At work we use SVN, but in name only. We don't branch or merge. We keep two copies of the repository, one serving as the "tag" branch that gets copied when we do a deployment and kept for bug fixes and immediate "this has to go live asap" type of features. We have to remember to copy changes made in one copy to the other copy (the "trunk"). We have a dozen projects inside a single folder in the repository, instead of splitting them out. In short about the only thing we use SVN for is being able to commit. Everything else is done manually.
I've been evaluating Mercurial; I have used Git in the past (I'm the only one on the team who has used a DVCS), and I'm picking up Mercurial quickly. I'm debating introducing Mercurial to the rest of the team as a "better way" of doing things because branching is a snap, merging is a lot easier, and we can commit things locally to our heart's content and only push them to the central branch when they're ready. We would get all of the benefits of SVN (and we aren't getting many benefits right now anyway since nobody really understands SVN) plus for new features we don't have to have tons of unversioned files floating about so if we have to rollback we're screwed. The workflow seems a bit simpler - we just have to remember that "Commit" is local and "Push" is like SVN's commit, and "Pull" is like SVN's Update (what the team refers to as "get latest").
Is this a good approach to take? Keep in mind that the team is very flexible and will go along with anything that will improve our quality of work and make how we do things easier - the CIO even asked me when I mentioned how we weren't using SVN to it's potential "Is there something better we can use?" so he's on board with it too.