Pros
Talented individual contributors who genuinely care about delivering good work
Some strong legacy projects that still get referenced in pitches
Clients with real potential when handled thoughtfully
Clear systems for tracking time, budgets, and scope (sometimes to an extreme)
Kontras
Cons:
MIG operates as a third-generation family business, and that reality overrides the org chart
“Family” is emphasized culturally, but loyalty is conditional and flows upward
Long-tenured leaders are insulated from challenge, even when their methods are outdated
Senior roles come with impressive titles but little real authority or trust
Collaboration is often confused with compliance. New ideas are welcomed until they challenge legacy thinking
Creative leadership talks about innovation while actively resisting new ideas or original work
RFPs and new business are treated casually, then leadership acts surprised when pitches are lost
The culture treats urgency as virtue. Everything is an “emergency,” which destroys planning, focus, and morale
Structural Issues That Kill Collaboration:
Work is organized in rigid functional silos rather than project-based teams
Individual contributors report to managers who are often disconnected from the projects they’re assigned to
Project leaders are accountable for outcomes but lack authority over the people doing the work
There is no incentive structure that rewards collaboration or shared ownership
Team members optimize for their direct manager, not the success of the project
As a result, collaboration is optional, inconsistent, and personality-dependent
In practice, this means leaders spend their time negotiating internally instead of leading, and projects succeed despite the system, not because of it.
The Gear-Rental Mentality:
People are managed like rental equipment. Time is priced and policed like inventory
If actual hours drift a few hundred dollars from budget, change orders fly regardless of context or outcome
Judgment is replaced by spreadsheets. Initiative is quietly punished
And Yes — Even the Wardrobe Tells the Story:
On-site staff are required to wear heavily branded MIG apparel that signals “AV vendor,” not strategic agency
The clothing looks frozen in time and reinforces the company’s identity crisis
For a company that wants to be seen as a modern agency, forcing senior leaders to dress like rolling billboards for the gear closet sends the opposite message
It may sound trivial, but presentation matters. How a company asks its people to show up externally reveals how it sees them internally.
What Ultimately Became Clear:
This is not an organization designed for evolution. It is designed for preservation.
Challenging long-standing ways of working is treated as disloyalty, not leadership. The “family” framing amplifies this dynamic by discouraging dissent in favor of conformity.