Hearst Reviews

Cons

Can be difficult to move internally

Cons

Depressing layoffs and media environment

Cons

Departments do not always communicate well with each other.

Cons

WAS. Told everyone not to worry and to keep doing their best when a BUNCH of people started "quiting" but just seemed odd, then just started cutting not only people but whole offices. NY people just came in and cut people. Severance packages were weak, got laid off a month or less before I was suppose to get my bonus, wasn't allowed to finish the week instead was told to leave building on the spot?? People moved their whole families to Atlanta to work then they start cutting everyone, freaking them out. Messed up. Now there are no cultural events, all the fun sucked out because everyone is worried for their jobs

Cons

low visibility, not a lot of networking opportunities

Cons

It's really hard to get a promotion. Even harder to get a raise.

Cons

The new President of Hearst Magazines is awful. He shows up late to meetings often and interrupts women routinely, sometimes to talk about things that are completely irrelevant. He has a habit of putting his feet up on conference room tables. And it seems like he cares little about content standards, only ever focusing on money. Beyond the toxicity coming from the top, the infrastructure at Hearst is extremely disorganized. Publications don't pay freelancers on time, leaving young employees in administrative roles to play the middleman between (rightfully) angry writers who are owed money and an accounting department that doesn't give answers. I think it's possible to have a good experience at Hearst, but only if you have minimal contact with the central administration.

Also, the salaries are very low. All in all, wouldn't recommend!

Cons

If you don't work for the mighty Hearst office in New York, you will be a puppet on strings

Cons

Everyone is told that pretty much the only way you’ll get a raise is if you get an offer from somewhere else. They’ll give you more responsibility for no extra money, and fully expect you to just be grateful to have a staff job in media. Hearst is profitable, but they’re paying dedicated, overworked employees the legal minimum.

There’s essentially no budget for freelance writers or big reported stories, a very clear indicator that Hearst’s only goal is to turn a profit and please advertisers, not to do important work. The goals of the company seem to change every quarter, and it’s pretty evident there’s no longterm goal (which is the nature of media, but not very inspiring).

There didn’t seem to be much room for growth and doing the same thing over and over gets boring. It’s easy to get lost in the shuffle because supervisors are stretched so thin that they don’t have time to manage their employees properly.

Hearst is also very big on centralized teams (art, video, talent booking) that work across several brands. It saves money, but creates a lot of unnecessary chaos with very poor communication and certain brands always being favored over others.

Cons

Favoritism dominates
Difficult to move up even when qualified