Claim Central Consolidated reviews

Short-Sighted & Reactive Decision-Making: The decision to exit the NZ market appeared to be based entirely on failing to secure one contract a strategy that could best be described as “all eggs, one basket.” No apparent effort was made to develop a sustainable, diversified business model, despite clear opportunities in the market. Long-term client relationships? Trade base development? Alternative revenue streams? Not a priority. Instead, leadership waited until it was too late to start considering their options. Always Chasing their tail in AU never proactive about tackling problems proactively instead diverting time and resource to addressing one issue at a time, this issue was usually caused by the lack of attention given to it because of the previous issue giving a whole new meaning to the buzzword "Circle Back" “Relationship Management” Was Just a Buzzword: The company approached client relationships like a one-night stand, chasing large contracts rather than investing in long-term partnerships. Trade retention was a disaster. Payment terms were so unreasonably long that it became financially unviable for many suppliers to continue working with the company. AU-imposed AU Centric bureaucratic compliance measures ignored local NZ market needs, making engagement increasingly difficult. But instead of adapting and listening, leadership doubled down on policies that actively drove trades away. Investing in NZ? Only When Convenient: The NZ team was consistently under-resourced, but whenever a CAT event meant potential revenue, leadership suddenly discovered NZ existed. Basic tools, business cards, and updated equipment were promised repeatedly but never materialized. Employees often had to find their own workarounds for tasks that should have been streamlined. Despite frequent cost-cutting in NZ, AU continued to burn through cash on inefficient processes and charge operational fees that didn’t benefit the NZ team. Financial Misrepresentation & Convenient Narratives: The company claims NZ was never profitable, but when you factor in inflated operational charges, funds siphoned to AU, and strategic mismanagement, that statement becomes highly questionable. The NZ operation wasn’t given a real chance to thrive, profits weren’t reinvested locally, and critical decisions were made by people with no real understanding of the market, contrary to what we always said we needed,

Stress Micro managed Target driven not customer centric