Why The Gentleman’s Gin Club is not just ‘a group of mates having a drink’ but a symbol of the industry’s woes
The tone deaf example set by industry leaders with The Gentleman’s Gin Club is yet another own goal for an industry struggling to get to grips with issues around diversity, argues Mumbrella’s Alex Hayes.
It pains me to have to write an explainer piece on where the dozen or so senior men in the now infamous ‘Gentleman’s Gin Club’ went wrong – but once again it appears sadly necessary.
If the picture of the chaps getting together had been posted on Facebook with the caption ‘great night having a blazer fitting for our trip to the Sydney Carnival’ it would have been the usual Facebook filler.
The Gentleman’s Gin Club has sparked debate about equality and political correctness in the industry
But by posting a picture of some of the most influential people in the ad tech universe locally, alongside arguably the most influential voice and buyer of ad tech in the country in GroupM’s Tim Whitfield, the title ‘Gentlemen’s Gin Club’ inevitably caught attention.
Great piece, Alex – you can almost hear the thud of your head on the desk. You wouldn’t have thought it needs to be explained to an audience that works in communications – or to anyone who is alive in any way – but still, here we are.
Most of the men are white too! It’s current year ffs!
“Most” of the men. Who the hell are you to decide the appropriate number of white people at a social gathering. Race has nothing to do with this, stop trying to make it something it’s not.
Token rules
Media agency exec being fined by probably the preferred partners they flog to their advertising partners. What’s wrong with that? No wonder auditing companies are in demand to cleanup the mess and the sham at media agencies
And that is the 2nd offence of this Gin Club, [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy].
I just can’t believe seeing this in 2017. Grow up, guys.
But “Media Insider”, who’s being fined?
“By probably the preferred (publishers??) they flog to their (other publishers??).”
How many tabs do you have open right now? What are you saying about?
Think we need a crisis meeting tonight fellas. No photos.
#putyourginbottleout
“I would expect to see women in womens clubs”.
To all you people wailing about how this is a beat up, please read the line above and reflect on whether it reflects diversity.
I’ve been actively shunned from agency-sanctioned events in the past that were “Ladies who ____”, where 90% clients were female, and 90% of the management/account team were female. That doesn’t reflect diversity either. I didn’t on the blower to Mumbrella about it (because it wouldn’t be a story) – I just went and had a beer with the blokes who weren’t invited.
Welcome to 2017. It’s all a pendulum, the world used to accept sexism and bigotry and instead of treating everything equally the common reaction seems to be to swing the other way to overcompensate. Part of how Trump got elected.
To their credit there are instances you do have to push harder in one direction; but the problem is this is generally a blanket solution and you get double standards like this where an all woman’s club would be seen as empowerment but an all man’s club is a sign of pervasive sexism throughout an entire industry. The world needs people to speak up like this but I still believe this is incorrectly being used as an example for an unrelated issue (but hey I’m not sexist and haven’t seen any sexism in my career so maybe I just don’t truly comprehend the situation).
Thank you Alex, for being one of the men that get it.
As you said, the only way the glass ceiling can be shattered is if our male colleagues recognise that it exists. Unfortunately – I don’t think I know one (senior) female in our industry that doesn’t experience the frustration of trying to navigate in a men’s world.
Behaviour such as the creation of this club, albeit with probably the most innocuous of intentions, just widens the gap that some of us struggle with every day.
Thank you again for your voice.
I’m expecting the next piece to be Alex apologising for having a penis.
White man explains why other white men might want to consider other people = too much to compute for other white man?
Why should I care about this? After all I don’t even have a daughter…
Challenge yourself to talk to a woman you work with tomorrow about her life and career. You might just learn something.
When did this become about race? Have you seen the people in the photo? You sir have zero credibility
Let’s call it an educated guess based on the tenor of the comment and the fact the vast majority of people in the industry are white.
After all who has most to lose from embracing diversity?
And the Mumbrella 2017 Virtue Signalling Award goes to…
About the only refreshing thing about the photo above is that they aren’t all white. I agree with pretty much all of what you have said Alex, and hope that Mumbrella will soon bring the same focus to ethnic diversity. As a non-native Australian I am still shocked by how few indigenous Australians I ever meet in the business environment.
An article about gender discrimination followed up with a comment mocking (assumed) race and dismissing an opinion on that (assumed) race…
Sorry Alex, but you’re wrong.
What you’ve failed to grasp is that you’ve gone beyond industry coverage and into peoples personal lives to fabricate a story. It’s unethical and downright dangerous. People do a myriad of things as private individuals and it should not invite scrutiny by an industry publication – particularly when it was clearly a private conversation where privacy was breached by a screenshot. The minor fact that they work in an industry you cover, does not make it industry news either.
This was not an industry event. It was a private gathering of a few individuals who are friends outside of their respective workplaces. And while it involved commenters who also work in the same industry, they comment as private individuals and were expressing their individual views. Again, this is not industry related news, it was a private conversation.
To conflate private commentary into an industry issue is total horseshit and you know it.
Next time you come looking for a dime for your bespoke publishing efforts you’ll be told to piss off. I’ll also be putting you and other Mumbrella writers on a restricted list on my Facebook — and I’ll advise many others I know to do the same. If we can’t trust you privately, why would we want any of you hanging about looking for a story?
Congratulations, you’ve made one less friend, and one less dollar in the industry.
Hi Over it,
I’m sorry but how can you say this is not an industry club? It’s formed by several individuals in the industry, for the purpose of discussing industry topics and having ‘guest speakers’, and is even compared to industry groups like SWIMM and Women In Digital. The story only changed today to a private blazer fitting and there being no club, despite the posts showing that was the intention. The word club is used repeatedly. They have members. I don’t ask my mates to become members of my ‘club’ – do you?
As a rule our journalists don’t report on private matters like things that go on on Facebook, but a dozen high-profile industry execs forming a men-only club is clearly an industry issue. If this had been on LinkedIn I suspect we wouldn’t have been having this conversation, so what’s really the difference with a public Facebook post seen by many people?
This isn’t something we trawled Facebook for, but something that was sent to us by a concerned member of the industry. No privacy has been breached legally or ethically.
Obviously it’s up to you where you spend your marketing dollars. You’ve posted anonymously here, but I’d love the chance to take you for a coffee and have a proper conversation about this. After all I’m a white bloke, so really why should I care about issues that affect someone else? Please feel free to drop me an email alex@mumbrella.com.au. I suspect you won’t…
Cheers,
Alex
You didn’t get an invite Alex?
Fortunately not – I don’t like gin…
Thank you, Alex. Both your article and comment hit the nail on the head. I’ve worked under two men caught up in this (Pat & Adam) and they’re both great guys. I don’t think they would ever intentionally do something to upset women in the industry, but they clearly need to do a bit of self-reflection and understand that they come from a position of privilege. Trying to justify the need for a men’s club in the media industry is like trying to justify the need for a ‘white lives matter’ movement or ‘straight pride parade’.
Also, Tim’s comment about being a feminist because he has a daughter and lived in Sweden is the most cringe thing I’ve read in a while. Time to brush up on what it means to be a feminist, mate.
It’s not an industry club.
It was a gin club
& now it’s a fight club
nice rant. think you have overlooked the bit where a female ad tech exec asked to join and was told (publicly) it was blokes only.
The gathering itself may not have got attention, but the misogynous, tone deaf comments made by the group afterwards will be long remembered.
I 100% agree with this point but at the same time we’re taking the words of two to represent the whole group like it was an official statement on their behalf. Just something to consider
@over it
it’s interesting that you keep using the word ‘private’
the post was set to ‘public’
there were 11 people tagged
even the Venue was tagged
Your social media manager is crying in their Gin right now…
People’s personal lives? Settle down. You’re not a card carrying member of this club, are you? Assuming you’re not, they’re a bunch of industry ‘execs’ who formed a Gentleman’s Club (how astonishingly anachronistic is that in this day and age?), broadcast the formation of said club on social media, and then tried to mansplain their way out of the pickle they found themselves in when taken to task over it [in the Facebook comments.] This kind of nonsense is absolutely fair game for Mumbrella, and I suspect you know it. If they’d shown better judgment in the first place, you wouldn’t have had to rush to their aid with your impassioned post. All I can say is, these guys deserve every bit of flak they cop, here and elsewhere. A Gentleman’s Club. Blazers for spring carnival. Come on, guys. Get over yourselves. It’s embarrassing.
The pic was on Social media so kind of gloating about the “club” which is why there’s salt in the wound. It wasn’t like the story was uncovered… it’s about an attitude and asking senior media male members in 2017 to be more aware about how they conduct themselves and examples they set. Networking has long been a part of the industry and so it should remain. Women I’m fairly confident wouldn’t want to go have a Gin with this bunch but for them to reiterate the exclusion (even for other men not invited) is unusual behaviour and a poor example
“Now as a bloke I do occasionally get together with male friends for a drink. Usually this comes around a sporting event we have a mutual interest in”
You’re an idiot. Do you also ocassionally get together with your female friends to discuss shopping, and with your grandparents to discuss WWII?
Brilliant. So from the whole article and issue this is really what you took from it?
Good on you.
The biggest question is whether there was a passback on the gin and/or blazers and which entity it was paid to.
Brilliant!
The club drinks one gin exclusively because it’s the *best.
* club reserves right to change which gin is best after the upfronts.
10+ years in the industry across 5 businesses affiliated with 3 of the Aussie ‘Big Five’ pubs + one ‘Long Tail’. 2 female CEOs and *numerous* extraordinary female managers I’ve reported into, worked alongside of, or brought business to. Also numerous talented female colleagues I’ve worked with, and had reporting into me. The ‘problem’ you’re trying to portray is a myth, and this story is a beat-up, sorry Alex.
Have had the pleasure of working with at least one of the individuals named in the piece and can affirm he has mentored and championed a number of important women in our sector even during the time I worked with him.
Believe it or not, blokes are allowed to associate with blokes. Especially as this appears to be a ‘social’ group of long-standing mates, with no doubt a ‘tongue in cheek’ title. They shouldn’t feel bullied by the likes of you or your publication into accepting females into these ‘events’ or the social group, simply for the sake of ‘gender representation’.
They were going to make it a regular meetup ? So what ? They were going to have ‘speakers’ because they all work in the same industry … again, so what ?
To give you an apt analogy, there are lots of meetups for female contributors to the female-centric parts of ‘the blogosphere’, from which men are excluded and at which (mostly red wine) is consumed, and speakers are present. No-one bats an eyelid at those.
Well done for successfully helping blow up one person’s pique and peevishness (and outraged sense of ‘entitlement’) at being ‘excluded’ into a supposedly ‘industry wide’ issue …
Hi Some Bloke,
Again you raise points that are addressed in the article if you’d taken the time to read properly…
And the old I haven’t seen any issues therefore they don’t exist argument – what a belter that is.
Sit down and have an honest chat with a female colleague or two today about the industry and their feelings on it. Then let’s chat again.
Dear Some Bloke,
I’m Some Woman who works in the media. Fancy having a chat sometime? I’d really like to hear how the lack of gender diversity among the higher ranks in media is a myth, as you appear to be very well versed in this topic.
If I may be so bold… can you lead with fact, not one man’s experience, if you are going to express your opinion so stridently? And just because you declare something to be ‘apt’, well, it’s not.
I hope you’re not a journalist.
SWIMM is an organisation set up to connect, inspire and support women in the industry . We regularly have men participate in these events, David Gonski and Paul Brooks were recent panellists. We invite experts, depending on the topic to help our attendees understand and navigate what can be very unique opportunities.
Alex, good work and bang on. How ironic that someone from GroupM can be that tone-deaf and come across as that entitled.
Alex – thanks for this well written piece – you understand the underlying issue which is representation and power and in our industry (and many) gender is an issue. For all the men crying out about women having their own events/groups – well I am sure we will all be happy when we don’t because we have fair representation. Sometimes as a senior-ish woman I delude myself things have changed since my dad joined the Masons in 1970s for business networking and in the 80s when the all the GPS boys got the pick of internships and the early 90s where all the blokes played golf & did deals. I know some of the blokes in the picture and like them/respect them individually but this image made me feel sick.
ah mumbrella, the daily mail of trade press. No wonder you have so many paid views to your site compared to the other trade sites who report on facts not innuendo and gossip. Shameful, mumbrella a shadow of what they used to be
‘Innuendo and gossip’? Thank you for proving Alex’s point!
I want to start a boys club where we all chant this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI
Who’s in?
I can’t believe what I’m reading. Do you equally have an issue with women’s only groups? Sounds like you are upset you wern’t invited. What a beat up.
You hits clearly didn’t actually read then, or you’d know the answer to this question…
OK. Parking the issue of if this was an industry event or not and all the commentary Just think about it for a moment – 12 people who are supposed to be a dab hand at communications thought it was appropriate to put this on/be tagged in this on Facebook? Nothing to do with gender I can remember at least 3 times saying to someone about staff activities, “We can’t do that – Mumbrella will have a fucking field day”. Jesus Wept. The fact that nobody thought this could be an issue /blow up… I need a synonym for astounding.
Yes. This is the thing that sticks for me also. Aren’t they supposed to be experts in comms etc? It’s such a misread. And continues to be – it’s like fish swimming in the ocean who can’t grasp the concept of water. If the market is telling you something different to your demographic, listen. Stand down brothers, this is a teaching moment and it’s starting to smell like your fine careers have been built on mates not merit.
…………. evidently AdTech experts are not necessarily ‘dab hand at communication’ huh?
WHO DA THUNK IT
Appears to me like it was a GroupM vendor/partner meeting, coincidence that the participants there hold sales/account positions in major GroupM partners.
My feedback for Tim really is that someone of his experience and tenure in the industry needs to work for a non bias and neutral company. Doing these kind of things under the umbrella of GroupM comes with an underlying obligation to your employer.
Become an adjunct professor and there you will be able to best use that knowledge and experience to push the industry forward.
The other issue is that a GroupM employee, who are responsible for hundreds of millions of their clients digital spend, [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]. Tim regularly tags his fellow Club members in his Adtech Share of the Dayb on LinkedIn – a bit too cosy for my liking!
Yeah, this is the big one for me. Seems too cosy in a trading environment.
Clearly they mismanaged their responses with, what seems to be child-like ignorant responses but this crosses not just a society issue but a commercial one too.
I agree with a fella that wrote on one of these comments. They may know their trade but they are certainly not leaders for their respective businesses and the industry.
I’m just surprised that this gets more attention that the horrendous pet content partnership Pedestrian has launched.. yeesh.
Wow. Just wow. Some guys hung out with other guys and they happen to be from the same industry. No wonder everyone is so offended. I call for a royal commission.
You’re dead-on, Alex.
Just as Gillian Triggs was when she said “Sadly you can say what you like around the kitchen table at home”.
It’s outrageous that 12 male citizens of a free and democratic secular society have chosen to associate with each other to the exclusion of women. And other men who aren’t their gin-drinking buddies.
The sooner we legislate mandatory gender quotas for each person’s circle of friends, the better.
Enough is enough.
Australia needs to change its unacceptably tolerant ways, and it needs to do it NOW.
Hey Sventana,
Why not read the piece then engage the debate? You might even learn something.
Cheers,
Alex
Hey Alex, what if you’re wrong – what if this this is just ‘a group of mates having a drink’?
Hey Redfield,
If that’s the case why spend a whole lot of time on social describing the aims of the ‘club’, why they decided to exclude women from the ‘club’ and then inviting people to speak to the club?
And then why delete the posts?
It’s an easy excuse to wheel out now, but clearly the intention was to start a club.
I’m just going on the evidence as it appeared. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
These guys should be in the next lamb ad
“This isn’t some PC whine.”
I’m pretty sure.
One of the biggest causes of death among men under 45 is Suicide (http://www.news.com.au/lifesty.....8a2df01e05). I am going to bet most of these guys are about this age.
One way of dealing with this problem is putting together groups specifically for men to talk about issues they have or just be around other men. It is healthy for guys to spend time with other guys. Even if it is not in groups like MensShed http://mensshed.org. 5 out of 6 suicides that happen here in Australia are men.
I am not saying that this group is a suicide prevention group only that what they are doing is healthy. I am sure they are not plotting the downfall of women in adland or feminism in general.
The only mistake these guys made is putting it on social media.
Alex, you may be a self hating male, but not all of us are. To use your own words…’What I didn’t witness was some huge MACHO conspiracy to do down with WOMEN and take over the world’. Toughen up buddy. A bunch of guys hanging out is not a conspiracy, it’s a bunch of guys hanging out. The Nanny State hasen’t legislated against it yet! Deal with it. And don’t expect an invitation to the next meeting.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for giving your opinion on this sensitive topic. I’m still making my mind up on exactly how I feel about this whole issue, although I’ve noticed you’ve presented the use of the word “club” a number of times as one of the reasons you see this as being a problem, most notably when asked why this can’t simply be a “group of guys having a drink”. It’s also recurring through your article.
If they had never used the word “club”, would you then not see this group of men as being emblematic of gender bias within the media and marketing industry? If that’s the case, then are we simply arguing semantics? Can we assume that the issue is not an issue if this word isn’t used when describing the gathering or in subsequent chat around it?
I absolutely understand and agree that we have a significant issue around equal gender representation within leadership groups of major organisations in our industry and that needs to be addressed (and I do believe that we, as an industry are doing a reasonable job in at least opening the dialogue around it), but am struggling with exactly how we’ve arrived at this particular group of men being a manifestation of that problem, other than, by what I’m reading, the fact that they identified themselves as a “club” on social media?
I do agree that the group’s members attempt to explain their get-together on social media was tone deaf, and that assuming people wouldn’t pick this up in industry press as a representation of gender diversity issues in our industry might explain this, it doesn’t necessarily excuse it. That aside, and now seeing the publicity their (I’m sure) intentionally innocuous catch up has gotten, are they not within their rights to try and defend their intentions by explaining it in a way that feels more palatable, as long as that explanation isn’t completely fabricated?
It’s an interesting debate around what is and isn’t acceptable, and the particulars that can influence that acceptability.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the comment.
I see what you’re saying but I’d argue this goes beyond semantics with the word club, but what the word actually means and connotes.
Put simply it’s an industry group of very senior and influential people getting together. If they’d just done it and posted about it as the informal get together it’s now claimed to be I wouldn’t be spending time on this and I doubt anyone would. After all there was a blazer fitting involved.
But posting about a club which is intentionally excluding a group of people, but features some of the most powerful people in that space, just seems plain weird and wrong.
It’s their own efforts to label it and explain the constitution and membership that have made this an issue that shows up how little some senior leaders don’t understand the issues at hand.
Cheers,
Alex
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the reply. I’m still not sure that I completely agree.
I do agree with what you’ve said here – “Put simply it’s an industry group of very senior and influential people getting together.”
If that is what it was and what it was always intended to be, then we are objecting to the way it appears, not the way it is. Which is fine as these are industry leaders who should know enough not to put themselves in a position where such a meaning could be attributed, given how sensitive the topic is.
That being the case, what we are doing is calling them naive (in terms of showing a distinct lack of good judgement, rather than being necessarily innocent – I think this lack of judgement is peppered throughout all the communication around this, notably by referring to ones self as a ‘huge feminist’), or ignorant, but that seems to be being conflated with them being inherently misogynistic or sexist, which doesn’t seem fair. I don’t think you are necessarily labelling them as such, but your article has incited others to do so, with venom in some cases.
A number of people with personal experience working with these gents have stated that they are neither sexist nor misogynistic, and I’d have to take their word for it over an assumption we can make based on their apparent tone deafness.
Maybe we need to be more careful to frame the debate around their naivity, so that they aren’t dragged through the mud and labelled as something they are not, especially something so potentially damaging, professionally and psychologically, as “sexist” or “misogynist”.
Thanks again for your reply. It’s an interesting topic.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for engaging in the debate so meaningfully!
I’d be inclined to agree you are right this was naive rather than maliciously sexist. But as someone once pointed out to me the unconscious bias is actually wrse than the conscious bias.
Ultimately as a group of industry leaders, and managers, it’s disappointing this didn’t occur to them. Their actions reflect on the industry.
Thanks for the discussion.
Cheers,
Alex
Thanks Alex,
Last thing I’ll say on the topic (because I think we agree with one another, in many respects);
Conscious vs unconscious bias is an interesting one. The important distinction is that one is the fault of the person, the other is the fault of society. It draws a strong parallel to the naive vs malicious conversation.
I guess the outcome I’m hoping everyone can arrive at is that these lads have inadvertently contributed to the issue due to a lack of judgement. That doesn’t make them bad blokes, but it does unearth a deeper problem.
The knee jerk reactions seen from some commenters here (at both ends of the spectrum) need to take a breath and consider this lack of judgement, because it does a job explaining both sides of the debate.
Thanks again, Alex.
Thanks Mark for your refreshingly civilised approach.
Cheers,
Alex
HI Mark, Thanks for the contribution. I truly appreciate the intelligent counter argument you make.
If I may way in…
In reference to your comment above – “I think this lack of judgement is peppered throughout all the communication around this, notably by referring to ones self as a ‘huge feminist’), or ignorant, but that seems to be being conflated with them being inherently misogynistic or sexist, which doesn’t seem fair.” –
I disagree with this, it may be conflated with them being “deliberately” sexist or misogynistic, but I feel it is fair to say they are “inherently” so, evident by their ignorance (as you have pointed out). It is their own bias and male provilege which blinds them of the ability to recognise the morally-questionable decision to (a.) exclude women and (b.) claim that women doing so justifies them doing so.
This brings me to the unconscious bias issue. As leaders, fathers, educated and seasoned individuals, their naiivety and ignorance are not acceptable excuses. A public shaming, is deserved and warranted in this case, at least to bring that bias to their consciousness, if not to bring it to the public consiousness.
I do note, that at least one attendee, has apologised for offenses caused and was clear that he disagreed with the exclusion of women and the after-comments made by two of his fellows.
But I also note that this individual, even in his attempt to make amens, did so anonymously. I also haven’t seen any public comment made by others in the group.
That is unacceptable. These men acted inappropriately, either by saying something wrong (in the case of Tim and Adam) or by standing idly and silently (all the others, including the anonymous apologiser).
It is my beliefe that these men should not be given a pass until they acknowledge and remedy the following errors.
1- Benefiting from male-privilege.
2- Ignorance of their error and biases.
3- Inaction and lack of accountability so far.
4- Patronising and sexist (even if unintentional) comments, or not taking a position against said comments.
I know some of the men in the picture professionaly, but not personally. I really hope they rise to the occasion and grow from this… not by sitting back and hoping that the storm blows over, but manning up and acting like real gentlemen with the confidence to know that acknoledging fault is a sign of strength, not weakness.
I fear that the beatdown session may go on for a while unless they take action, and quick smart!
I guess my comment was a no go zone?
Hi Rusty,
We currently have three comments pending on this article. One about Timothy Whitfield, one about Trump, one making allegations about another member of the industry. Not sure which one (if any) belongs to you, but feel free to shoot me an email vivienne@mumbrella.com.au if you’d like more info on why it didn’t get across the line.
Your comment about men’s mental health has been approved.
Thanks,
Vivienne – Mumbrella
This debate reminds of the old saying, “Why are academic politics so bitter? Because the stakes are so small”.
The image alone I’m okay with. The friendships, also completely fine and expected…. the comments just show a real lack of care. The mocking of gender diversity and drawing parodies with Women’s industry groups that are designed to support a group who have historically had a lack of representation and opportunity? Well that’s completely embarrassing. A serious issue mocked by industry leaders is very revealing of their real values. I despair.
Alex, the fact that you have put your d*** on the line to bring some light to this, when it could have easily have been brushed over as FB fodder is pretty brave and I am sure (hope) an example the ‘genuine’ understanding women might expect to receive at a larger scale in the future.
Jeez, no wonder the comms business is in the condition it is these days when this bone-headed subject can generate a subject for “debate”. It explains a lot.
Leave the Gentlemen alone and talk about something meaningful.
Hey Alex. Thanks for a thoughtful and well-articulated assessment (and similarly well-argued rebuttals) of why this kind of “boys will be boys” shite is so on the nose.
PS blokes… if you really don’t want to risk catching girl cooties, first rule of Gentlemen’s (oh, the irony) Gin Club is don’t talk about Gentlemen’s Gin Club, especially on social media. Duh.
Great article and great comments.
The patience and politeness of Alex Hayes’ articulate comments, compared to the bile and false accusations of those criticising the article, speaks volumes.
As always, so many people jump in and prove the point.
If you don’t see a problem with this, you are the problem.
It’s a beat-up!
Regardless of the industry you work in, you will make a lot of mates within that industry. It’s the one thing you all have in common! The industry! And if a bunch of you want to get together after work for a drink or three, so what! And if you all agree it should be a regular get together from that time forward, so what! And if you are a bunch of blokes, or a bunch of ‘birds’, or a bunch of blokes and birds, so what! and if you want to call your bunch a “League of Gentlemen” or a Gents Gin Club, or (dare I say) the “Girls of Advertising Group”, so what!
It’s got nothing to do with gender diversity in the industry! Nothing!
It’s a beat-up!
I completely agree with you.
This is the first story I have ever commented on but I am so sick and tired and journalists telling others what opinions they can have, who they are free to associate with and dismissing any opposing opinion by labelling the person a bigot, racist, misogynist etc etc etc. instead of addressing the opposing opinion with a reasonable argument.
Nice conflation of a women-only club and a male-only group and then equivocating the latter to the male dominated leadership of the industry. Yes, males may dominate the industry unfairly but this isn’t a club in the way you use it to justify your argument. Try again.
The gender thing is debatable. [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]. Well done Mumbrella for having the guts to put a spotlight on this.
Is there any end to self-inflicted social media wounds? Like, will one day people figure out they need to think, and think again, before posting? We need a slip, slop, slap style advertising campaign or failing that – a grim reaper bowling on twitter ad. Or maybe a live aid style finger clicking campaign…”Every few seconds, an Australian business leader gets themselves into trouble on social media (click), that’s another one (click) that’s another one…”
Even the Daily Mail is running with the Gentleman’s Gin Club now…. [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy].
https://www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/c/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4856954/amp/Madmen-style-Gentleman-s-Gin-Club-formed-directors.html
Perhaps a club for those over 60 in the industry?
I’d like to see that!
Or, is it just me?
https://www.healthspiritbody.com/male-friendships/?ftt
OTT PC. Blokes can get together without girls and there’s nothing wrong with it. Girls can get together without blokes and there’s nothing wrong with it. Because you’re in advertising its wrong? What a crock. Get over it.
are you also going to have male members of the women in media groups …FFS …let the men have their men thing, let the women have their women thing – and if you want to prove a point just do it – dont throw a tantrum about being excluded
Alex
Our industry has deep seated problems with gender equality. I respect your determination to pursue it as an issue – it needs to be discussed. However, you’ve mentioned you know some of the guys in this article. So do I. And I believe you’d spend a long time looking for a more fair, honest and respectful person than Adam Furness. I know a great many people that would say the same.
Hi Steve,
This isn’t an article saying these men are women haters who should be banished from the industry. Quite the opposite – Adam does a lot of good work with UnLtd and others. I’m very sure they never set out to cause any offence or distress.
But this is a learning opportunity for the industry and hopefully a wake up call to the (predominantly male) leaders in it to think about how things like this reflect not just on them but the wider industry, an industry in which a lot of people are desperately trying to change the kind of image this permeates.
As someone mentioned in another comment it’s time industry leaders wake up to the kinds of imagery they are portraying. For people in charge of brands there’s a lot not doing a great job of controlling their own sometimes.
Cheers,
Alex
That’s garbage Alex. It’s gutter trash journalism, nothing more.
If writing for Mumbrella even counts as journalism.
Good on you no name commenter…
Jesus “The Wasp” – go back and actually read each of Alex’s comments and responses to comments here. He’s been singularly fair, respectfully and open to debate. From what little you have offered I think you could learn a thing or two from him.
I especially liked the respectful and fair approach taken by Alex with this particular comment:
‘White man explains why other white men might want to consider other people = too much to compute for other white man?’
Because of course it’s not discrimination or racism when you’re attacking a majority group.
After the malicious and sanctimonious drag-down of the Saatchi Christmas event, I decided an industry medium so biased was not worth reading. But gave it another hopeful try. However, this mealy-mouthed attack shows it’s still without intelligent authority. I’m off again. You won’t miss me, I am, apparently, one of the few women readers who have a great career and no male hate. And I won’t miss Mumbrella and it’s silly fireworks.
I think good old Jules Lund summed it up perfectly in his 2am LinkedIn video. This is the sort of bullying that leads to mental health/ depression issues amongst males. Yes I agree it was perhaps a bit naive of the guys to post it on social media but seriously this has blown way out of proportion. I don’t know these guys but from all reports they are decent guys who have the utmost respect for women. Ffs let’s not crucify them for having a few drinks amongst work friends. Seriously.
My angle here is the “MENTALITY” behind the formation and announcement of this gent’s club.
The boy in me loves Don Draper and Mad Men; all the suits, smoke, booze, long lunches, women and getting away with genuinely creative BS. As a grown-up man, I intend to remind myself and people around me that it’s a show from decades ago, and I raise my daughters to stand up against A-holes like Don, if they come across any Don’s in their professional (or personal) journeys. I may have fantasies but I don’t act like Don who normalizes male chauvinism. It’s a bit like watching Superman or Spiderman as a kid and jumping out of second floor window: watching Mad Men and acting like one will get you in trouble in 2017.
A couple of mates having a drink or two and getting groomed is innocent and fun and healthy.
A group of industry leaders, including buyers and sellers of huge transactions (that include client’s budgets), openly creating a gender based exclusive club, announcing it on social media, bragging about it and then challenging women to prove themselves worthy to have a gin with them, is wrong. It displays a mentality from last century, a mentality that needs upgrading in for 2017 and future. They all would have to resign if they were in US. But again, if they were industry leaders in US, they would know not to get themselves into trouble like this.
It will be very classy (and ballsy) of them to swallow their pride and apologize and drop their Don ways – at least when they are using their professional titles.
Salute to Alex for his courage and all the women who are involved in the discussion and the women who are reading these articles and comments, watching men trying to figure out how to grow up – you guys rock 😉 Cheers.
100% this. Thank you.
Hi Mumbrella,
Gender equality within our industry and for that matter, Australia in general, is clearly an emotional topic for many people. I have my own opinion on this issue, but for the time being – I’d prefer to keep it that way.
The reason I have chosen to write this comment is to address another issue that this article has surfaced. It’s something that a lot of commenters have not acknowledged and certainly doesn’t appear to have been considered by Mumbrella. That issue is editorial integrity, or lack there of.
When you publish something on your website, a lot of people read it and surprisingly- they take it as fact.
So when you write an article that alleges there are “deals being done behind closed doors, ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ and other such Machiavellian dealings”, I hope you understand the serious nature of these types of comments. This moves the conversation beyond its original point – to highlight the “symbol of the industry’s woes”, as the articles headline suggests – and points the finger directly at the business ethics of this group of individuals. Claiming to know “some of these chaps” does not make these accusations any less damaging.
I absolutely agree that there needs to be a public conversation about gender equality, I also agree with Mark’s above comments that this specific circumstance is more likely a case of ignorance rather than blatant sexism, however I don’t agree that Mumbrella should be able to produce ‘editorial’ that makes these types of assertions without any basis. Alex, if you were to write an article of this nature in a credible publication, for example The Australian, suggesting specific politicians were doing “deals behind closed doors” you would be held to some level of accountability both by your readers and your peers. Unfortunately this accountability seems to have been lost when it comes to Mumbrella, and other advertising trade publications. This highlights another very real issue in our industry, certainly not as significant as gender equality, but an issue none-the-less.
It’s very disappointing.
Hi Damaged,
There’s no accusation in the article like that.
If you re-read and don’t selectively quote you’ll see the sentence reads:
“It smacks of deals being done behind closed doors, ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ and other such Machiavellian dealings. Knowing some of these chaps I’m sure that wasn’t what was happening or the intention, but perception makes a big difference.”
This is commentary that comes as you mention at a time when industry transparency in the ad tech space is under increased scrutiny.
One of the main issues with the group is the perception it causes – and this is certainly something that has been mentioned to me by a few people now.
In terms of accountability Mumbrella is a member of the Australian Press Council – the only industry publication to be registered – and are fully accountable. If people have a grievance we can’t reselve that is a channel open to them. Fortunately it’s never happened – despite our robust approach to certain topics.
Cheers,
Alex
The FB ad headline for this post only had
It smacks of deals being done …….and didn’t include the second qualifying sentence.
So for the 99.something% who didn’t click through that is all they would have read.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the reply.
This article introduces a robust and balanced discussion about a core topic that needs to be addressed in our industry, why is there a need to introduce any suggestion of something more sinister?
As you’ve rightfully pointed out – things can be taken out of context when your readers selectively quote.
Making a point like this has potential ramifications on the individuals professional lives, no matter what context is inserted at the end of the paragraph. Simply adding a sentence to introduce the idea of ‘perception’ isn’t enough to negate the original intent of the allegation.
Hi Damaged,
Thanks for the response – and I’m glad you respect the conversation.
I understand what you are saying, but as an opinion piece this is merely pointing out the optics through which this photo could be viewed.
Unfortunately people love to pick a line or two, remove context and use it to beat people with. It’s how you build a straw man argument when you don’t have a leg to actually stand on. But for me the test is will the majority of reasonable people understand what was meant – I think that this stands as is.
Again I’m accusing no-one of anything more than poor judgement.
Cheers,
Alex
If you actually knew these people – you’d know they mean little by it as they are mostly socially inept and lack emotional intelligence.
You can’t blame them for be basically stupid.
Alex – I came to Aus from UK and a lot of my friends happen to be in the industry, and from a variety of different agencies / businesses. You need to get off your high horse – It’s a pathetic article from all angles. People of any gender can get together to drink Gin if they so wish. Btw, have you got any evidence to support your assumptions?
Please write a piece about the following official and professional organisations/communities/groups: ‘Like Minded Bitches Who Drink Wine’ (ooooh women referring to themselves as bitches… yeah good one), ‘Business Chicks’, ‘Babes in Business’… and get people involved who represented all sides. See how I wrote people? Would love to hear your thoughts on the keywords in these groups – bitches, babes and chicks… FML.
It’s actually quite funny when you think of it.
Hi J,
I too am from the UK – and as I mentioned I also have friends who work in the industry from various different parts of the ecosystem.
I’m all for men getting together to with other men – I’m pretty sure I say that in the piece – maybe not clearly enough.
The difference is when I do that I’m not labelling it a club (as they did numerous times in the since deleted Facebook exchanges as evidence) and then tell women in that same industry they can’t come and play because it’s a boy’s only thing.
Again, as I wrote – if this was a picture of a few blokes getting together to shoot the breeze it would have gone unremarked. The problems came for them when they labelled it a boys-only club to talk about industry things.
I also talk about those other organisations and their roles. I can’t quite see how a dozen senior managers from one sector of the industry quite equates. Maybe you could explain that to me?
Cheers,
Alex
From what I can see only two men out of the ten ever made any comments about the night and it being a club, just 2, yet you keep saying ‘they’ implying that all the men involved believed this. What if you’re wrong? What if actually the majority of these men believed it was a night to catch up with mates, nothing more?
Did you or Paul do your research Alex? Did you question the other 8 men before posting your damaging article? Did you do your research on the type of men they are, their characters, what they believe in or stand for before tarnishing their reputations? Or did you see a silly FB post done by one man and run with a juicy story, f*ck the rest of them, the years they have spent building their careers.
Research and finding facts is key in journalism isn’t it? Speculation and assumptions can be dangerous.
Hi Who,
Indeed on that Facebook post there were two of the men on there explaining what was happening.
It’s worth noting the others were all tagged and the (now deleted) post went up on August 5 – over a month ago now. In that time none of them corrected the record on Facebook. How hard would it have been to post that they weren’t involved in an in-depth discussion about the club’s constitution and membership, or distance themselves from it?
Yes we did approach everyone for comment, we had responses from a couple but not from most. And none has reached out in the last few days in an official capacity to ‘correct the record’. They’ve all got my number (or have PRs who do) and I’d happily chat, as would Paul or any of the editorial team. We’re here and waiting…
As I’ve said above this isn’t about these men’s character – I’m certainly not accusing any of them of anything more than naivety and a failure to connect how their actions would play out to the broader world.
Cheers,
Alex
TOTAL BULLSH!T….”Yes we did approach everyone for comment, we had responses from a couple but not from most. And none has reached out in the last few days in an official capacity to ‘correct the record’. ”
NEVER GOT A CALL for a comment. You’ve got my number you can call me too Alex and Paul for that matter.
Hi hhhmmm,
We did attempt to contact everyone named in the story however not everyone returned our messages. If you believe there are any inaccuracies in the story, please contact me directly and I’ll happily and promptly correct them.
Cheers,
Paul wallbank
News Editor
No you didn’t Paul, that is a blatant lie and you know it. You may have called my office, but you never asked to speak to me personally or ask me for a comment.
So don’t purport that you spoke to all for a comment or left a message. My message bank works fine and there were no missed calls or messages!!
Hi hmmmm,
I attempted to contact all the individuals mentioned. In the cases where I didn’t have personal mobile numbers or email addresses, I went through their office switchboard and asked to speak to them. If that person didn’t answer or wasn’t available, I left a message with the operator asking them to return my call.
One company only had a web form for contacts, so I filled that in asking to be contacted by the individual. I hope that addresses your point about not being contacted.
Again hhhmmm, if there are any inaccuracies in the story or aspects you would like to add please feel free to contact me directly.
Regards,
Paul Wallbank
News Editor
Hi Who are they,
We certainly did do our research and approached all of those named in the story. If you or your friends have something to add to the story or would like to offer corrections, I’d be delighted have a chat.
Kind regards,
Paul Wallbank
News Editor
The issue isn’t the gathering/posting of the photo. I don’t think any person has an issue with these men coming together for a night out and labelling it with a cute caption like ‘Gentlemen’s Gin Club’.
It’s the way these men responded to the commentary that is the issue. That was the opportune moment to clear up any misunderstanding. I don’t know how people can defend ‘the boys club’ when the words are staring right there at you.
These men, as leaders of the industry, should know better. It’s disappointing and I hope they realise their words have consequences.
Thank you for opening this discussion, Alex.
I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have me as a member
1) Alex, you wrote ‘there is already a men’s club- it’s called the board room’.
Please think about stigmatisation and what you said there. Seriously!
2) The whole movement around ‘men are privileged because they are men’ is bit too easy and naive (it’s a form of discrimination too). It sounds like no man had to work to get a senior role. There is inequality, but that doesnt mean it was an easy game for male senior managers either. I wish people would be more sensible here.
3) Let’s talk about symbolism – a sad fact is that you and many others try to make such images of guys a symbol for inequality. Sad – no picture of males from same industry possible anymore.
Consider the following: imagine the guys would have met, had their drinks and that’s it. Imagine there would have been no photo, no snapshot of private comments etc. Would you have reported about a bunch of media guys going out?
NO – but because there is a picture, you try to link it to award and media events pictures which have been used by Cindy G and others to demonstrate gender inequality.
NO – because the meeting alone -who cares about the name, club or not club – would not have been enough. It’s this stigmatised guy picture and some unfortunate comments that gave you the material to have a go at the guys.
But what did you achieve? Do you really think this will change things? Do you really think the guys met to discuss how they can proceed and further keep women away from top-level roles? Please think about the meeting beyond stupid self-created symbolism – do you really think these guys had bad intentions?
Well, in my view all you guys at Mumbrella achieved was throwing some dirt at some fine people and getting lots of short-term attention for Mumbrella. I hope it was worth it. Because you had to go very low to achieve this. And I am sure you haven’t made friends with this action…good luck getting trust and first hand information from the (only 80%) male senior execs in the future mate
The Gin Club has nothing on what happens at the really senior end. Check out the secret men only group that is full of and led by industry heavy weights. Those “lucky” enough to get an invite know it as The Festival of the Pig. Each year the club gathers in a select location, a pig is killed and the gentlemen of note celebrate another fine year passing.
Sounds crazy
100% male, 100% white, 100% industry, 100% Sydney, 100% hush hush
The next gentlemans evening is coming up fairly soon and you won’t find it on Facebook.
A week passed since hundreds decided to comment on what is a non matter. I asked a journalist friend of mine who is as good as this country has produced, a lady, to tell me what where her thoughts about this frenzied week. She said how sad that people waste company time dribbling away on something that is so inconsequential in the world we live in. Now I am that old that in 1974 when Merchant and Partners opened their doors in Sydney I would rep them, do some business on behalf of clients, shake hands with Robbo a contributor to the comments about settle down and concentrate on the big things in life and then we would frequent the local in Surry Hills and drank schooners – truck drivers don’t eat quiche!!!! The journo friend thinks be a great ACA or 60 minutes yarn.
Gender equality is about giving both genders equal rights and opportunities. The backlash on this proves how we often overcorrect on the issue. If woman are afforded the freedom to run and attend woman only groups – I can’t see how anyone could argue men shouldn’t be able to do the same.
The comments say so much more than the article, or even the forming of the “club”.
The amount of men commenting saying gender diversity is not an issue is laughable. Check your male privilege.
Yes gender equality is about equal rights, but when a group is under represented going tit-for-tat with gendered associations/clubs is not equality. The comments here just prove why women and gender diverse people need spaces of their own to discuss issues and challenges they face which cis-men do not understand.
Shaming men for getting together in a group is dangerous and sexist. Simple as that.
Alex, you’ve completely missed the mark here.