"Mad Men" -- *Final* Season Official Thread (possible spoilers) (part 2)

*cough* Jared Harris *cough*

 

When Don was all set to give his big speech at McCaan-Erickson he looked like the Don of old - sharp 60's suit and the smooth delivery - then the big guy - Jim Hobart just pulled the plug on him and Don comes sputtering to a halt.
Times have changed.

 

I have to admit I was a little disappointed with the SCDP (is it still called that?) board members last night. They honourably thought up an escape route which would ensure protecting those 'conflict' accounts which would have to go, but as soon as Jim Hobart told them it's all 'done' and they were offered nice juicy roles in McCann-Erikson (except Joan) they all rolled over without questioning it. How could they not realise Joan was not included? And then the stand-up where they happily told the staff - did they not realise how the staff would take it? That the staff knew most of them would be for the chop? It came across as incredibly insensitive, though I suppose that's the point (and mirrors my own experiences in my past work life!).

 

I hope they do a spinoff series about Lou Avery. They should do it like a 70s sitcom, with a laugh track.

 

They rolled over because they didn't have any bargaining power. They are all under 4 year non-compete contracts, so they can't simply walk away and set up shop elsewhere. Joan included. They had to tell the staff what happened because the word had got out and rumors were flying. How else would they announce it? ​

 

They seemed to announce it to the staff as if it was good news. It just didn't come across sensitively to me.

But also what they were proposing wasn't as a competitor to M-E, it was a(nother) subsidary company, but out west, so wouldn't have breached the non-compete clause. I still don't see why M-E couldn't try to retain the remaining'conflict' customers (and that $18m) by doing that. Sure a number of NY-based staff would still have had to go in additon to a few who might have relocated.

 

SCDP just realized they could be bought and sold (down the river) like everyone else. And cease to exist.

 

I think that the staff was assuming a lot of redundancy lay-offs which may not have been planned. After all the new "division" was being offered huge accounts that would need big staffing. No reason that most couldn't just roll on. Now it's possible many would not like to move or be working for the giant company.

 

From my experiences in the worlds of finance and academia, bad news is inevitably presented as good news by people in power.

 

Yes but also ..... times have changed..they are older ...they do not have the fight anymore...they are starting to want the easy life...rollover on a nice big bed of money position and ..Relax.....all the staff walking away showed that times have changed...they would never have put up with that before........

 

I didn't really see the staff taking it as bad news. It looked more to me like it meant little to them. They didn't seem to react much at all.

 

Yes. And from my experience, it's the "super unknown" that causes the most anxiousness and unrest. Everyone starts to distrust everyone else and a lot of folks rightly assume they're just being strung along until the transition is complete.

I worked for a smaller company that was purchased by a much larger company. During that three-month transition period, all of us with the "small guy" were wondering just what would happen with our positions. A lot of folks ended up getting laid off. Some were reassigned laterally. Some didn't even wait -- they just starting looking for and accepting other positions. I was lucky -- I somehow ended up in a better position, but I could have easily started planning an escape route as soon as the announcement came down as I really didn't know where the chips would fall.

 

I'm curious how the deal was initially structured, and how McCann was allowed to do this, even with owning 51%. Why is SC&P allowed to seemingly go away, at least within the contract period? Was this not written or understood properly on SC&P's (Roger or otherwise) part before signing off?

 

I think Roger was eager to get the deal done. McCann probably agreed to SC&P functioning as a subsidiary for a specific time -- say, a year. After that time, McCann had the discretion to keep SC&P as as subsidiary or fold it in. Because Roger sold the controlling majority of SC&P to McCann, he could probably only guarantee work contracts for the SC&P partners for four years, but not subsidiary status for SC&P for that length of time.

 

I like that this episode toyed with our expectations. One frequent fan theory that I see a lot is that maybe Don would at some point start his own firm in California with Pete and Peggy. This episode definitely made it seem like something along those lines might just happen, but then swerved away from it.

 

Hope that doesn't happen.

The staff certainty reacted , they walked off! They have heard it all before and were probably off to work on their résumés!

 

Oh I'm not so sure. I don't see Don settling into a nice cozy Coca Cola life. He'll either drink himself to death (booze, not Coca Cola) or do something else, and he's got the money to start his own company.

 

Except he's under a non-compete clause with McCann for the next four years. I guess maybe if they flash forward (which I doubt).

 

I for one was actually happy to see the "Hey Gang! We can start our own firm right here in the barn!" tactic actually fall flat for a change. I also liked that hints of a Pete and Trudy tryst were dropped ... and then left to fizzle.

 

There's a lot of concern over the minutiae of the deal. I don't think that's the intended focus for the writers. This stuff happens in real life. Don and the others had little to say in response, because they had nothing that they could respond with. It was clear that a decision was long made. McCann bought the talent- the brand and was dissolving the old agency. That was the plan all along.

Yep.

 

Seems to me that this last season has been about stripping everything away from Don and the "life" he worked hard to create and protect... his wife gone, his kids estranged, mistresses gone, homeless, now his career is in shambles and he has lost his edge.

I think in the end, he will be left with nothing, all alone, and my guess is it will be ambiguous as to what happens to him, sort of like the end of the Sopranos. Does he start over? go back to being Dick Whitman? Start a new agency? Drink himself to death? It will be left to the viewer to decide.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Don simply decides to walk the Earth, like Caine in "Kung Fu".

 

Why request a speech from SC&P on the future in the previous episode, if this was always the plan? Could the speech itself from SC&P possibly have influenced McCann to make this decision?

 

Could be. Some eagle-eyed fans pinned the date of this episode to around August, 1970 based on magazine covers seen. Not sure when the previous episode took place, but it could have been a jump of a couple of months for all we know.

 

The speech that Don wrote for Roger definitely informed McCann's decision. It also helped Hobart know exactly which accounts to feed to the SC&P partners like catnip.