I got a PhD in German Studies which means, among other things, that I had to make a living as a corporate trainer, writer, and more recently, marketer. It also means that I spent a lot of time studying fascism, communism, and the dynamics of power.
In the course of my studies I came to view both individualism and collectivism with ambivalence and skepticism for much the same reasons: Individualism tends to deny the collective backdrop from which it provisionally emerges and upon which it depends for meaning and survival; collectivism tends to overwhelm and erase the individuals it is supposedly there to nurture and protect and from whom it draws its sustenance.
In the new world of total social mediation, as Theodor Adorno might say, this dynamic plays itself out in a novel way: Online, while a username gives the appearance of individuality, the "user" speaking may actually be a collective, and vice versa.
In this way, the power imbalances that reign in society at large, are simultaneously recreated and obscured. When you confront someone, you don't know if you are confronting a person, an institution, or an entire complex of social relations. At the same time, when an individual responds to this confrontation, he may forget that he is not necessarily speaking as himself, but, instead, as an extension of a larger corporate entity or a particular group of people united by a common interest.
When evaluating online conversations, or participating in them, we err when we reduce them to their literal content. We have to continually weigh and reweigh this content in terms of real, off-line power differentials. For example, based on this differential, a participant may be right in a logical or rational sense, but wrong in a political, social or ethical sense.
Ya get me?
Matthew, I just saw that the contest was withdrawn, and that you have posted public apologies.
I think I get what you're saying here. So... on Facebook and on the Talent Blog, are you speaking as an employee of Aquent, or as Aquent's voice itself?
I don't feel that the profanity and the callous comments directed toward you were deserved, but you shouldn't take it personally either. After all, most people likely felt they were probably speaking to Aquent, and not Matthew Grant.
To look at the whole thing positively... if people thought Aquent was "just another staffing agency" that wasn't on the side of their talent, they likely wouldn't have responded so vehemently. They saw it as insulting only because Aquent had built a strong brand, and running this contest spoke in the wrong voice.
I will say that the likely view of most designers (including myself) is that Aquent--and by extension, someone in your position--should have simply known better about the majority stance on this issue. "Practical experiments" are certainly interesting and valuable, but spec contests and sites like 99designs are not testing any boundaries. These didn't appear yesterday, and they have already been evaluated by many professional organizations.
Anyway, you understand all of that already, and have in fact, apologized several times for it--both on behalf of Aquent as well as personally. I applaud your stepping up and taking personal responsibility. I wish the QBN community could read the last two comments by you and Graham Stinson on Facebook.
I'm surprised and pleased at the amount of discussion that arose from this. Here's hoping that this all leads to further insights, such as this interesting piece on communication and perspective, and on the evolution of the marketing and design professions.