Bewitched, Big, and bewildered
Larry Tate was a jerk. But aside from that undeniable parallel with real-world ad execs (I kid, I kid), the fictional agency of McMann and Tate (employer of Bewitched’s long-suffering Darrin Stephens) had little to do with the industry we all know and love. Sure, there were campaigns and comps and clients, but as a template for how ad agencies actually work, the inordinately sleek operation of McMann and Tate was more than a little misleading. (Like many ad professionals of my generation, this was my first impression of the biz, and I still feel a little betrayed by the discrepancies.)
Darrin, you may remember, was pretty much a one-man show. Copywriter, art director, creative director, mechanical artist, traffic director, account representative—he did it all. His boss, Larry, existed primarily to smarm up to clients. His other boss…does anyone actually remember his other boss? I don’t. (Wikipedia tells me that Mr. McMann only appeared in two episodes, so no wonder.) In fact, I don’t remember any other employees at all. This most lightweight of skeleton crews is understandable in adult hindsight, of course, when you think about the budgets and exigencies of 1960s sitcoms. But watching it as a kid, I had no reason to think this was anything other than documentary fact, and my expectations were formed accordingly. (Granted, the whole show was centered on a nose-twitching suburbanized witch, but that didn’t mean, to my young mind, that the rest of the particulars were anything other than gospel truth.) Imagine my surprise then, years later, when I discovered that not only does it take a few more people to make an ad agency run, campaigns generally take more than a few hours to complete (and sometimes, clients will even—gasp—reject your work; Darrin may have stressed out on a regular basis, but with Samantha in his corner, creative approval was a foregone conclusion).
Now, though, I’m with Big. And things have come, if not full circle, then quite a few degrees toward their nostalgic beginnings. Because Big, as you may know, is little (at least in terms of regular staff). And though there are a few more of us than McMann Tate seemed to boast, we each wear multiple Darrin-like hats, which offers a satisfying comprehensiveness of ownership in projects. And a rewardingly direct connection to our clients. All of which makes Big, if you’ll forgive the expression, a bewitching place to ply our trade. It’s also part of the reason, I think, clients enjoy working with us so much. Because while broomsticks and cauldrons may be in short supply around here, we have a magic all our own.

you were right. like it. and you know derwin was a dork according to Endora. of course life would be so much simpler if we could sketch a little do-da on one of those easel pads and sell it like that.
maybe in the old days…
Comment by Brookita — January 23, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Micheal, you are a magical writer, and working with talent like yours & those of your fellow biggies, reassures those of us who’ve always been a sucker for the elusive magic of the advertising world, that the fun is not reserved only for tv. (Bewitched, Thirty-Something, Big Men, Melrose Place, Trust Me…). Something’s cool about working in advertising. Defining it is not so easy. Maybe it should stay that way.
Comment by Sarandipity — January 27, 2009 @ 10:48 am
This is just a little off topic but here’s a bit of trivia that I hardly ever get to share. Piccadilly Circus, London, circa 1972, pub closing time I see a familiar face, the face of the actor that played Darrin’s boss, Larry, who else could look like that? I don’t know if Bewitched re-runs were showing on British TV (Beverly hillbillies were on). I approached him and said “I know you”, he said “no you don’t, oh no you don’t”, his denial only reinforcing my belief he was who I thought he was. Perhaps he was tired of being recognized and harassed. I hardly ever get to tell that encounter. thanks for providing an occasion. I’ve enjoyed reading your blog and we all look forward to better days in advertising.
Comment by John Burwell — February 26, 2009 @ 11:39 am
John — thanks for the kind words and the “brush-with-fame” story. Gives the original post a whole new air of authenticity.
Comment by Mike — February 26, 2009 @ 2:42 pm