Mad Men, S7 E11, "Time & Life"

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by TiVo'Brien, Apr 27, 2015.

  1. lpamelaa

    lpamelaa Member

    May 3, 2004
    Los Angles, CA


    Mad Style recap from Tom & Lorenzo:
  2. Cainebj

    Cainebj Well-Known Member

    Nov 10, 2006
    New York
    People asked why people are confused. So, yes it does matter what we remember. The terms of the agreement are complicated and thereby in this episode confusing.

    By the partners going behind McCann's back to get the west coast clients on board with a west coast office, it is presented as if they are doing something on their own behind McCann's back that will be successful.

    Cutting to them presenting that idea to McCann?

  3. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    The one thing that I still don't get. If the agreement with McCann was for them to be a wholly owned subsidiary, with autonomy (which is what I thought it was when Roger presented it), then how can they just bring them in and dissolve the agreement like that, without them agreeing to it? Unless enough time had passed that they had the right to bring them in by then.
  4. Squeak

    Squeak Well-Known Member TCF Club

    May 12, 2000
    Columbus, Ohio
    It is no different than any group of workers pulling together a plan, and then presenting it to their boss showing how it will work, and having done the leg work to make it a reality versus just an idea.

    But ultimately, McCann would have to agree to it (and that is why Don was trying to explain -- how it would be in their best interest to let them do that because of all the conflicts)

    My guess was that it was part of the initial discussion, but not codified in the formal agreement. McCann probably had the option to either pull them in, or buy the other 49%.

    Off topic: anyone else think the conference room at McCann was in the same office space that Sterling Cooper use to be in at the beginning of the series? The layout looked almost identical.
  5. DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    Apr 16, 2003


    I'm sure the agreement had language allowing for this possibility. The SC&P partners just never thought it would happen because of the lost business due to conflicts. SC&P thought they were being bought for their clients and for their autonomy, but it turns out they were just bought so McCann could get their talent.
  6. Robin

    Robin Impolite arrogant woman

    Dec 6, 2001
    Pete's comb over is awesome. I laugh at it every time he's on screen. Along with Roger's mustache and Ken's eye patch.

    Totally disagree about the secretary. I think she's hilarious. I spent all of her scenes wondering if she would be too much for a spin off.

    Peggy's hair does look great. I'm in awe of the 60/70s hair styles. That took effort.
  7. rifleman69

    rifleman69 Member

    Jan 6, 2005
    Just watched the episode tonight and agreed with this assumption. McCann himself would make $245,000 from doing nothing.
  8. DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    Apr 16, 2003
    Just rewatched the scene. First, the guy they were meeting with was named Jim Hobart. McCann Erickson is just the name of the agency. Second, the figure was $275,000. And third, there's no way the SC&P guys could know how the McCann partners distribute their profits and therefore wouldn't know how much Hobart would personally pocket. When Don says "This is $275,000 in profit, all costs covered, that you don't have to lift a finger to earn," he was using "you" to refer to McCann Erickson, the agency, not Jim Hobart, the individual.

Share This Page

spam firewall