# Mad Men 6/16 The Quality of Mercy



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

First, wow, when I put the title in, this one came up - 
Babylon 5, "The Quality of Mercy", S01E21, OAD 8/17/94 *spoilers*

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=399553

That aside, what an interesting episode.

Sally and Glen. I thought from the start the girls at the school were going to be doing some initiation thing on her.

Peggy. Poor Peggy. She gets shafted by Don again and her great work taken away. Did he really do that to save the day or because he didn't want her to get credit.

I think she needs to find a new company to work for with no Ted or Don around. I couldn't believe they were sneaking off to the movies together. But then the way that office works everyone with any position is off in the middle of the day for hours on end. It's crazy.

Bobby Benson had me confused. I need to rewatch that whole bit with him and Peter again.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Yeah, I'm perplexed with the whole Bobby/Pete thing too. I always keep the episode in my 'deleted' folder for a while and usually end up watching again a few days later.

I felt like Don did that to save the account, but who knows. I don't know why he should have it out for Peggy.

The part at the boarding school was kind of scary. I was afraid they were going to have something bad happen to Sally. I feel like Betty sees so much of herself in Sally that she cannot stand her. Poor kid - both parents don't seem to give a damn.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Don doesn't like Ted. And he doesn't like the idea of Peggy being with Ted. You saw it with the aspirin ad and with the whole Sunkist thing. Sure, he told Harry he should not proceed, but when it would up working out, he was happy. A lot of money, plus Sunkist didn't seem to care about any potential conflict with Ocean Spray. Of course, Ted was still pissed and saw it as Don going back on his word.


----------



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

My take on the Bobby/Pete thing:

Pete has run into this situation before, with Don. Someone who is not who they claim to be, and the way Pete handled it with Don blew up in his face. This time around, Pete is going to handle it differently.

What I don't get is why. Bobby doesn't seem to be half the powerful man that Don is.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

$8 million in this time frame!! That account would have been huge to have. How much was Ocean Spray offering to pay? How much is Chevy even paying?


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I thought this episode was a let down for being the second to last episode of the season.

Don was not happy seeing Peggy and Ted together and so called Harry and told him to go after Ocean Spray even after he gave Ted his word that he would not.

Peggy is so in love with Ted that she can't see that he's not the perfect man she imagines him to be and he continues to marginalize her over and over.

I did not follow the conversation with Pete and Bob Benson at all. At first it sounded like he wanted Bob to leave immediately then suddenly they were working side by side. I'll have to go back and watch again.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Wow!
I'm very surprised to see folks in the thread saying they didn't get the Pete/Bob dynamic, I caught it right away when he said to duck "I've seen it before" and right away I knew it was going to be a rehash of when he found out Don's secret, only this time Pete has learned and will make it work for him.

I also got that Don wanted to make Ted and Peggy squirm before giving them a safe solution, and as per Don, it's good for the company, but not Ted or Peggy.

And yes I yelled out "OMG they killed Kenny! the bastards!" 

Sepinwall and T&L are both already up.
http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-wa...he-quality-of-mercy-ohmigod-they-killed-kenny
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2013/06/mad-men-the-quality-of-mercy.html


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I still don't know what the heck Bob Benson does. So he hired himself? He interviewed with a couple of people and just started showing up for work?

What happened with Ted and Peggy? Just recently she was distraught over him spurning her and now they're acting like lovestruck teenagers and not even being sneaky about it. 

Don interfering got the company an extra $10,000.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

dianebrat said:


> Wow!
> I'm very surprised to see folks in the thread saying they didn't get the Pete/Bob dynamic, I caught it right away when he said to duck "I've seen it before" and right away I knew it was going to be a rehash of when he found out Don's secret, only this time Pete has learned and will make it work for him.
> 
> I also got that Don wanted to make Ted and Peggy squirm before giving them a safe solution, and as per Don, it's good for the company, but not Ted or Peggy.
> ...


Great articles.

They did mention one thing - Don Draper as a crying baby and even better, Joan as a Jewish Mother.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> And yes I yelled out "OMG they killed Kenny! the bastards!" [/url]


Same here!  I had to pause the show I was laughing so much.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

I see why Lincoln has been sponsoring "Mad Men" this season -- the Chevrolet folks have been consistently portrayed as boobs.



jsmeeker said:


> A lot of money, plus Sunkist didn't seem to care about any potential conflict with Ocean Spray.


Sunkist _would_ care, but they apparently either didn't know about the conflict, or Harry had assured them that it would be worked out (by SC&P dropping Ocean Spray as a client).

I noticed, in Bob's office, that SC&P has already had coffee mugs made with their new logo. (And it is a very "late '60s"-looking logo, with big rounded letters. A couple years later, and they probably would have used Helvetica instead.)


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Great articles.
> 
> They did mention one thing - Don Draper as a crying baby and even better, Joan as a Jewish Mother.


OMG! I know-Jon Hamm is HILARIOUS! I hope he does more comedy after Mad Men is over-and of course, Christina Hendricks has delivered some deathly funny zingers over the years. LOVE HER!!!

Loved Sally's smile as Glenn fought for her...sad but telling....

"My father never gave me anything..." (Did it just get cold in here??)

"I know how to make a Tom Collins"

Man...Sally is all kinds of messed up...


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

OK what's your South Park reference to they killed Kenny - 
Gone over my head...

Bob and Pete -
Yeah I didn't get it either.
Pete appears to try to get rid of Bob by asking the other guy about hiring him.
Then he finds out he lied on his resume (or something) - 
Instead of getting rid of him using that as ammo...
He decides to keep him around and tell him he can't make any more passes at him?
I don't get it.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> OK what's your South Park reference to they killed Kenny -
> Gone over my head...


Ken(ny) Cosgrove gets shot by 2 jokers from Chevy out in the woods-all the South Park fans immediately think, "Oh, my God, they killed Kenny!!! You bastards!!!"

Kind of funny...yes???


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Regina said:


> Ken(ny) Cosgrove gets shot by 2 jokers from Chevy out in the woods-all the South Park fans immediately think, "Oh, my God, they killed Kenny!!! You bastards!!!"


Speaking of killing Kenny, the Bob Benson character reminds me of Kenneth from 30 Rock.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

vman41 said:


> Speaking of killing Kenny, the Bob Benson character reminds me of Kenneth from 30 Rock.


HA! When Pete said, "I want you to stop smiling..." and he did...I was stunned. He never stops smiling!

And the coffee cup really stood out on his desk, because he didn't have his usual cup of coffee, or 2 cups of coffee, and when Pete called him out on that, and then Bob was all, "Would you like me to get you one?" Man, he really is like Kenneth! Rumors of inbreeding and everything!


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

https://vine.co/v/hBragx6qrlZ

I can't stop laughing at Baby Don.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> OK what's your South Park reference to they killed Kenny -
> Gone over my head...
> 
> Bob and Pete -
> ...


Pete has already tangled with a shape-shifter like Bob before: Don. When he tried to use his knowledge in a power play against Don, he lost. He lost because Don was great at his job, and because Pete is terrible at office politics. He already knows that Bob is good at both work and politics -- he's on Chevy, who likes him; and the partners have his back and told Pete so to his face -- and thus Pete would not likely succeed in running him out the door.

So Pete "surrenders", knowing it was his best move. Bob can be useful to him professionally and Pete can keep somewhat of an upper hand by keeping Bob's secret for him.  The main price Bob has to pay is to stop being so obsequious around Pete.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

cmontyburns said:


> Pete "surrenders", knowing it was his best move.


I re-watched it last night and it was a lot clearer. thanks.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> Pete has already tangled with a shape-shifter like Bob before: Don. When he tried to use his knowledge in a power play against Don, he lost. He lost because Don was great at his job, and because Pete is terrible at office politics. He already knows that Bob is good at both work and politics -- he's on Chevy, who likes him; and the partners have his back and told Pete so to his face -- and thus Pete would not likely succeed in running him out the door.
> 
> So Pete "surrenders", knowing it was his best move. Bob can be useful to him professionally and Pete can keep somewhat of an upper hand by keeping Bob's secret for him. The main price Bob has to pay is to stop being so obsequious around Pete.


I guess the part that bugs me about the Pete/Bob dynamic is that it was pretty clear that Pete and Bob were enemies, and that Pete could have just gone to the partners with that news and boom, Bob would have to be fired, wouldn't he? So why not do that? Did he fear some sort of retrebution from Bob? Or that the partners wouldn't care (especially Don, who has a similar secret)?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> OK what's your South Park reference to they killed Kenny -
> Gone over my head...
> 
> Bob and Pete -
> ...


Te be clear on the South Park reference. In the early seasons of South Park, every episode a character named Kenny was killed in some odd way. And one of the other kids would say....Oh my God, they killed Kenny. And another would say You Bastard. It was a running gag. Kenny would be back the next episode, and boom, he'd be killed again! (eventually, they killed Kenny for a season or two, "permanently", and then brought him back. Every so often they revert to that gag).


----------



## crowfan (Dec 27, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I guess the part that bugs me about the Pete/Bob dynamic is that it was pretty clear that Pete and Bob were enemies, and that Pete could have just gone to the partners with that news and boom, Bob would have to be fired, wouldn't he? So why not do that?


That's exactly what he thought would happen when he exposed Don's secret, but it didn't work. He learned from that and is taking a different approach this time.

You could basically replace "Bob" with "Don" in the above quote and you'd have the Pete/Don dynamic from season 1.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

crowfan said:


> That's exactly what he thought would happen when he exposed Don's secret, but it didn't work. He learned from that and is taking a different approach this time.
> 
> You could basically replace "Bob" with "Don" in the above quote and you'd have the Pete/Don dynamic from season 1.


Except Bob isn't Don. Bob doesn't have the cred with the firm yet. He's not a partner, or the head of a department. I guess the only thing he thought was that Bob has some cred with Chevy, and with Kenny being pulled, it would look bad for the firm to pull Kenny and Bob get canned. On the other side, it would look great for Pete to come in and save the day. Tricky mine field to go through I guess.

The thing is, if Pete waits and springs this about Bob in 6 months say, wouldn't the other partners wonder why he waited?


----------



## crowfan (Dec 27, 2003)

Sure, it might have been different, but he's gotten more power now and I don't think he wants to risk it. I think he's going to use it to control Bob, not necessarily blow him up at a later date.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I guess the part that bugs me about the Pete/Bob dynamic is that it was pretty clear that Pete and Bob were enemies, and that Pete could have just gone to the partners with that news and boom, Bob would have to be fired, wouldn't he? So why not do that? Did he fear some sort of retrebution from Bob? Or that the partners wouldn't care (especially Don, who has a similar secret)?


The partners made it crystal clear to Pete that Bob was critical to the Chevy account. They even said they would replace Pete on the account if he couldn't work with Bob.

Pete went to the partners with Don's secret and it was a disaster for him. He learned his lesson and won't repeat that mistake.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> The partners made it crystal clear to Pete that Bob was critical to the Chevy account. They even said they would replace Pete on the account if he couldn't work with Bob.
> 
> Pete went to the partners with Don's secret and it was a disaster for him. He learned his lesson and won't repeat that mistake.


I get that, but does Bob = Don at the firm?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I get that, but does Bob = Don at the firm?


In effect, yes. Not because Bob is as important to the firm as Don is overall, but because the partners told Pete firmly they would side with Bob over him re: Chevy. Same message Pete got about Don back when. Like Don then, Bob is doing good work and the client likes him, and that's all the partners care about.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> In effect, yes. Not because Bob is as important to the firm as Don is overall, but because the partners told Pete firmly they would side with Bob over him re: Chevy. Same message Pete got about Don back when. Like Don then, Bob is doing good work and the client likes him, and that's all the partners care about.


That's kind of what I'm thinking. That said, if Bob's secret got out, what would be the fallout with GM? I guess that's the big question. The difference to me, is at the time Pete found out about Don, Don was already friends with everyone in the firm, and certainly more respected in the firm than Pete. I'm not even sure that it would matter to Roger or Burt for example if Don was revealed for who he was. Bob, on the other hand, is new to the firm, nobody really know who he is or even where he came from. If GM found out the lie, from some other means than the firm, the firm is toast. That's a big risk to take. And Pete withholding that info would mean the end of him. I'm not sure if this is the right play. But I understand why Pete thinks so. He's not on sure footing with the firm, especially from the non Sterling Cooper part and he's insecure in the first place. Better not to rock the boat. Bob does not equal Don, but in Pete's eye, he might as well.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

Maybe Bob = Don 20 years ago?

Let me ponder this by eating some chicken soup...
What would have been great was, in the commercial break after that scene, had a Swanson's commercial with Christiana Hendrick.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> That's kind of what I'm thinking. That said, if Bob's secret got out, what would be the fallout with GM? I guess that's the big question. The difference to me, is at the time Pete found out about Don, Don was already friends with everyone in the firm, and certainly more respected in the firm than Pete. I'm not even sure that it would matter to Roger or Burt for example if Don was revealed for who he was. Bob, on the other hand, is new to the firm, nobody really know who he is or even where he came from. If GM found out the lie, from some other means than the firm, the firm is toast. That's a big risk to take. And Pete withholding that info would mean the end of him. I'm not sure if this is the right play. But I understand why Pete thinks so. He's not on sure footing with the firm, especially from the non Sterling Cooper part and he's insecure in the first place. Better not to rock the boat. Bob does not equal Don, but in Pete's eye, he might as well.


Also didn't Bob say that Pete was the one who hired him? It was when Bob was telling Pete about how he'd swept into Bob's hiring interview. <Insert slightly star struck look here>

If that's what the other partners believe, wouldn't it reflect badly on Pete that he only discovered Bob's amazingly flimsy bogus background _now_?
That might be another incentive to use the info as blackmail, rather than exposing Bob in an attempt to get him fired.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Don sort of got hired the same way as Bob?

Sterling came to buy a coat and Don showed him some of ad work his work for the coat store, they went for drinks and Sterling got really drunk, the next day Sterling is walking into work and is surprised to see Don entering the building. Don says Sterling hired him the night before while drinking.Sterling doesn't say anything and they walk in together..... Of course we don't know the details, but I always thought it was fishy..


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Don never claimed any credentials, just an interest in advertising.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

vman41 said:


> Don never claimed any credentials, just an interest in advertising.


Well, Dick Whitman claimed his name was Don Draper. That's a little bigger issue than simply embellishing your resume.

And to be clear, Pete realized that he could be a jerk to Bob and Bob would leave the firm, but that wouldn't help the firm, nor would it help Pete. Pete realized that by allowing Bob to stick around and keeping his secret, Bob would continue to use his stellar talents for schmoozing to help the firm (that Pete is a partner of) and Pete would be able to wield some control over Bob because Bob will fear that his secret could get out.

What Bob doesn't know, and we're not even sure if Don realizes this, is that nobody in this industry cares about your name or your background. They simply care what you can do for them. So when Pete brought the information about Don/Dick to Bert Cooper's attention, Bert realized that Don was an asset to the firm and told Pete to forget about it. Don remained terrified that people would find out, not knowing that people already had found out and had judged him valuable enough to overlook it. Bob will continue to live in fear that Pete will out him, but what Bob doesn't know, and what Pete does know, is that the info Pete has on Bob is meaningless. Bob's performance speaks for itself.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

I understood the scene where Pete decided to let Bob stay at the firm. I get that motivation.

But I still don't get the motivation of Bob hitting on Pete in the last episode. Did Bob actually think Pete was gay and was trying to seduce him? Surely Bob isn't really interested in Pete? It's just a game? One that backfired horribly (at least the gay seduction part).

Is Pete's mother's ex-nurse that Bob suggested, Bob's lover? Or just an accomplice? Did t(he)y plan to rob Pete's mother blind? Or is the nurse no one really, just a way for Bob to become more valuable to Pete (assume the nurse would have worked out, which didn't happen).

I think Bob is a huge distraction this season although maybe I see where they're going with it now.

Too bad, he's a fantastic actor and a great addition to the cast. I still wish FOX would release the unaired episodes of "Lone Star".


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

It seems funny to me that in Don's world a guy who can schmooze with clients and let them shoot at him is valued as high as someone who can come up with a brilliant ad campaign like Don or Peggy. Or at least almost as high.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

cwoody222 said:


> But I still don't get the motivation of Bob hitting on Pete in the last episode. Did Bob actually think Pete was gay and was trying to seduce him?


Didn't someone get let go back a few seasons for being gay? Maybe Bob thinks he can make them think Pete is gay by putting him in an awkward position and then going and complaining himself that Pete is coming on to him. Then he gets Pete's job.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cwoody222 said:


> But I still don't get the motivation of Bob hitting on Pete in the last episode. Did Bob actually think Pete was gay and was trying to seduce him? Surely Bob isn't really interested in Pete? It's just a game? One that backfired horribly (at least the gay seduction part).


I didn't get that either. Pete had just called Manolo a "degenerate" when Bob hinted that Manolo was not interested in women, so I can't see how Bob would then read that as thinking he had a chance with Pete. I was totally confused by that scene. Although I did take it to mean that Bob was explaining that Manolo was Bob's lover and that Manolo had been Bob's nurse/provider and Bob had developed his feelings for Manolo due to how well Manolo took care of him. What I didn't understand was Bob seemingly making a pass at Pete by touching knees.



stellie93 said:


> Didn't someone get let go back a few seasons for being gay? Maybe Bob thinks he can make them think Pete is gay by putting him in an awkward position and then going and complaining himself that Pete is coming on to him. Then he gets Pete's job.


Yes, Sal was fired but it wasn't because he was gay. It was because their biggest client, Lee Garner Jr. of Lucky Strike was gay and had made a pass at Sal. Sal turned him down and Lee Garner Jr. was humiliated, so he forced Roger to can Sal.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> It seems funny to me that in Don's world a guy who can schmooze with clients and let them shoot at him is valued as high as someone who can come up with a brilliant ad campaign like Don or Peggy. Or at least almost as high.


Since Don is the (anti-) hero of this show and creative is definitely the shining star of the show, it makes sense that the writers have marginalized account management a bit. But in reality, without account managers, the creative team would have no one to pitch ideas to. Account managers have to keep the client happy and keep the creative teams in line and it is a difficult job to do. Agencies I've worked at and with the account manager is much more integral and involved than what we see on Mad Men. They do a lot more than just go to dinner and shake hands.


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I didn't get that either. Pete had just called Manolo a "degenerate" when Bob hinted that Manolo was not interested in women, so I can't see how Bob would then read that as thinking he had a chance with Pete..


The topic was broached and it was Bob's opportunity. Bob disagrees that what he suggests to Pete is degenerate, perhaps thinking Pete is in denial. Bob presents his case.. advertising!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Well, Dick Whitman claimed his name was Don Draper. That's a little bigger issue than simply embellishing your resume.
> 
> And to be clear, Pete realized that he could be a jerk to Bob and Bob would leave the firm, but that wouldn't help the firm, nor would it help Pete. Pete realized that by allowing Bob to stick around and keeping his secret, Bob would continue to use his stellar talents for schmoozing to help the firm (that Pete is a partner of) and Pete would be able to wield some control over Bob because Bob will fear that his secret could get out.
> 
> What Bob doesn't know, and we're not even sure if Don realizes this, is that nobody in this industry cares about your name or your background. They simply care what you can do for them. So when Pete brought the information about Don/Dick to Bert Cooper's attention, Bert realized that Don was an asset to the firm and told Pete to forget about it. Don remained terrified that people would find out, not knowing that people already had found out and had judged him valuable enough to overlook it. Bob will continue to live in fear that Pete will out him, but what Bob doesn't know, and what Pete does know, is that the info Pete has on Bob is meaningless. Bob's performance speaks for itself.


From the firm's standpoint, all true. From a client standpoint? I'm not so sure. I know it's a different time, but in my line of work, very often a client coming on board will request the CVs of those working on the team. Maybe in the 1960s this wasn't a regular occurrence. I'm not sure (and yes, I know, it's a TV show, and it all probably doesn't matter). If Bob is found out by a client, couldn't that mean trouble for the firm. Don at least has a reputation in the business. Other companies know who he is.

The thing about Bob is, we STILL don't know what his motivation is. Is he just one of those people who bounce around from job to job pretending to be someone else and once found out, he just skips town and does it again? Or is he some sort of grifter with some ulterior motive that's going to come back and bite someone on the butt. Since there's one more season, I kind of feel that Bob is going to play a pivotal role in how the series ends.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

DevdogAZ said:


> I didn't get that either. Pete had just called Manolo a "degenerate" when Bob hinted that Manolo was not interested in women, so I can't see how Bob would then read that as thinking he had a chance with Pete. I was totally confused by that scene. Although I did take it to mean that Bob was explaining that Manolo was Bob's lover and that Manolo had been Bob's nurse/provider and Bob had developed his feelings for Manolo due to how well Manolo took care of him. What I didn't understand was Bob seemingly making a pass at Pete by touching knees.


I don't think Manolo was ever Bob's nurse. Didn't Bob say he was his father's nurse (or another relative). Or maybe that was just a lie and Manolo is just Bob's lover. Or maybe Manolo was the nurse of whomever Bob took care of at his last job (didn't they call him a manservant?).



DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, Sal was fired but it wasn't because he was gay. It was because their biggest client, Lee Garner Jr. of Lucky Strike was gay and had made a pass at Sal. Sal turned him down and Lee Garner Jr. was humiliated, so he forced Roger to can Sal.


True. But I think at least a little of that can be attributed to at least Don being a little bit disgusted at Sal when he discovered him in that hotel room with the bellhop.

I don't think Don or Roger felt the least bit guilty getting rid of a homosexual from their office.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> From the firm's standpoint, all true. From a client standpoint? I'm not so sure. I know it's a different time, but in my line of work, very often a client coming on board will request the CVs of those working on the team. Maybe in the 1960s this wasn't a regular occurrence. I'm not sure (and yes, I know, it's a TV show, and it all probably doesn't matter). If Bob is found out by a client, couldn't that mean trouble for the firm. Don at least has a reputation in the business. Other companies know who he is.
> 
> The thing about Bob is, we STILL don't know what his motivation is. Is he just one of those people who bounce around from job to job pretending to be someone else and once found out, he just skips town and does it again? Or is he some sort of grifter with some ulterior motive that's going to come back and bite someone on the butt. Since there's one more season, I kind of feel that Bob is going to play a pivotal role in how the series ends.


What kinds of qualifications are required to be an effective accounts man? You have to be charming. You have to be able to please the client. You have to be good at navigating interoffice politics. Bob has all of those in spades. What is not required (from the client's standpoint) is a fancy degree from a prestigious university, or a blue-blood upbringing. So while Bob may have relied on some of those things in order to get his foot in the door at SC&P, they're not what's going to keep him there, and they certainly shouldn't matter to the client. Bob will be a better, more attentive account man than anyone else at SC&P could even dream of being, so from the client's standpoint, they should be thrilled.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> What kinds of qualifications are required to be an effective accounts man? You have to be charming. You have to be able to please the client. You have to be good at navigating interoffice politics. Bob has all of those in spades. What is not required (from the client's standpoint) is a fancy degree from a prestigious university, or a blue-blood upbringing. So while Bob may have relied on some of those things in order to get his foot in the door at SC&P, they're not what's going to keep him there, and they certainly shouldn't matter to the client. Bob will be a better, more attentive account man than anyone else at SC&P could even dream of being, so from the client's standpoint, they should be thrilled.


I would imagine today, you probably need a degree in marketing to get your foot in the door at a major ad agency. Either that, or lots of experience in the company and probably a list of other clients you worked with. Does Bob have ANY of that? In those days, I am sure the degree wasn't important. But the experience would be for a major client like GM. It makes great TV to show it this way, but I bet the reality of the situation was quite different. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I am head of my department, in charge of a very highly specialized, extremely technical position in my industry. Just 25 years ago, in the late 80's, I found the job on a bulletin board, and they hired me on my first interview. I had absolutely no education or training in the industry at all. ETA: Today, we won't even interview someone without a minimum of a 4-year degree in the field.

I know nothing about the advertising field, but assuming there are actually people in Bob Benson's position in that industry, I would be willing to bet that 45 years ago in the 60's, if you could talk the talk and get the job done effectively, nobody would think twice about your credentials.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> I am head of my department, in charge of a very highly specialized, extremely technical position in my industry. Just 25 years ago, in the late 80's, I found the job on a bulletin board, and they hired me on my first interview. I had absolutely no education or training in the industry at all. ETA: Today, we won't even interview someone without a minimum of a 4-year degree in the field.
> 
> I know nothing about the advertising field, but assuming there are actually people in Bob Benson's position in that industry, I would be willing to bet that 45 years ago in the 60's, if you could talk the talk and get the job done effectively, nobody would think twice about your credentials.


I guess we work in different areas. I've never had a professional job where someone didn't interview me with my resume sitting on their desk next to them. Now within the same company, that's different. I've been in a situation where our company was going after a LARGE (Fortune 500) client and they requested CVs from EVERYONE who they might deal with at the company. And we were a small software firm. We've even had auditors request CVs to make sure that those working on the projects had the credentials to do the work. Now, from Sterling Cooper's standpoint, they might not care. From GM, the largest company on the planet at that time, I would think they would want some proof that they are who they say they are. Not to mention I'd want their most experienced person on it. Bob meets none of that.

But anyway, this has been beaten to death. It's a TV show, and it makes good TV to have it the way it is. That's all that matters. I STILL want to know what Bob's MO is. During his phone call to Manolo (we assume, it was in Spanish) he said something like "He's making it very difficult for me (or it might have been us)". Making WHAT difficult? I think Bob is going to pull something and screw the firm.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

<rant>
I think today that people are just lazy and use college degrees as an easy discriminator to substantially prune the application pool. I was a mathematics major in college and have never used any of it or for that matter any of the other classes I took. Most of what I used on my job I learned on the side doing my own thing. Most of the computer people I know learned on the side. I am generally more impressed by people who learned thing on their own versus cookie cutter classes that many of us took.
</rant>


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

zalusky said:


> <rant>
> I think today that people are just lazy and use college degrees as an easy discriminator to substantially prune the application pool. I was a mathematics major in college and have never used any of it or for that matter any of the other classes I took. Most of what I used on my job I learned on the side doing my own thing. Most of the computer people I know learned on the side. I am generally more impressed by people who learned thing on their own versus cookie cutter classes that many of us took.
> </rant>


I agree. I was a business major. Now I do project work in IT. But that said, there is so much corporate structure, and HUGE HR departments that it's next to impossible to hire someone from outside the company without vetting their credentials. It just doesn't happen much anymore. Even Doghows example is rare these days. Twenty-Five years ago, IT was still fairly new. When I got my first job in IT, I didn't have those credentials, but, I did know a lot of stuff that impressed the interviewers in a SMALL company. I had interviewed for similar jobs at bigger companies and didn't get the job. Not enough experience or credentials. I think it's hard to get in to a new company at the bottom without the education. Once you have experience, it's a lot easier. That said, in Bob's case, he had neither the experience or the credentials. What he did have was the ability to brown nose. In 1960s corporate American, I guess that was good enough.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think the ease with which we can check credentials today has made it common for companies to do this. But in 1968, checking credentials took a lot of leg work. The only reason Duck did it, is because he was being paid to do it. For GM, they've just hired an ad agency based on the creative work that was pitched and they're confidence that the ad agency can deliver a product that will help sell their cars. They realize that they hired a firm from out of town and therefore they're not going to get their most senior accounts person to leave the firm's HQ and move full-time to Detroit. They realize that the person on the ground in Detroit will be a junior person maintaining the account and keeping the client happy while the creative team in NYC works on the product. So I don't think GM in 1968 would have any reason to check on the credentials of their ad agency's account man. The ad agency would stand to lose a lot more than GM would if they put someone ill-suited into that position. What does GM care as long as SC&P trusts the person and as long as GM's needs are being met?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the ease with which we can check credentials today has made it common for companies to do this. But in 1968, checking credentials took a lot of leg work. The only reason Duck did it, is because he was being paid to do it. For GM, they've just hired an ad agency based on the creative work that was pitched and they're confidence that the ad agency can deliver a product that will help sell their cars. They realize that they hired a firm from out of town and therefore they're not going to get their most senior accounts person to leave the firm's HQ and move full-time to Detroit. They realize that the person on the ground in Detroit will be a junior person maintaining the account and keeping the client happy while the creative team in NYC works on the product. So I don't think GM in 1968 would have any reason to check on the credentials of their ad agency's account man. The ad agency would stand to lose a lot more than GM would if they put someone ill-suited into that position. What does GM care as long as SC&P trusts the person and as long as GM's needs are being met?


All true. But what if Bob is exposed as a fraud? Then what?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> All true. But what if Bob is exposed as a fraud? Then what?


But his fraud was to SC&P, not GM. We don't know what SC&P told GM about him. As far as GM is concerned, he's a charming guy who makes sure their needs are met. So if it's exposed that Bob's background is not what he claimed when he was hired by SCDP, then that's an issue SC&P will have to deal with, but I don't think it will concern GM. They'd still be getting the services they expect and require from Bob, regardless of his education or upbringing. And frankly, if Bob ingratiates himself to the client, it could protect him from the firm doing anything to remove him from the account. Just as Pete couldn't talk the other partners out of removing Bob from the account in this episode because Bob's charms have put a spell on them, we can only presume the same thing will happen with the GM execs.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I never really thought about it, but here's Pete in a job with the major requirement being a good personality and getting along well with others. His personality sucks! Nobody who knows him, likes him--mother and wife included.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

stellie93 said:


> I never really thought about it, but here's Pete in a job with the major requirement being a good personality and getting along well with others. His personality sucks! Nobody who knows him, likes him--mother and wife included.


I think he was fine in the beginning. He was a good schmoozer but kept trying to overthrow Don's authority and you can't do that.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Back to the Ocean Spray deal -- my take was Don saving the entire account by lying that it was Frank's last idea...he saves the whole deal and OS then actually upped their limit by 10K. I personally think the ad idea was average at best (I worked in marketing and PR for 20 years)....Don realized the idea was just OK, OS threatens to dump it unless they do it for the agreed cost (15K), and, if they don't, there would be no deal at all. So Don pulls this out of his ass and saves the day actually increasing accounts receivable....


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> Back to the Ocean Spray deal -- my take was Don saving the entire account by lying that it was Frank's last idea...he saves the whole deal and OS then actually upped their limit by 10K. I personally think the ad idea was average at best (I worked in marketing and PR for 20 years)....Don realized the idea was just OK, OS threatens to dump it unless they do it for the agreed cost (15K), and, if they don't, there would be no deal at all. So Don pulls this out of his ass and saves the day actually increasing accounts receivable....


That was the baby aspirin deal with Johnson & Johnson, not the cranberry people.

The 10k bump was substantial as it was a 66% increase to $25k from $15k.
Too bad for Peggy not getting credit, but even if it was the next Plop Plop Fizz Fizz it was 2+ times as much as the customer said they wanted to pay, she didn't keep the idea within the set budget.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> Back to the Ocean Spray deal -- my take was Don saving the entire account by lying that it was Frank's last idea...he saves the whole deal and OS then actually upped their limit by 10K. I personally think the ad idea was average at best (I worked in marketing and PR for 20 years)....Don realized the idea was just OK, OS threatens to dump it unless they do it for the agreed cost (15K), and, if they don't, there would be no deal at all. So Don pulls this out of his ass and saves the day actually increasing accounts receivable....


I don't think that money was direct billings that the firm was going to be able to collect. What they were talking about was the cost of residuals that would be owed to the actors every time the ad airs. The original idea of the ad had a whole group of actors in it and Joan said there was easily $50k in residuals there. So now with the limit of $25k, they're either going to have to find cheaper actors or do the commercial with fewer actors, which, according to the way Ted and Peggy described it, would eliminate that claustrophobic feeling they were going for.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Idearat said:


> That was the baby aspirin deal with Johnson & Johnson, not the cranberry people...


oops....yeah


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Idearat said:


> That was the baby aspirin deal with Johnson & Johnson, not the cranberry people.





Bierboy said:


> oops....yeah


It was the baby aspirin deal with Plough, Inc (they even mention Mr. Plough being upset). The St. Joseph's brand was acquired by J&J in 2000, and then sold to Ilex Consumer Products Group in 2011.


----------



## lpamelaa (May 3, 2004)

Mad Style recap: http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2013/06/mad-style-the-quality-of-mercy.html


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

The 70's are going to eat Sally alive.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

mwhip said:


> The 70's are going to eat Sally alive.


The running comment for years has been how much therapy Sally will need after the show ends, and I can't help but think we have a whole series ready in the wings for that eventual result.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> The running comment for years has been how much therapy Sally will need after the show ends, and I can't help but think we have a whole series ready in the wings for that eventual result.


I think Sally is going to be one of those rebellious girls who wind up with the "wrong crowd" Considering the times, she will probably run away and become a hippie. Either wind up in SF or at Woodstock. Then have substance abuse issues. That's where I see this going. How old is she now?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I think Sally is going to be one of those rebellious girls who wind up with the "wrong crowd" Considering the times, she will probably run away and become a hippie. Either wind up in SF or at Woodstock. Then have substance abuse issues. That's where I see this going. How old is she now?


I don't know, she seems way too snooty to be a hippy.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think Sally is going to be one of those rebellious girls who wind up with the "wrong crowd" Considering the times, she will probably run away and become a hippie. Either wind up in SF or at Woodstock. Then have substance abuse issues. That's where I see this going. How old is she now?





robojerk said:


> I don't know, she seems way too snooty to be a hippy.


I see her as the neurotic New Yorker in perpetual therapy ala Annie Hall myself.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I think Sally is going to be one of those rebellious girls who wind up with the "wrong crowd" Considering the times, she will probably run away and become a hippie. Either wind up in SF or at Woodstock.


Woodstock is a year away. She is 14 now. I don't see that happening.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I smell a "Sally" spinoff....


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> The running comment for years has been how much therapy Sally will need after the show ends, and I can't help but think we have a whole series ready in the wings for that eventual result.


I look at her as Alice in Whit Stilman's Last Days of Disco


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

robojerk said:


> I don't know, she seems way too snooty to be a hippy.


Maybe now, but I can see Sally changing. Perhaps I could see a 'turn on, tune in, drop out' attitude coming. I think she is starting to reach her limit for the crap in her life, or at least peripheral to her, to the extent that she'd drop the snootiness and find a way to fit in to the current culture.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I think the real question is how soon before she hooks up with Glenn.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I think Sally is going to be one of those rebellious girls who wind up with the "wrong crowd" Considering the times, she will probably run away and become a hippie. Either wind up in SF or at Woodstock.


Yeah, it seems like if next season takes place over the summer of 1969, a Sally-goes-to-Woodstock plot is unavoidable.

My father wasn't a hippie by any stretch of the imagination, but he went to Woodstock -- saw it advertised at his local record store in New Jersey, bought a 3-day advance ticket (never collected at the gate, so he still has it). He's a few years older than Sally, though.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

But if Sally is going to boarding school next season and hanging out with those older girls, I don't have any doubt that they'll take her with them to Woodstock.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But if Sally is going to boarding school next season and hanging out with those older girls, I don't have any doubt that they'll take her with them to Woodstock.


Isn't the school in upstate NY? Maybe not a hippie, but I could definitely see her going there. I'm sure there were plenty of 15 year old girls there


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Isn't the school in upstate NY? Maybe not a hippie, but I could definitely see her going there. I'm sure there were plenty of 15 year old girls there


Miss Porter's is in Connecticut. But it's still not very far from Woodstock.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

We also have the moon landing next year, if anyone is interested in that..


----------

