'Mad Men' era not all bad

In "Thank goodness that era is over" (April 26), attorney Phillip Trobaugh provided a litany of legal reasons why we should not return to the days of the popular TV drama "Mad Men."

While I can agree with the advances he lists regarding workplace law, there were virtues to the "Mad Men" era that shouldn't be too quickly dismissed. I know -- because I lived it!

My ad agency career began in 1957, deep in the heart of the "Mad Men" period. I remained in the profession for 47 years, almost all of it as owner of several ad agencies in the Twin Cities and San Diego.

It was (and still is) a wonderful profession. It blends all the attractive elements of creativity, business acumen and "learning a little about a lot of things" into a gratifying package.

But despite these durable benefits, and despite Trobaugh's observations about better employee protections today, the profession has declined in many ways from the halcyon "Mad Men" days that Trobaugh condemns.

To start with, computers and the Internet have greatly changed the culture within ad agency offices (indeed, most other businesses as well). And that change is not especially desirable.

While I was in business (as in "Mad Men"), computers did not exist, and there was considerable interchange of ideas, conversation and just plain schmoozing within the workplace. That made not only for more congeniality but also for a more pleasant and fertile environment.

A byproduct of congenial office interchange was the building of employee loyalty. In my agencies, I and most of my employees became friends. Most of my key staff stayed with me for years, even decades.

Today, employer-employee loyalty is tenuous. Employees, especially younger ones, often change jobs like changing underwear. Some of the churn is for upward mobility, but some is simply the result of the employee not feeling bonded to the organization.

It was different in the "Mad Men" period. There was a much stronger "team" feeling. Also, there is now much less job security, regardless of the size of the organization. In fact, the largest companies now downsize (fire) by the dozens or even hundreds, without compunction.

Which brings us to another attribute of the "Mad Men" era: the loyalty of the clients. Advertising is by nature an insecure business. Today, client loyalty is largely shredded, I think for two reasons.

First, the above-mentioned lack of stability in the staff of most businesses (well beyond advertising) often leads to the hiring of a new agency based on familiarity grounds alone.

In my "Mad Men"-era agencies, I served my four largest accounts for more than 20 years. Today, 20 months would be a more likely tenure.

And then there were the clothes. While I am an eager proponent myself of "business casual," there was a certain elegance and professionalism about wearing a suit and tie every day to the office. Today, "business casual" sometimes means a staff that looks like teenagers at Woodstock.

Another point worthy of note: While active, I had strong respect for my ad agency peers -- their intelligence, personalities and integrity.

The characterization of ad people being sly, ruthless and misleading was generally not true. In fact, often when it came to hyperbole or doubtful veracity, it more often came from the client side.

So, while I agree with Trobaugh that the workplace is better protected legally than it was in the "Mad Men" days, those days had many redeeming qualities we lack today.

---------------