Pros
4 day work week (the only pro left)
Cons
Search Intelligence initially came across as a well-run and supportive place to work. There were clear structures, decent perks, and at first glance, operations appeared smooth and organised. That impression didn't last. After the first year, the environment became noticeably more pressurised. Communication from senior management often took the form of criticism of the team's performance and work in group chats, which created a culture where people started the day expecting to be called out. Morale dropped quickly when it felt like nothing was ever quite good enough. I understand, from a financial perspective, why senior management was concerned about not meeting targets, but repeatedly criticising the team for failing to meet impossible standards wasn't the right approach. Staff turnover has been significant and difficult to ignore. Groups of employees have left at the same time, with announcements only shared after accounts had been removed, usually accompanied by generic messaging about “pursuing new opportunities.” The lack of transparency around this led to widespread uncertainty. There was no real honesty about why benefits were being stripped, either, just that they were always discretionary and could be taken away or returned at any time. When the option to reduce our holiday was presented to us, a lot of people said no. They decided not to move on with the idea, but let us know that, as the company was getting bigger, they were looking to reduce costs. I guarantee that if they had been upfront and honest about the actual situation of the business, most would have agreed to cut their holiday to help. But instead, it seemed like another blow to employees who were working harder than ever, while online, it was presented that the company was doing great financially. The situation escalated further just before Christmas with a formal restructuring. This involved redundancies and demotions, with minimal communication from senior leadership throughout. Aside from a message from Fery, the CEO, after the fact, that was all we heard from him. A real kick in the teeth for the people let go. The remaining managers made visible efforts to keep things running, but there are ongoing concerns about the company’s direction and stability, which led to my departure. A key issue is leadership decision-making, particularly from the CEO. There is a heavy and persistent push towards implementing AI-driven tools across all workflows. In theory, these are introduced to improve efficiency; in reality, they are often rolled out prematurely, with bugs and little consideration for how they function in practice. Tools for writing, AI detection, and media list validation regularly slow work down, produce inconsistent results, and add unnecessary friction to already demanding workloads. Outputs vary depending on how the tools behave. These tools are introduced on a random day of the week, and we're expected to be able to use them and carry on as normal, even if they don't work or add hours to send times. Then, a few months later, when they finally realise it isn't really working (or costs too much money), they disappear, or we're told not to use them anymore. Senior management constantly tells us to up our sends or get our reactives out fast, but we're not allowed to complain when these tools get added, making that impossible. There is also a disconnect between leadership perception and employee experience. Feedback is said to be encouraged, but in practice, it is only well received when it aligns with existing views. More critical feedback is often avoided altogether, as employees are aware of how dissent is handled publicly (see Glassdoor replies). This creates a culture where issues are known but not openly discussed. There are still highly capable and hardworking people within the company, but the expectations placed on them are high and not always matched by recognition or reward. A small number of employees who go far beyond their roles are heavily praised and receive special treatment from the CEO, which sets an unrealistic benchmark for others. This is without even factoring in the increase in link targets for different clients, the volume of work expected day-to-day, and the need to accommodate clients who often have a limited understanding of digital PR or the service they’ve actually bought into. These factors only add to an already demanding and unrealistic workload. It’s frustrating to write a review that leans this negatively, particularly because many of the people working there are genuinely supportive and easy to get along with. However, the overall experience is ultimately shaped by the wider environment, and in this case, it’s difficult to look back on the role as anything other than predominantly negative.
