As long as I have worked in PR there has always been an uneasy relationship between those that practice in an agency and those that practice in-house.
As someone who has spent time in both roles, this doesn’t really surprise me. After all working in an agency and working inside are in many respects very different jobs. I always tell students they should try and get experience of both sides of the profession, because at the very least, it will provide them with a broader perspective.
Over the past couple of weeks I met with a number of friends and former colleagues and I was stunned.
On a number of occasions I heard working in-house referred to as a type of nursing home for those no longer able to work in a "real job" i.e. the agency.
The comments were prefaced with: "no disrespect Tom but…"
The interesting things was that these comments came from people with little or no in-house experience.
There is no doubt that the differences between agency and in-house are many fold, but just in case anyone is looking at moving in-house as part of their end of career wind down process, I’d think again. 
Working in-house isn’t a retirement plan…
Here, here. As another who has worked on both sides of the fence I’d definitely agree that in-house isn’t a retirement home. Some aspects of the job are easier, others harder. But neither is as challenging, exhilarating and fun as starting and growing your own agency
Stuart, I’ll take your word for it