8 December 2009 - 4:04pm | posted by | 51 comments

What are we doing right? What are we doing wrong?

What are we doing right? What are we doing wrong?What are we doing right? What are we doing wrong?

2010 is set to be another challenging year for the UK's media and marketing profession, so to make sure that The Drum is giving readers what they want, we would like to get your feedback.

Please answer the following quick questions as honestly as possible, so we can get an accurate picture of what we are doing right, what we are doing wrong and, perhaps more importantly, what you want us to do more of during 2010.

The questionnaire will take less than five minutes to complete.

 

Comments

9 Dec 2009 - 09:24
will_atkinson's picture

You should give more back to the industry instead of leeching off it.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 10:09
Anonymous's picture

So should you Will.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 10:13
gareth_howells's picture

Stop Don's Blog.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 10:27
will_atkinson's picture

Happy to, any time.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 10:46
victor_brierley's picture

Will anyone give you a serious answer here?

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 10:58
Anonymous's picture

I would like to see sub-standard work from across the UK given exposure. Perhaps with a comments section where we can all bitch about it. Oh, hang on...

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 11:01
Anonymous's picture

They should ban posting anonymously.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 11:44
Anonymous's picture

Stop people from posting comments about news, have a forum, post comments on people's commentary (on a blog) but why when people bother to send work as news do you let the cretins on here slag it off - eventually no-one will bother to send you anything and the drum will be no more.

Just a thought

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 12:30
Anonymous's picture

Give people the opportunity to change their account details - I wouldn't be anonymous if I chould change the First Name - Surname order. Same with the blog - You don't respond to requests.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 15:10
Anonymous's picture

Stop giving valuable space to over ego'd nobodies who regularly contribute with mundane comments (e.g. 'awesome guys') and dominate the blogs bit with self indulgant rubbish. As if we give a toss about what they have to say.. Definitely keep the Anonymous button...

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 15:12
Anonymous's picture

...all good reasons to complete the survey.

The biggest problem with the site is the ability to (anonymously) take pot shots at any work posted whether good or bad (although bad will always be in the eye of the beholder).

Best practice will be self regulation of the forum and a cease fire agreed on school boy/girl comments that in my opinion cheapen what could be a useful tool for comment and networking.

Once this is in place we may find less "anons" and more genuinely constructive comment.

I'm for freedom of speech and comment - hell, that's what a forum is for - but let's maximise it's potential as an instant snapshot of the regions, constructive feedback from peers and creation of a positive networked dialogue.

Just my opinion granted - and if nothing changes I don't suppose it will affect my use of the site ... which provides a decent lever into new business convos.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 15:34
victor_brierley's picture

Awesome idea guys, in my humble opinion.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 15:43
Anonymous's picture

What's the point in anyone posting here if you're going to delete negative comments? You asked for feedback, both positive and negative, and you're not allowing the negative feedback to be shown. Seriously, grow up.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 15:47
Anonymous's picture

Duncan - you have pretty much hit the nail on the head here - if the forum can be moderated, even from an internal perspective for Drum orientated criticism ... then it can be moderated on all content.

It's not fair that honest (and I stress HONEST) critique of the custodian made by members regardless of whether it is postive of otherwise is censored and most other comments across threads are allowed to run (although decency I know is checked).

There needs to be parity on the forum - perhps comments on The Drum are moved to a seprate thread for comment out with an unrelated thread - this is common practice in other forums.

The key here is that comments are made with purpose and provide useful insight - cheap pot shots will make moderation difficult (and I mean here both internal and member led) and create the kind of hand grenade anarchy as can exist in the current set up.

Self regulation by the members, sensible comment by all and parity on critique - all can lead to an openness where members will communicate out with the anonymous mask and networking can develop - is that not what a forum is for?

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 15:51
Anonymous's picture

...Duncan - where did your comment go ... my point duly amplified!! (and Duncan's for that matter).

Not sure there was anything other than a constructive comment in his statement - maybe I'm wrong...

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 15:54
duncan_macdonald's picture

Kind of a shame that the post this last comment relates to was deleted. The Drum really needs to engage more, instead of trying to dictate to an audience who increasingly don't respect it. Sure, people are going to take pot shots while they're bored in the afternoon, but some negative, and genuine criticisms are just going to get lumped in with those cheap shots. In amongst all the shit stirring, there may well be some useful advice.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 15:56
richard_draycott's picture

I think you'll find Duncan that we do allow negative comments about The Drum to be posted here, as you will see there are plenty here already and if you remember we got a kicking over the Elmwood story recently. You clearly have a deep hatred of The Drum and everything we do and stand for, but it would be of more useful if you vented your spleen to me directly. So, if you would be up for meeting up for a coffee or a pint and a chat in the new year then I'd be happy to buy you one.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 16:10
david_mutch's picture

I've posted on or two comments here anonymously on the regulation of the forum - and it looks like this has developed into a positive thread on future development (hence my mask has been lifted).

Constructive is the key word here.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 16:13
duncan_macdonald's picture

Richard, a fairly sweeping statement if you don't mind me saying. By no means do I have a "hatred" of The Drum and everything you do and stand for, I do however, dislike bias, and I think it's fair to say The Drum often shows a lot of bias towards those who support it. That's perfectly understandable, it's a business like any other, but it's also taken up a position as an ambassador for design, advertising and the creative industries in this country, and to that end I believe such a position requires a responsibility and sensibility that extends beyond business. I won't lie, I'm a fairly hot-headed individual at the best of times, but I do try to have a constructive point past what might appear to be unfocussed slurring, and I'm always up for a civil chat.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 16:14
Anonymous's picture

So The Drum has gone to the industry to ask for its thoughts in order to represent it better...and you losers have decided to make a tit of yourselves and pass up the opportunity. Good luck to the publication if these are the idiots it reports on!

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 16:18
aleks_bochniak's picture

I feel there is also A LOT of baiting going on in the comments, not just on this news item but others.

I would just like to iterate what David said: "Constructive is the key word here."

Time for a complete site overhaul. Again?

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 16:18
Larner Caleb's picture

Absolutely love the "ego'd nobodies" comment from guess who... Anonymous 12:30! The irony nearly had my eye out.

As for the 'ego' element, I can't speak for all the bloggers but I stick a post up from time to time and anyone who knows me (you clearly don't) could tell you I have an ego the size of a peanut.

As for what The Drum could be doing better: perhaps not getting behind/driving so many awards or league tables that don't really do our industry or our regions any real favours - stuff like the Golden Twits or the Power 100 - I'm not sure the majority of us are buying into these, proud of them or interested. It all seems a little cliquey, even parochial.

When there's an upcoming regional focus, The Drum could shout about this a lot earlier, louder and bigger on their homepage to give agencies more time to get their act together and contribute something of more value than just one hastily thrown in piece of work. Fact is, a large part of industry is made up of small outfits doing really good work that possibly don't get the recognition or voice they deserve.

What's it doing right? Providing a forum (in the broad sense) for the community to air its often impassioned and pleasingly polarised views whether anonymously or more favourably, named. Although I have to agree with Anonymous 15:10, it could be done better, with a little more self-regulation and constructive comment.

Oh, and the actual mag could vary the agencies and personalities that appear across the pages a lot more. And the ones that are contributing could perhaps ease off the shameless and inevitable last couple of lines of blatant self-promotion in their pieces.

Lastly, the job section could include more £100k a year jobs for northern gobshites with girl's names and a penchant for Old Peculiar. Cue pot shots...

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 16:38
neil_barr's picture

At last, something constructive - from Larner Caleb - and a post I would have to say I agree 100% on. At times it seems very cliquey and parochial around here. Trim down the number of awards and give a little less focus to the agencies that seem to have an inordinate amount of time (do they do any real work?) for self promotion and navel gazing.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 17:30
reuben_boughton's picture

I have read the threads below.... and found it interesting, like you would watching Corrie with a cup of tea. Sounds as if the biggest issue is censorship.

Personally I think the site is an excellent one as long as you have a basic understanding that 90% of what is written is 3 - 6 months old. I think it keeps us in the loop on what is going on outside of London pretty well.

Next instalment.... is Richard and Duncan going to meet for a beer, who will buy, will they also be bold enough to eat a pastie or a pork product of some sort?

Please keep me updated, the the Richard/ Duncan scenario.

0
0
9 Dec 2009 - 19:30
richard_draycott's picture

Reuben, it's a done deal. Duncan and I are going to chat over coffee/a beer. Who is buying is still the subject of much heated (offline) debate.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
9 Dec 2009 - 20:54
Anonymous's picture

Make sure you get a picture then Rich!

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
10 Dec 2009 - 09:14
Anonymous's picture

Spoken like a true Anon.

Anon.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
10 Dec 2009 - 09:19
Anonymous's picture

How about spending a bit of time making sure that jobs are posted in the appropriate section?

Suits are already big enough creative wannabes without encouraging their misguided notions and sticking their jobs in our section!

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
10 Dec 2009 - 09:45
Anonymous's picture

Less of a Scottish bias. Ban anyone who claims the moral high ground just because they choose sign their name to their comments. Keep anon posting and bitches bitching because it's the one thing that's made this site good to visit. Fin.

0
0
10 Dec 2009 - 10:27
richard_draycott's picture

I think you will find Anon 22.53 that it is people who abuse the anonymous function to take pot shots and generally be abusive that trivialise the industry. If we take away the facility to comment without the fear of recrimination altogether then surely the idiots have won?

0
0
10 Dec 2009 - 10:29
david_mutch's picture

I don't think there's necessarily a claim to "moral high ground" if the John Hancock appears above the comment - and I believe there are times when "anon" is appropriate.

The option to retain anonymity is a fair one but only when a constructive comment is to be made - sniping behind a nameless tag benefits no one and cheapens what could genuinely be a decent networking tool - and has been rightly commented a finger in the air of regional work outside of London.

This thread is actually opening up into a decent brain storm - demonstrating how this forum could and can work to all our benefits.

Retain the constructive commentary and you will build a stronger forum.

0
0
10 Dec 2009 - 11:53
ben_swift's picture

I've said it before and I will bore the arse off you with it again. I think having a way of posting without revealing your actual name is vital. How else can people have a chance to offer an honest critique of, for example, their own agency's work without risking losing their job? Or from the other side, perhaps being seen to complement what is supposed to be a "rival" agency could equally turn out to be a career-buggering move.

Why not allow every user to have one (fixed) pseudonym? Then at least we'd see who the Trolls are, and who is here to make a heart-felt point. As it stands, all the Anons could easily just be one (very bored, granted) person trying to wind things up. If you knew that all your negative comments came from "Ubertroll" then it's pretty easy to let them wash over you and take note of the posters with a more balanced view.

I agree that in an ideal world, everyone would have the courage of their convictions to make comments under their own name. However, given the potential to find yourself on the street clutching your P45 for daring to question your company's work, would we all really prefer a bland "PR department approved" forum?

I'd rather risk my work being slagged off than know that any comments were moderated to be meaninglessly inoffensive.

0
0
10 Dec 2009 - 12:10
david_mutch's picture

I think this is an excellent point Ben - I moderate on a couple of forums (albeit theatre related) but as you can imagine there are a large number of egos and divas in that environment - who cannot wait to get their points made.

The idea of a "username" and perhaps avatar is one The Drum should consider as it packages up most of th ecomments below in one handy solution.

again I'll say it - this thread clearly demonstrates what can be achieved when comment made is heart felt but constructive.

More of the same please!

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
10 Dec 2009 - 12:40
Anonymous's picture

good idea ben

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
10 Dec 2009 - 14:09
Anonymous's picture

Ben for PM!

You HAVE to be able to post anonymously, whether it's a continuation of the forum as it is or under a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be no colour in any of the comments posted here. Much like the generally magnolia work that's posted in the news section that attracts so much bile.

0
0
10 Dec 2009 - 15:08
cameron_wilson's picture

If somebody isn't willing to put their name to their post it tells you a lot about the value of that post.

Nothing good ever came from an Anonymous post?

0
0
10 Dec 2009 - 15:12
ben_swift's picture

Oh I don't know, the two below seem to have their heads screwed on right!

I'm just wondering if PM refers to Prime Minister or Project Manager. Either way it seems I'm in for a new job next year!!

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
10 Dec 2009 - 15:43
Anonymous's picture

The anon posts are funny. The ones with names ascribed are usually incredibly dull and/or pompous. (though there are exceptions like Ben).

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
10 Dec 2009 - 21:40
Anonymous's picture

On anonymity, Oscar Wilde said

'Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth.'

Do you want to argue with Oscar?

0
0
11 Dec 2009 - 03:48
cameron_wilson's picture

If somebody isn't willing to put their name to their post it tells you a lot about the value of that post.

Nothing good ever came from an Anonymous post?

0
0
11 Dec 2009 - 04:14
cameron_wilson's picture

The first two posts in this very thread sum up this website for me. Certainly the one criticism that I'm constantly hearing about this site is the anonymous issue.

I've lost count of the number of people that have raised this issue – and many of them have had such a depressing experience that they've said they won't be returning. I think the guys at The Drum have to realise that they've got a problem when talented individuals are no longer willing to share their work and views because they know that they're only going to be met with cowardly remarks. As is, this site is Troll Heaven. Why would anybody want to wear their heart on their sleeve on this site?

You have to wonder what visitors must think of us as an industry. It's become a bit of a joke really. Let's give festival goers balaclavas at the gate, so that they can throw bottles into the rest of the crowd with anonymity. Who would want to go to that gig?

I appreciate that some people feel that there is a case for anonymity, but I would ask them to consider the historical data... what is the constructive/bile ratio, to date?

My suggestion would be to introduce an 'anonymous filter' whereby visitors could simply set all the anonymous comments to 'ignore', or that anonymous posts have to go through some sort of editorial qualification before appearing on the site.

0
0
11 Dec 2009 - 10:08
david_isaac's picture

You can't bloody win. If you put your name to a post you're immediately bracketed an egomaniac by the anons. (Saying that, ego, self esteem, is crucial in this industry indeed in any industry, especially in this business climate.)

And the named posting people slag off the anonymous cowards.

My main concern with the anonymous posts is that trivializes the industry and I know very many clients who see this forum as a bit of a joke.

But as much as I sometimes can't stand the anonymous posts I think free speech is important - they can be very funny at times and can be very constructive. Anon posts are the way of the world and we have to live with them.

I think Ben's idea of pseudonyms is excellent. You'll soon be able to filter in your own mind which anon is worth reading - and sort out the wheat from the tosser.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
11 Dec 2009 - 23:08
Anonymous's picture

So then. Why Mr High N. Mighty, are you staying anonymous and not standing by what you've just said?

0
0
14 Dec 2009 - 10:14
david_mutch's picture

ref anon 22:27 - while I see you point - this thread has actually shown how the forum can generate fresh ideas and constructive comment.

The anonymous function can (as has been rightly stated below) have its uses but unfortunately the ability to post blind is abused by a minority, hence the creation of username/avatar or similar would provide an ideal compromise to all.

Having been an anonymous poster in the past - I understand the urge to remain so but the more that lift the veil - the more the venomous anonymous poster becomes apparent.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
14 Dec 2009 - 12:59
Anonymous's picture

Keep the Anonymous button whatever you do, if not all we'll get is the sanctimonious bunch of named people below every week boring us all to death. AND FINALLY..Anonymous button users, be proud, be brave, use your button, you know it makes sense! KEEP THE FAITH

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
14 Dec 2009 - 15:14
Anonymous's picture

If I sign myself anonymously anonymous, would I have outed myself? Think about it, all you anonymous mathematicians.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
14 Dec 2009 - 15:27
Anonymous's picture

I'm not surprised that some contributors wish to remain anonymous. Having read the vehement comments made by some of the people below, if I were a freelance, depending on work from these people, I too would be cautious about disclosing my identity.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
14 Dec 2009 - 15:32
Anonymous's picture

CAN WE CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND TALK ABOUT 'APATHY' INSTEAD? PERSONALLY, I'M NIETHER FOR, OR AGAINST IT! ANONYIMOUSLY OF COURSE.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
14 Dec 2009 - 16:00
Anonymous's picture

"They watch me, those informers to the Fates, called Fortune, Chance, Neccesity and Death." They're watching all of you too, so get on with your lives and do something useful with whatever time you still have left. Incidentaly, the words are by Wilfred Owen, one of the reknown war poets. He knew the truth about the value of time. I'm going anonymous on this one, as I don't want some illiterate accusing me of being highbrow.

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
14 Dec 2009 - 16:11
Anonymous's picture

I would like to point out that we're only Anonymous to the regular readers of the forum. You have to be 'logged in' with your username and password to post a comment in the first place.

Is this real Anonymity?

0
0
Anonymous (not verified)
15 Dec 2009 - 08:50
Anonymous's picture

Anon 16.00 It's 'incidentally'. That's how you spell it correctly.

0
0

Please sign in or register to comment on this article.

Latest Projects from the Profile Hub

Glasgow University College of Arts Knowledge Exchange - communications strategy

20/11/2014
The College of Arts Knowledge Exchange is a leading-edge...

In The Snow Magazine Front Cover

20/11/2014
Front cover from a fashion shoot in Zermatt earlier this...

Cuckoo Design - HeadSpace

17/11/2014
If you want to work through your brand challenges and turn...

Welsh Blood - Precious Concept

17/11/2014
Description The Welsh Blood Service organises the...

Pentland / Ted Baker – AW14 footwear photography

14/11/2014
Pentland is behind some of the world’s best-known sports,...