sticking its head out and when it does a couple of bullies abuse them by saying they are just bringing the industry down and we need more positive vibes, and the other trade journals are the good guys, is stupid. Stupid of them and of the other trade journals. If you aren’t doing any journalism and you’re in the media what are you doing?
Annoying
Ok, so Jason has lied, and should be called out for that. But Barry used to have (I left the market a while back, he may still have) an amazing reputation. Is Atomic212 going to suffer? Will clients leave? Will Jason be booted? Will this be forgotten? What’s the prognosis? Where is the OpEd piece?
I think they need to show Jason where the Door Is…..
Oh, so very witty.
As I’ve tried to say in the other thread this doesn’t stop at Atomic 212. Other agencies have entered figures a few years out of date or taken figures from only one agency in the network in Australia to paint a better picture overall. Some of the entries around work place initiatives would be unrecognisable to anyone who worked there. I think clients should focus on the awards around actual work not stuff they’ve made up to make them sound good. And if there are entries around work make sure it was an idea that came from that agency and not one from the client or creative agency passed off as their own work.
The questions and investigative follow up for answers have revealed exactly what those in the business would expect of Dooris and his consistent exaggeration of his expertise and company acquisition and/or retention of accounts. If Dooris and Atomic 212 put half as much effort into their clients and staff as they do of Dooris, the company would be in a healthier state. There are good companies striving to maximise client outcomes, Dooris unfortunately is fixated on himself and his imaginary bench of clients is, in reality, as empty as his boasts and the man himself.
The IOC banned us from the games and we had to hand our medals back. …Just sayin’
Awards are bullshit, this is why we don’t enter them.
I have worked with Atomic on many occasions, the business was built to sell, simple. Barry has attended many award presentations, maybe he did not look at the entries?
Very ordinary business form a service perspective.
As for the comments on Mediacom, totally agree a widespread dirty issue here concerning millions of dollars and fraud potentially. Not just faking some award entries so you can have an ugly thing with your name on it sitting in reception.