Is ageism undermining representation of the 40-65 demographic in the workplace? That should equate to 1/3 of employees in your company...

I was "laid off" from my agency last year. A couple months later the other 60-year-old was also fired. The oldest person at that place is 42 (and he's the owner). Yes, ageism is alive and well in our industry.

It’s funny, I recently switched accounts and now work on a client team of about 20 core people, where at least 12 of us are all 49-51 age group. We’re solidly all Gen X’ers. It’s kind of nice.

According to one stat I read, only 6% of the industry is over 50. And most of them are C-suite! Not too many of us gray-haired soldiers in this biz. Fortunately, it's changing. Age-equality is gaining traction. A new diversity group just launched at the Publicis Groupe to provide support for employees over 50 and to address this issue head on.

CD1 /ACD1 - people talk about the agency model being broken, that’s one of the biggest issues. Highly experienced assets are either bailing on the business or being pushed overboard. I can assure you, most clients want /expect to see veterans on their business. I doubt ageism is an issue with consultancies where client pay for experienced talent. There is such a need for mentoring of younger talent who otherwise don’t have a clue as to big ideas etc. Look at the work today and the work from 10-15 years ago and there’s the evidence. The quest for more margin and thus less senior talent is killing the business.

I think there is something to it, but I’d offer that many people in these age bands often begin to coast and fail to adjust/enhance their skills to the times. I’m 50 and still vital and valuable because I’ve learned new skills that are tuned to the current state of communications (UX, product design, social media, app development). If I stuck to the stuff I started my career on (radio ads and print), I likely would be feeling like the industry doesn’t need an old fart like me—because it doesn’t. I’m sure that the Fishbowl for typewriter repair people is full of grievances about ageism, but the real problem is personal failures to adapt their skills to the new word processing revolution. Err, well, that one’s pretty dead, too. But I’m hoping you get my point and take the responsibility to not simply ride the now tired horse you arrived on, skillwise.

Everywhere I’ve seen, I’m 41 and have been informed I’m “seasoned” by a few places

Other service professions/careers have - and value - “seasoned” people... architects, lawyers, etc. Weird that we’ve let the older purge happen in ours. It’s another example of the how weak our industry is in having solidarity. Not surprising that a friend of mine says “I’ve never been to a retirement party in advertising.”

That’s true for sure but with experience must come added value that coincides with salary. If that equation doesn’t hold, then you are right. Probably fair to say that if a persons value reaches diminishing returns as they get older, perhaps salary needs to be slightly adjusted to make the numbers work?

From what I’ve seen, it also depends on the department. Creatives tend to get pushed out at a younger age. But other areas like Production (Producers, PBMs, Talent Managers) tend to have a longer shelf life. It doesn’t make sense because all experienced people should be sought after. But I feel like in Creative, hiring managers get fixated on the new shiny thing/person.

Yes. These lame “philosophies” like “we put a premium on enthusiasm and feel experience can institutionalize people and limit creative problem solving” is a BS way of hiring junior people who are cheap and don’t know whether to piss with their pants on fire at the first sign of crisis. Clients need established professionals who can manage crises and sticky situations. That comes with experience. Period.

If younger cohorts continue to ignore the common sense safety guidelines for Covid, there will be jobs-a-plenty for 40/40 in due course.

I totally agree. I was laid off in February (in my 40s) and was the oldest person at the agency. Now the average age at the agency is 30.

If ageism wasn’t an issue, you wouldn’t have healthcare shops filled to the brim with older people. Everybody understands the con. It’s why HR makes you sign an ageism rider before you can get your severance...The financial argument only makes sense if you assume every person aspires to become an ecd, the optics of which make sense since it’s the only position employed people over 40 are visible in. But many don’t want that. People dont get more expensive related to age, It’s not like holding companies give out annual raises.

I wonder if it’s all ageism or if it’s in part that this group is typically the highest earners?

Ageism is real.

AND

33% of your workforce doesn’t have to be 40-65. I am in that demographic and by that time in your career we lose many people because agency life isn’t the right industry. In most industries you have fewer older people. Not because they are pushed out but because they move on. Start companies. Find new careers. Etc. You can’t equate the ratio of your workforce to ageism or feminism or racism for that matter. You have to look at the behaviors driving those ratios.

Many years ago, I had a very well known and acclaimed CCO (I was an ECD) at a huge agency flat out tell me I was too old for the business. He fired me shortly afterwards. I was 49. I only wish I had recorded that conversation. I could’ve walked away with a fortune.

As others mention, cost of more senior talent, is of course a factor - even if skill is comparable / different / better than less experienced colleagues.

Should those >50 expect salary increases at the same percentage as others, which drives their raw comp/cost above others in similar roles? Would you all accept a comp formula that keeps you within a salary band for a role? HR would prob short-circuit over that one. Maybe ensuring a variable / bonus component to comp would at least senior talent w/a stagnant base to earn more for their potentially superior impact on biz, culture, etc.

(I believe ageism is a massive problem, it’s the only discrimination we’ll all face, we all know what “cutting the dead wood” implies) however statistically, another explanation could be that we lay off annually, semi annually, all the time, it’s a shitty dependency the business has... so the longer you’re on the job, the more often you’re around for layoffs. So eventually, one of them is gonna get you. It’s Russian roulette, eventually everyone gets it.... but the staffing obsession with hiring young and not restocking older talent is how we ended up here.