An agency that shall remain nameless...

Basically, about three years ago I was hired by a mundane, creatively ossified if not outright moribund Boston i-agency, to breathe some life into the place, to invigorate its creative product, to raise their level of ambition and their profile. Less than two years later, I was out on my keister. I was hired to change a place, then canned for trying to change the place. Mother fucking sons of bitch bastard child of a rabid one-eye jackal.

Today I ran across this article in the NY Times. The best article I've read in a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30know.html?ex=1199682000&en=b1b9457d00b3485f&ei=5070http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30know.html?ex=1199682000&en=b1b9457d00b3485f&ei=5070
Here's the gist: There is a "curse of knowledge." It means that once you’ve become an expert in a particular subject, you know exactly what to do, how to proceed. You start spouting jargon and dredging up best-practices. Then when it's time to do the job--i.e. create advertising, since you've always done it your way, you revert to form and do it the way it's always been done. Innovation be damned.

This is the way most agencies approach creative and media today. They do what they've always done. They write essentially the same script. Cast from a pool of the same actrons. Even hire the same director.

Then they worry the same worries. Why are we smaller today than we were five years ago?