Did you see that piece by Jim Roberts over at bNet talking about how Kevin “Mr Lovemarks” Roberts recently gave a speech denouncing “Entitlement” in hiring by ad agencies. Fucktard gems included… “The days of fat and surplus will disappear. Entitlement will disappear … working together will be what makes the difference, not personal gain.” This was quickly followed up by an admission that his son, Ben, has been the Talent Director for Saatchi & Saatchi Europe and the Middle East since 2004, which would be seven fucking years after “Mr. Rugby” became chief global douchenozzle for Saatchi & Saatchi. Ha, fucking ha… As Malcolm Forbes once said… “Personally, I see nothing wrong with nepotism!” Neither would I, if my dad was a rich fucking plutocrat. Not to mention being a wanker!
Mr. Lovemarks daughter?


entitlement is always quid pro quo...
what replaces it is slavery----
Posted by: Tom Messner | June 15, 2009 at 02:29 PM
isn't the opposite of entitlement democracy?
Posted by: the lower depths | June 15, 2009 at 03:06 PM
...or does Socialism replace quid pro quo? And by the way, the 'fat and surplus' is almost always at the top of the food chain, Mr. Roberts. Sounds like he's prepping the masses for pay and benefit cuts.
Posted by: Auntie Christ | June 15, 2009 at 04:15 PM
while making his argument, as the socialist visionary, for his bonus package?
is it REALLY that transparent?
Posted by: the lower depths | June 15, 2009 at 04:22 PM
he didn't acknowledge the inappropriate relationship with his assistant in the nyc office. how's that for entitlement.
Posted by: Cruncher | June 15, 2009 at 05:55 PM
Have you all seen this?
http://www.adrants.com/2009/06/draftfcb-cant-manage-its-clients-gets.php
Posted by: slowmo | June 15, 2009 at 07:22 PM
Put the oedipedal to the metal.
Posted by: Stidio Maven | June 15, 2009 at 07:28 PM
@Tom Messner,
I know you are a favored son of this blog, and I certainly admire your great career, but what the hell did you mean by your comment:
entitlement is always quid pro quo...
what replaces it is slavery----
I mean, WTF, Tom? Is this one of your right of center, Ronald Reagan, Morning in America, bon mots?
Please explain. I am obviously working on your plane of understanding.
Posted by: John Yoo | June 15, 2009 at 07:37 PM
Tom, meant to say "not" working on your plane of understanding!
Posted by: Donald Tramp | June 15, 2009 at 07:38 PM
John Yoo/Donald Tramp,
(It is early so I will not be brief. Plus I am waiting for the cable guy and have read all the papers except for the left wing part of the WSJ.)
In an ad agency, you become entitled to something by negotiation, whether freelance, staffer, contracted consultant or executive under contract or board member or CEO; if a public company, then the CEO works for the board and the shareholders.
I do not and did not view entitlement as a gift from the gods or a remnant of feudalism.
"I'm entitled," I always thought to mean that I have done something that deserves compensation. It has come to mean over time, in social security let's say, "Hey, I paid inta it, now I'm takin' outta it." Thus we have the so-called "middle class entitlements," an odious term itself since it includes the notion of "classes.")
In my youth, Harry Golden wrote a book called "You're entitle" that I read in excerpts in the Long Island Press in the early 60s. So there's a little NY-Yiddish-influenced pronunciation needed to fully understand the notion of the Latin quid pro quo that I applied to entitlements.
Now what does all this have to do with Mr. Roberts, the ad person not the boss of Ensign Pulver? Well if I interpret his line correctly, he is admonishing his workers for their own past compensation agreements, dismissing their right to what they are owed by his corporation, being told they will take whatever he deems the current currency and be glad of it.
Thus my mal mot in reaction to him: what replaces entitlement is slavery.
Ronald Reagan, the only U.S. President to have been a union member not to mention a union President, would have understood it, as you point out.
Me? I was both an employee in the ad business and an employer. Always felt much more entitled as an employee under contract than I did as an employer who owed the rent to a landlord, himself entitled by our signatures on a lease.
Best,
Tom
Posted by: Tom Messner | June 16, 2009 at 06:00 AM
I think everyone assumes the inferred meaning of entitlement ("I deserve") as opposed to the legal definition ("I earned"). Pink subs aside, I still find it amusing that Mr. Roberts has to make a point of saying that the new SOP will be very different from the old SOP, inferring that he sanctioned (or at least looked away from) the old one.
Posted by: Auntie Christ | June 16, 2009 at 07:12 AM
Hey GP,
It's Joe Bob! Since I couldn't get my TV working I started using the internets! What you say you give me one of them high falutened jobs in some fancy place like New York? It's like my great grammy always said, "If you want an egg, no use lookin under a cow."
Best regards,
Joe Bob
Posted by: Joe Bob Pickens | June 16, 2009 at 08:38 AM
@joe bob...
Come and see me for that job at my office in Draft/FCB. I go under the name Howard Draft when I work there.
Cheers/George
Posted by: George Parker | June 16, 2009 at 09:49 AM