Mumbrella will no longer publish comments: Why we’ve made the call

Test

Tim, Mumbrella team,

It is, sadly due to society’s Niceness Barometer, the right thing to do.

Onwards, upwards, and break a leg.

Ridron Jr.

we want to foster a community through Mumbrella. That means opening the communication channels with as much of the industry as possible.

I struggle to see how this can be done, unless it’s going to end up in a Facebook or LinkedIn group. Emailing Journos isn’t really community thats a 1-way conversation in private.

Bold strategy going all in on this, rather than potentially just trialling it or slightly hiding / nesting the comments.

Excellent decision Damian. Well done.

Sad news. Comments were part, not all, but part of the reason I chose to read Mumbrella everyday over other trade press.

I’m not sure that handing all of the power over to those in power, who are able to speak directly to you, and don’t require anonymity or otherwise to feel comfortable knowing they aren’t going to lose their job/career by speaking out is the way to go. Sort of removes alot of credibility and diversity from these pages i feel.

But in saying that, it is your site and you have the right to do as you see fit. You have a business to run etc. etc. and if all you’re getting in the comments is abuse or trash with no value add & no time to waste filtering through that sort of rubbish, then that’s the way it is.

The readers will speak with their eyeballs, so you’ll know soon enough if it’s right thing to do or not!

Agency heads are allowed to PR any alternative fact that they like and us minions need to accept that as fact. What a sad day for free speech.
A lot of brave people have been able to speak up on here about issues like sexual assault and sexual harassment which have been extensive at some Melbourne agencies. There are important discussions that are deserving of commentary.
OG

Comments were a good indicator of what I should be paying attention to in my brief visits to this website.

Now I won’t have that.

Plus, variety of thought was really welcoming, yeah it was toxic, but at least the conversation was being had.

Lame decision, but an understandable one.

Risk adverse as always…

I think this is a shame. I contributed to the comments and enjoyed (mainly) reading those of other posters…both the scurrilous and the more constructive.

I do understand some of why it was necessary and I do also agree that the comments haven’t been nearly as interesting or as much fun since the new policy on comment moderation came in.

But I think debate is a good thing and that being exposed to opposing and contradictory views is important both for readers and the article authors and that unfortunately, this move will reduce industry debate

People can comment by replying to the Mumbrella posts on Twitter, if they want to.

Respectfully (and having been on the end of negative comments) this isn’t a good thing. Letting powerful voices speak whilst stifling less powerful responses is a net negative.

It’s a shame but understandable given the toxic nature of so many of the comments that appear on here.

Does this mean you will be scrubbing the comments from previous stories as well, or will they remain visible to all to remind everyone of how naughty we’ve been?

The best Mumbrella experience was getting the popcorn out when there was a campaign/opinion/news that divided the room. A shame that can’t happen anymore.

First time back in weeks, last time back overall. The comments, mainly concerning opinion pieces which are mostly scribed by second rate, untalented, narcissistic industry climbers were my only reasons to visit.

Websites without comments feel like very flat places to be

Only reason I come here

I only came for the comments

Mumbrella was never quite as zesty as CampaignBrief, it was a media forum.

I guess I’ll have to go and join the cool creative guys now.

Probably a good thing on the whole.

That’s where the heart of advertising lives anyway.

Real genuine connections. Less of this PR claptrap say what you we want you to say rubbish.

Gag me I’m done

As someone who has also enjoyed reading and contributing to the Mumbrella comments section over the years, I will miss it.

Extending the conversation beyond the article can have a lot of value but I do understand the challenges publishers face in trying to responsibly moderate comments while also juggling reporting responsibilities. Moderation and community building are quite rightly their own specialist skills and require dedicated resources, training and support. The mental health effects of moderating abusive content day in and day out can also not be understated – part of the reason we developed a Resilience training offering for community managers last year.

All the best with your decision and your community building efforts in the future, there’s definitely a large group of us here, whether or not most use aliases 😉

This sucks almost as much as those Republic of Everyone greenie virtue signalers or 303 MullenLowe’s revolving door.

And boy do they suck.

Sincerely,
CampaignBrief.

I’m not in the industry. It have visited mumbrella over the years, primarily for the comments or for articles with the most comments as it indicates which articles are most interesting.

I’m in two minds about this.

The comments used to be the best thing about Mumbrella, but sometimes they got a bit out of control and could’ve been moderated more effectively.

Without comments, who will challenge the frequently ridiculous spin put out by industry participants? It’s a shame they won’t be held to account when the line doesn’t match the reality.

Anonymity provides the opportunity & environment to discuss business news without the clear disincentives that prevent people doing so in public spaces.

LinkedIn has slowly been reduced to a cheerleading arena where we’re all constantly auditioning for new jobs, sharing boring company updates to keep existing jobs, or sharing popular opinions disguised as unpopular opinions to bait engagement.

It’s awful.

A bad call and one that will lessen the appeal of Mumbrella. Now the top end of town with a PR has the floor exclusively – this is not good for our industry.

I can confirm that you over-index for comment reading and your Helix Persona will miss these when they’re gone.
I blame that gossip Emma Ipsos, spoiled it for everyone.

Lol at all the people calling you out as lame… as they hide behind their dumbass aliases.

I applaud this. You want to know why? Because as someone who left Australia many years ago, I’ve been astounded at our industry reputation in the global sphere for our spiteful commentary, our anonymous bullying and being the world’s number one endorsers of tall poppy syndrome. Seriously, I’ve lost count of the amount of people in the industry who associate Australia with this – from two esteemed, multi award winning directors in New York to a much lauded global CMO. It’s an embarrassment. The critical & snarky commentary that countless people have received – sometimes career wrecking – is something to be ashamed of. As an Aussie, I’m sick of being associated with it and worse still, being expected to defend it. Let’s grow the f@ck up.

Great move. For years I had written about the damage anonymous commentary was doing. I had my detractors – generally in Another Place – but the damage some of the words people used against the work and the people who created it was real. Adland looked like a circus to outsiders and internally it offered little that was constructive to the personalities or the business. Hopefully this is another step in some in the industry growing up – by taking away a platform that has been abused by too many for too long. There will be elements that will be missed, but the greater good will be served. Well done Damian

A very difficult decision but Damian’s reasons make sense.

This will really test the Mumbrella’s editorial team especially at a time of change and as Mi3 ramps up its presence and seeks to challenge them head on. Time to step up guys.

Interesting times in the media/marketing trade media who have been sorely tested by COVID-19.

The real question for those senior industry leaders who did so much hand wringing over this issue – will they Now take on Campaign Brief whose comment thread has and remains a cesspit.

I always read the comments for a laugh. Some comments made genuinely laugh out loud – something FM radio has not been able to do for decades. I also loved seeing how many comments each story generated.

I will give it three months – and then you will ask us back. I’ll be waiting………

I will miss sending the odd opinion as a way to vent constuctive criticism on certain campaigns. It made me feel good! Signing off…an old media tragic from the 80s.

@Cummins and Partners is resolving door
What are you talking about? Both incongruous and stupid. There are some agencies that attract more attention and attacks than others. Those agencies are usually the successful ones. Comments like yours show where people’s competitive jealousies are. And prove it is a good move to end commentary.

Compared to Campaign Brief, the comments on Mumbrella were far from toxic. It was a different, more intelligent conversation. Less criticism or praise of work and more open debate on industry issues, from gender equality, to marketing effectiveness, to the calling out of those most self-serving of “opinion” pieces. In my opinion the value of the debate always far outweighed the toxicity. Sad to see it go.

Either brave or stupid. Time will tell.

I have a funny feeling that at least 50% of the Mumbrella audience only come here for the comments, either passively or as an active contributor.

Don’t take this as an attack, but being brutally honest, your reporting isn’t really standout. Many other publications report better and have a nicer on-site experience overall. Without the novelty of comments, I’m not sure what else there is here to offer.

I’d be very interested to see how this hits your readership over time. I’d wager, negatively…

Honestly this feels like a tragedy.

With the amount of misogyny in media and how hard it is to speak out without being punished, Mumbrella was the one place we got to voice our real thoughts and opinions with no danger of repercussions. It was a safe space to air the truth.

I’m disappointed and frustrated. Obviously we all want this industry to be better at recognising bad behaviour and not tolerating it, but we aren’t there. This was the last place we could be honest, and now it’s gone.

I’ll miss the comments, it’s a big part of the reading experience here, and it just feels like it’ll become a press release site.

Mumbrella – please don’t publish any more articles on social media companies and their inability to enforce policy, address hate speech or generally do more good. It’d be too ironic given you’ve failed to monitor a few comments on your website.

Too bad. Best thing about Mumbrella.

Your journalism is going to have to become a trillion times better to get me back here. No comments means all the bullshit press releases you regurgitate will go unchecked.
Comments keep people honest.
I think you’ll find this is a terrible move.

From my experience, people in the ad industry who say ‘anonymous comments are damaging’ are often the same ones who need to protect their over inflated sense of self importance. Publishers like Mumbrella kept the industry honest. Event Organisers, well they need to keep the money coming in I guess. This feels little more than a desperate kiss and make up / protect the earn out target, rather than evolution of a flakey policy.

That said, I’ve never said anything in an anonymous comment I wouldn’t say elsewhere about that company or person. I only wish more people would do the same.

All of the reasons you have given made sense.

But what I would say is that pretty much all of those I could see calling for the removal of comments/insisting on the removal of anonymity were those in positions of authority.

I appreciate that you hope to keep conversations open with those not in those positions, but it will undoubtedly be harder to do so, particularly with all the restrictions on physical interaction there are now.

I can’t really fault your decision, despite your protestations to the contrary it had become very partisan. In part, this is a reflection of the online industry which is under stress. As a non participant (I was in a group which bought ads for research and wound up being donated around 15m Impressions per day) I found the industry input on work culture and some suppositions about what we (consumers) want and expect from ads and media informing. The mechanistic aspects of how sausage is made.. not withstanding the “you dont want to know” thing, is fascinating.

The anti ABC thing, was frankly weird. Not that aunty isn’t a sick parrot, but it was pretty bizarre.

Maybe you’re a little out of touch with your audience?

The comments have always been part and parcel with the reporting on Mumbrella, at least in my observation of people reading your articles.

The sad truth is, although people say they don’t like reading the toxic commentary, most can’t help but do it anyway.

It’s human nature to be drawn to the drama of it, it’s the same reason so many people say they don’t like reality TV but they watch it anyway.

Comments are entertaining.

Comments balance opinion pieces.

Comments allow those not writing press releases to have a voice.

Comments allow us to applaud wins, promotions and creativity.

Comments are a pulse check on what the industry find provocative or interesting.

Plus they’re just fun.

Mumbrella’s journalistic integrity is compromised without them. Those that approve and issue the press releases you publish are the same CEOs signing the cheques to enter your award shows or buy tables at your gala events.

We comment, like, applaud, retweet, love and share content everyday.

In case the editors of Mumbrella missed it, the industry is obsessed with CX. And this is a terrible decision for the CX of your readers.

Farewell.

My business was damaged by troll commentary on this publication most likely from competitors. It made the publication seem like amateur hour to many and now it has a chance to garner some respect. The great publications of the world rely on the quality of their journalism and not a comment section for good reason

How will all your typos and badly written or poorly edited articles be corrected now? Will you invest in Grammerly?

i’ll miss the mumbrella comments a lot and i’m sad that people like Steadman get the victory here.

i understand that mumbrella doesn’t want the cost or risk of monitoring comments about a very litigious (and, it must be said, fragile) industry

as a comment said above: a lame but understandable decision.

however – this sentence is total nonsense, i can’t wrap my head around it: “Thirdly, we want to foster a community through Mumbrella. That means opening the communication channels with as much of the industry as possible.”

anonymity is hated by power.

this decision ultimately favours rich, powerful and influential people like Steedman who has a bully pulpit and a glass jaw. those people will be thrilled.

thanks for the memories, mumbrella commenters!

I’m out.
Your comments section was usually the place where the real story was told.

Looks like the organisations with the dollars and good PR spinners win again.

Literally just scrolled through the article to get to the comments.

What about a ‘2c’ donation for each anonymous comment, that goes to a wholesome, guilt-cleansing cause?

I only came for the comments. True editorial independence farms for dissent and sunshines poor industry standards, so that everyone learns. If people paid to have their comments published I wonder if you would be shutting them down. Bye now.

The comments were the best bit.

As mentioned before – the amount of comments indicates the interest in an article. Bad move move to stop this.

Having now read this article in full, I get it. Good call. I’m all for strong focus on strong news stories or insights. Here’s to seeing more of it in the future!! The debates will surely continue via fb etc?

Well, hopefully, Mumbrella will now spend some time fact-checking the PR bullshit of the holding companies and actually reviewing some of the misleading research you publish.

An interesting move, and perhaps a sign of the times for our industry. However, can agree that the time you do have should be spent on quality reporting. Onwards and upwards!

This is a massive mistake.

You guys have lost sight of 50% of your editorial appeal. And handed Campaign Brief the opportunity to become the only remaining open forum for the advertising industry.

Yes, your quality of journalism is better and broader than the other rags. But not that much better. Readers don’t come here for the investigative journalism. It’s the comments, stupid.

Tim himself was the one who started all this, with his snarky hatchet jobs on over-inflated egos and questionable agency claims. We winced as he called out IP addresses of astroturfers and called bullshit on big agency bravado. We came in droves for that clickbait and stayed for the comments.

If (and yes, it’s a big if) CB can better moderate the quality of their editorial content and the comments that accompany it, expect to see a big drop in traffic. Nobody wants a dumbed down Dumbrella.

This is a big mistake. Since my uni days I have always valued the commentary here. Now as a Client at one of the biggest FMCGs in Australia, I really value the raw and fresh commentary. You don’t get it on Linkedin and you don’t get it from Agencies or people you deal with face to face as they have something to lose by telling you what they really think. I have made more Ads that have been trashed here than praised, but I value the honest opinions and it drives me to be a better marketer.

Bravo Mumbrella.

In all fairness, it is the platform’s prerogative either to allow or deny comments. So be it. Such is life. One is reminded of a TV ad campaign ran by a Singapore radio station, Gold 90.5FM, which was called “Only Hear The Good Stuff”. Or in this, hear nothing at all.

Finally someone takes a stand and has the courage to do the right thing for all the right reasons. Im sure you’ll see way more people stay than are going to leave.

No idea if this editorial policy change is a good idea or not, but it’s always a pleasure to see a mind at work behind a decision. I wish all at Mumbrella the best of fortunes, I’ve always rather enjoyed their approach. Even that time they screwed me over personally, I still grudgingly admired how they did it, and they’re all still aces in my book.

Especially well done though to those brave (anonymous) warriors here who commented on this piece (anonymously) and admitted that they only read Mumbrella in order to read the (anonymous) comments. For the record – and for the last time – you’re an idiot. Buh-bye.

How do you “foster a community” when you choose to silence it?

Understandable but comments provide a reality check and the other half of every story. There is a lot of value that will be lost.

Wow as a young buck working in media 15 years ago it was user generated content that was a driving force in firing up engagement. One giant step backwards and my thoughts are that Mumbrellas page views will drop so significantly that they’ll be forced to reinstate comments albeit not anonymous and with a member based login like every other publisher out their doing it right.

” It was more important for us to focus on news and analysis rather than comment moderation, ”

Should journalists / head of content / editors also be responsible moderating comments?

So of course, the choice to focus on quality content instead of dedicating time to moderating comments makes sense, after all when the balance chosen here was between these two bastions.

But the more important question perhaps is, did these ever need to be in competition in the first place?

Would this have been better managed with dedicated paid or community volunteer moderation, letting the staff working on content focus on just that?

Will miss the LOL moments…

Boring. This website is 90% spin anyway without the comments it’s 100% spin.

Looks like Facebook meme pages like Roy Morgan will be the only way to have industry banter now.

Laters Mumbrella.

Yeah, bye.

I’m disappointed with this, whilst I agree that comments sometimes got out of control, I also saw a lot of solid commentary on PR spin that dogs every other trade publication. Moderation is not that hard, and I think that ultimately the comments (constructive and otherwise) made Mumbrella so much more interesting than B&T and AdNews.

Good luck…
m

The one thing this editorial neglects to mention is the commercial aspect to this decision.

It would be a fallacy to suggest it hasn’t played a part.

Admit it mumbrella, COVID has wrecked the events business, which propped up the journalism side. It’s clear Steadman’s missive has forced you to fall in line or find yourself with fewer industry friends willing to talk to you. In this climate thats a financial penalty you’re obviously not willing to take. And that’s your decision, but at least acknowledge that comments were becoming a commercial risk you are no longer willing to accept?

Just as I started coming back to the site, I lose the only reason to be here. Mumbrella’s value, for me, was seeing what people thought of the industry movements rather than the movements themselves.

Understand the reasoning, but the comments were definitely the highest value proposition here. Can’t remember the last time I was on B&T.

I don’t enjoy toxic comments that much either, but comments in general made mumbrella interesting moreso than any other industry mag.

Can’t see myself going back here, and that’s not a .. veiled threat or anything, mumbrella does what makes sense for them.

But I think this is likely my last visit. So long and thanks for all the fish! <3

I’m wondering how will Mumbrella know which are the more popular articles if they don’t get any feedback?

All old is new again.
So no interaction from readers. That takes me back to a time beyond your 15 year veterans. It was called print and press releases usually found their way into the hack section. Paid pieces were titled “ADVERTORIAL” and the bulk of the “news” was original content generated by real professionals. Biased, opinionated, fact checked (usually). If you aren’t censoring comments anymore can I ask that you put more time into altering the content from that puff piece I sent through about my new staff member and our company’s USP around how the way we use data is going to be a revelation? Maybe even add your view about whether that was important at all…actually that would be a welcome addition.
Honestly, I can handle no comments (as entertaining and often informative as they were) if your journalism is more investigative and insightful. But if it’s just going to be a news bulletin or worse still, a catalogue for global holding companies and self proclaimed industry celebs then I suggest you gain more benefit from having comments than not.
For the record, anonymity is important despite its abuses: crocodiles are fastest over first 3m then it’s nothin’. Not terribly agile on land either. The rest I’ll leave to your imagination if you care.

Clearly a number of factors at play here. However, as someone who has been the subject of slander in the comments sections on this site, I can tell you it does provide a forum for people to publish completely incorrect and malicious material, that can be both mentally and financially damaging to an individual. It’s such a shame, as I believe in free speech and giving all a voice, but as with many things, there are a few that completely wreck it for all.

Free speech is dead…what next…my right to vote?!

Disappointing.

One of the (only) reasons I came to Mumbrella was to see real interactions between people from the industry. Oh well, onto another platform I go!

Lazy. It’s like The Sydney Morning Herald saying it is stopping Letters to the Editor because it is too much hard work. One way conversation is so pre-Internet.

RIP comments, you were the best bit.

Backward step in my opinion, and is at odds with your comment “…we want to foster a community through Mumbrella. That means opening the communication channels with as much of the industry as possible.”
How does banning feedback from engaged readers “foster a commnity” with the industry? It’d be like a daily newspaper banning letters to the editor in the interests of “fostering reader feedback”
And mental health??

Shame to see these go, the comments were the main thing that brought me to Mumbrella over the other trades when my time is limited.

Even when the comment section filled up with toxic, ignorant, or heavily biased comments it still provided an insight to how the industry perceived the issue or article.

I hope this at least allows the editorial content to improve and Mumbrella will revaluate their position on this after a few months.

Good luck guys!

Horray – let our corporate overlords have the only voice!

Keep the worker down the bottom where they belong

This is all fair enough and understanable, especially when it is slightly outdated to use a local commenting system anyway, rather than that discussion happening on social media. I’m not sure that switching to an outside standardised commenting system (e.g. disqus) would be the answer either.
I do find it a little strange, however, that one of the reasons for the decision is because you want to ‘foster a community through Mumbrella’. Surely a commentariat that regularly contributes to Mumbrella’s articles is just that?

This is a mistake – my two cents. Seeing there was a stack of comments on an article was a guaranteed click and read for me. Unlikely to keep reading Mumbrella now

I understand what you have said and respect your right to make that call. I don’t at all agree with it but it is your business, not mine.

If I was to weigh up the value I got from the articles vs the comments over the years the collective community in the comments has given significantly more insight than the articles. That is not to down play or deride the journalism at all – just to show that the community has a great collective wisdom that I will miss which even a great individual journalist would be hard pressed to amass.

I will probably rarely be back to your site. There are other sources of industry news I prefer – but I came here for the open and honest community. Ironically for a marketing publication it appears you are making a bad marketing decision – but the proof will be in the traffic numbers (and the advertising revenue), not from my opinion which might be wrong. I hope this decision doesn’t make it unfeasible to invest in the new staff you want because you culled your audience.

Farewell and good luck.

Comments made Mumbrella worth visiting, for reasons well articulated by some of the above. I don’t think this was the right move to make, nor will I be visiting this site very often in the future.

Thanks for the fun times, insightful perspectives and dumpster-fires alike.

Not that I ever really commented on Mummy, but I certainly came here for the Comments, including the toxic ones… it was the Only Thing that made the platform credible…

I recall once commenting on a so-called CD who had built a reputation ripping people off, but that got edited out (whilst Time privately suggested they got a LOT of similar comments)

Yup, suddenly CB looks interesting again

Bye and good luck

Over and out

CUE TRUMPET SOLO

Personally, I often got more from the comments than the article/opinion. I’ll probably resort to just reading the headlines now as there will be no further insight – good or bad – in the comments section. You’ll essentially be AdNews and BandT 🙁

Good call in my opinion. There is too much content generated by people not educated well on a topic. I read comments hoping to learn more about a topic but all to often it’s very disappointing. Maybe going back to professionals generating most of the content is a good thing. But then we need media to write without bias. Something that is becoming rare these days.

“In unrelated news today, Campaign Brief has seen a massive increase in traffic…”

Wise decision! PS News had to make the same decision 7 or 8 years ago when we found readers using our commentary option to debate at length with writers to such an extent we had no capacity to monitor any of it. The panic bells rang however so we now publish the writers’ contact details and let readers make their own contacts. And we sleep a lot easier.

Bugger me sideways, is it April 1st again?

Someone needs to develop ‘the missing mumbrella comments section’’ chrome plugin, enabling us to comment anonymously on stories again.

Of course, decentralising storage of comments to avoid issues will be important. As will protecting the identity of the plug-in developer.

Noooooo, never! But they should start their own blogette and help us keep the bastards honest

That’s a shame. When an interesting story breaks and it’s covered by; Mumbrella, B&T and Adnews, I’ll read the story via Mumbrella, then read the thoughts of the industry via the comments. Mumbrella was always my first choice solely for that reason.

Now comes the part where Mumbrella demonstrates through the quality of its content how well it understands its audience.

The proof will not be in the eyeballs, but I’m in the continued support of the industry that feeds it.

Jus’ getting me some ‘In before the lock’….

Nah. I feel like a lot of options were skipped over in favour of the nuclear one.

First there’s simple account registration. Having a name, even a nom de plume with a viewable comment history is itself psychologically powerful and lets you keep track of who’s likely to contribute meaningful discussion. Simply having a permanent albeit fake name is a strong incentive to prove you’re contributing. Then you can put all new accounts under a moderation period and allow accounts you approve to publish immediately.

Or you could go further and institute a lockout period on new accounts. This would ensure only engaged, long-time readers can put their two cents in and articles can’t get brigaded by the troll squad until long after the article’s press cycle expiry date.

Then there’s account registration with phone number verification or LinkedIn logins. While still possible to spoof, it is definitely harder and few passing trolls would go through that much effort.

You could have minimum word/character limits. People who just want to get a snarky comment in would be forced to write a more well thought out response.

Hell, make commenting a Mumbrella Pro privilege if you want. At least then you’d know commenters are serious about being involved in the industry conversation.

All of these can be anonymised and present natural roadblocks to impulsive trolling to minimise the moderation workload.

But honestly, I feel none of it is necessary. The height of Mumbrella’s appeal to me was before the change in the moderation policy. I’ve had my work dragged on here and had disagreements with others in the comments and yet I believe it was still an overall positive experience. The industry in Australia needs a place to speak freely like this. All others are either dead or America centric.

What an absolute worst timeline scenario it would be where Mumbrella becomes Press Release Graveyeard #4.

I always felt the comments contained some really robust debate. I learned things about the industry, even laughed out loud sometimes. RIP Mumbrella 🙁

It’s a very brave move. On the plus side, more businesses will feel less intimidated to invest in sponsored/branded content; on the negative, traffic and engagement will likely drop. I sincerely hope it nets out positive.

Well said, Damo.

There’s enough insecurity, nastiness, jealousy and abuse in this industry without faceless trolls being able to vent their spleen online. Let’s keep focussing on uplifting the industry and having intelligent debate about real issues.

Some of the comments above argue that this will disempower the whistleblowers. If the journalists’ contact details are at the bottom of each story (great idea), there’s nothing stopping a potential source contacting them. Professional journalists protect their sources.

It’s been said but I still want to say it, comments made Mumbrella.

I remember starting in the industry and first stumbling onto Mumbrella. I read one of those ‘day in the life’ puff pieces on one of the most egotistic people I’ve ever seen. One of those “up at 4.30am to hit the grind” type people, who over stated every meeting they attended and email they sent. I read it and genuinely thought that was the expectation of working in the industry.

The relief I had when finally reaching the comments and seeing people call out the BS was so helpful for a new starter like me. People might call it ‘trolling’ but the comments here vetted the BS from the good content.

This is basically a cop out. From what I have seen, Mumbrella is all about the ‘big end of town’. For some reason you think that the media world revolves around big agencies, big media and big clients – but it doesn’t. There are many (and growing) smaller media businesses like my own that are shaking things up – even more in the current climate – and in truth, perhaps your message isn’t on song like it used to be. ‘Smaller’ media like my own used to at least feel that we could contribute here in some small way via the ability to comment – whether we did or didn’t is irrelevant – at least we had the option to do so… not any more – and I agree with some of the comments here… there is no reason to take away the comments, your reasoning is not sound – in fact it makes no sense at all – sounds like the big end of town don’t like taking a beating, sounds like you have capitulated to their pressure – but you moderate these anyway right? So… why stop? – let’s see if you moderate this comment and allow it to pass… probably not, but if you do, perhaps for one last time a little but innovative and creative media business gets to have some thing to say – we will see..

Sad to see the end of comments. I liked them as the gave a flavour of the Zeitgeist of an issue. There was a naive honesty no matter how bumpy they were. It is rare today
I have noticed that Mumbrella articles have been creeping from interesting challenging industry/society issues to just press release rehashes like ever other trade mag.

They were the soul of the site.

I am certain they will return in the future.

So how are we grammar pedants going to complain when so-called professional journalists use phrases such as this: “currently working less hours”? Fewer, Damian, fewer!

I think this is generally a good move. An alternate though would have been:
1. A responsible moderation policy that built debate and exiled ill -informed vitriolic comments.
2. Removal of anonymous comments in favor of comments by people with registered ID’s with a double opt-in policy .

If the industry is genuinely interested in looking professional and wants to take care of the mental health of all then something had to change. More to do as an industry though…

Maybe Campaign Grief needs to take a look at themselves too. They are the sewer of trade press generally and a massive blight on our industry.

No more comments on Mumbrella? I enjoyed reading opinions on this page. I predict the amount of web traffic to this page will plummet big time for this reason alone.

As others have noted, this is a disappointing and I believe ill conceived decision. The idea of a communication organisation, choosing to block or limit communication for ANY reason is shortsighted and speaks more to your view of public discussion and openness than any existing problem.

There are excellent systems for moderating content that take very little or no effort on the part of the organisation, and that help push the good content to the top without deleting any “bad” content. SlashDot, for example, a tech blog, has a moderation system of member input whereby random members of the site are given the ability to mod posting up or down, and then users can decide on how deep into the content to go. Most 4 or 5 star comments are excellent and, as some above have noted above, better than the actual story.

We are going backwards as a nation when you think the solution to a communication problem is to eliminate stakeholder input. Just what we need, more groupthink and elites who think they know what is best for everyone.

This was my first visit to your site, and it will also be my last. A colleague recommended your site to his students so I thought I would see what it was about before I did the same. I have no interest in anything else you are going to say when you are afraid of people posting their comments for whatever reason, and not being willing to put in some work to sift out any junk and produce the best content.

As a professor of public relations for almost 30 years, this is absolutely the opposite of what we teach students about transparency, honesty, trust, etc.

MLK, Professor, UNSW

This is like the UFC cancelling the fights.

It’s a sad day when a publication fall victim to a one sided conversation news content strategy and position yourself like every other publication. Where is your uniqueness now??

You had a nice position in our community of media passionate’s. I haven’t always agreed with the comments, but it did provide insights into how other people and not your editorial team, see the media world.

TV Tonight.com.au has become a better source of content now. It’s not just one sided. It fairly puts comments in posts and appreciates content and story leads, isn’t always curated from its own staff.

Until we reconnect… with a two sided conversation… bye!

Why not charge a small fee for access to the comments?

Such a massive shame. One of the main reasons I’ll open an article is for the rich vein of commentary. I don’t agree with the assertion that the quality of comments has decreased in recent times. I really hope this decision is reversed.

Sad, the comments were the primary driver for me visiting Mumbrella.

As others have said the site will be poorer without them.

I hope that you don’t have your visits drop off a cliff before they are reinstated.

I would love to see a response from Mumbrella to some of these comments. Open a dialogue.

Utter laziness from the Mumbrella staff. Nothing more than that.

Seriously there’s what one or two dozen comments every couple of articles? You can’t moderate that?

Pathetic.

Lots of critical comments, dissenting opinions, so is that it? It’s not that gushing narrative you want? Um, welcome to the real world.

Mark this day, I actually have in my google calendar, five years from now. Will you still be around?!

As one of the ‘silent majority’ mentioned in another comment here, what I value(d) from Mumbrella was the commentary from others. In an industry with so much self-congratulation and puffery, being able to scroll down and see the blunt takes about press releases was refreshing. I urge Mumbrella to reconsider their stance.

Bravo, Damian and team.

I have mixed feelings.
Comments here have been a vibrant part of important debate at best, and a vicious pile of shit at worst.

I think ultimately it’s the right thing to do, but it is definitely a loss to Mumbrella and the community.

I only came for the comments ‘sadface’.

Know nothing about this website search engine brought me here after searching about comment moderation problems with the technology communities I circulate.

I do know one thing – online websites that decide to censor will see their own demise. And I’d say it’s the same for the seemingly “impervious” tech giants as well. I would submit that there is either an innovative solution to understandable problems with open comment forums or there is a competitor that sprouts up willing to replace you that has one.

Perhaps your content is engaging and objective enough that its users do not leave. But that implies that quality, unbiased, objective journalism exists and I submit in this world of “fake news” that’s a rare bird indeed to find.

Thanks for letting me leave a comment and good luck.