Essay 651

Old news from Advertising Age…

• The latest issue of Ad Age published the final results of its online poll that asked, “Do you think that the changing media environment is fueling age discrimination at ad agencies?”

The publication also offered quotes from various whiners. “[Age discrimination] is so obvious it hurts,” said one agency executive. “They completely ignore the most affluent and powerful generation this country has ever seen — the baby boomers!” A creative director proclaimed, “I’m a dinosaur that’s been online since 1987. I wonder: Are 25-year-olds writing all those ads for products and services aimed at aging baby boomers? Can ad agencies not see the value in employing creatives in the demographic segment that they’re pitching?”

Gee, it sure is interesting to see old admen defend themselves with arguments they’ve ignored when shutting out others.

Incidentally, the final tally showed 89 percent of respondents voted yes. The overwhelming majority were probably boomers who needed assistance from their young secretaries to figure out how to vote online.


• Ad Age also offered the editorial below (the MultiCultClassics rebuttal immediately follows)…

Old or young, talent is the issue

AD AGENCIES SHOULD fire older employees who don’t get that the advertising game is changing. Agencies also should fire young people who don’t get that the game is changing.

The issue should not be about age but about ability and, as an agency CEO said in Ad Age last week, “finding people who display intellectual curiosity.”

The specter of age discrimination came to light in a lawsuit by 54-year-old George Hayes, a 30-year veteran of McCann Erickson and Universal McCann who is suing his former employer, alleging wrongful termination based on age.

Courts will decide the case on its merits. But there is a broader imperative for agencies and employees: Both must embrace change or face the consequences.

Advertising is a “youth-obsessed profession,” as Ad Age’s Matthew Creamer wrote last week. That’s reality. There is a bias toward new and improved, not old and improved.

Agencies (and all employers) must not discriminate based on age (that’s illegal) and should reward talent regardless of age (that’s smart business).

Younger workers have a competitive advantage in a changed media world. They came of age in the digital era, growing up with wireless, the Net and iPods. Younger talent also comes cheaper than older workers, a critical issue when marketers are hammering agencies to work on lower margins.

What about older workers? The issue is front and center for aging boomers. The average baby boomer this year will turn 50, according to American Demographics. There will be no coasting to retirement; the onus on boomers is to perform.

So what should older advertising workers do? Embrace change; draw on experience, but be ready to ditch old methods; and stand with colleagues, regardless of age, who believe in a zero-based, media-neutral approach to marketing, communication and technology.

The game is changing, but there has never been a greater need for talent of any age with the intellectual curiosity to define the new rules.

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

“Talent is the issue.”

“The issue should not be about age but about ability…”

“There is a bias toward new and improved, not old and improved.”

“Agencies must not discriminate based on age and should reward talent regardless of age.”

Gee, these arguments are old. And downright disgusting in an industry that thrives on discrimination and exclusivity.

It’s easy to seamlessly replace the word “age” in the lines above with Black, Hispanic, Minority, Female, Gay, etc.

The discriminators are quick to push fairness and legality when they find themselves playing the role of victim. How stereotypical.