TechSmith Reviews

Cons

Sometimes it seems that middle management doesn't listen to feedback from the engineering staff. Maybe they know something we don't, but they don't do a great job of communicating that to us when our feedback is seemingly ignored.

Cons

Seems to be little focus on anything that isn't Snagit or Camtasia

Cons

While I'm giving TechSmith a generally positive review, I think there are a lot of cons and gotchas when working here, speaking as a developer.

Like many orgs, TechSmith tends to do a very poor job evaluating employees, and recognizing consistent talent and hard work. In my case, this has led to some bitterness at times. For instance, in a past year, there was a very large, very selective bonus given out to select employees, to be picked by managers. When I calmly but firmly asked my manager why I didn't receive one of these, and what I could do in the future to receive one, I was given an answer along the lines of "You did great this year, but I dunno, it was a hard decision, I just had to pick someone". This is crushing to morale, and all too representative of how performance is normally evaluated. There were weeks when I worked 50+ hours tackling hard problems while some coworkers worked 30 while skating by, and nobody seemed to notice or care. There's been a recent development of a "career development guide" for systematically getting feedback from your peers, and while I think this is a step in the right direction, I'm not sure if this solves most of my complaints. Managers should be able to give direct, candid performance feedback, and draw clear lines between performance and compensation, but this seems to happen rarely at TechSmith. For the past few months or so, there have been "employee recognitions" every monday by the CEO, and while I appreciate the sentiment, they are very spotty and, in my experience, not always representative of the daily, consistent hard work of employees that care about doing their best.

Along those lines, engineers that are recognized one way or another as higher performers are pushed into roles/positions, often with misleading titles and explanations, and pressed more and more til some of them burn out. New roles come with a pile of nebulous ever-changing responsibility, with no clear guidance on how to perform well in them, and no clear feedback on whether or not that's being accomplished. And of course, you may be expected to operate in this new high-stress role for years without any actual promotion, because roles aren't positions, and you should just be thankful for the opportunity to be more involved.

Every 3-6 months, there's "The New Thing” in the organization that's gonna fix the problems with "The Last Thing". Whether it's management structure, development processes, engineering priorities, or team organization, you can be sure there will be some sort of radical shift in the organization every few months. Mid-upper level managers tout this as "trying to continuously improve", which sounds noble at first, but eventually starts to sound more and more like a hollow excuse. There's rarely any real acknowledgement that the last thing failed or what we learned from it, just a sudden shift to the new thing to fix all our problems. As one coworker put it, this leads to "re-org fatigue". Ideas and philosophies that were touted as indisputable fact 3 months ago are scoffed at, only to be reinvigorated in another 3 months. Engineering teams experience constant whiplash (and, yes, fatigue) as they try to maintain stable norms and processes so they can get work done, while trying to stay afloat in the constant churn. Despite the often-parroted line about nothing being beyond question, if you question The Latest Thing in any more than a superficial way, you risk being labeled disruptive. Our latest New Thing, combined with an inconsistently zealous application of Scrum, leaves some engineers feeling micromanaged or burnt out on process.

Innovation has somewhat stagnated. We work in an area where our customers expect a lot, and more and more advanced features are simply table stakes. While TechSmith used to be a leader in innovating, it feels more and more like we are trying to keep up. This worries me about the future of the company.

On the positive side, I think some of the above things are being tangibly addressed by the new CEO and new upper-level management, but only to some extent.

A coworker recently mentioned Conway's Law, which basically says that organizations tend to produce software that reflects the organization itself. I think that's true of TechSmith - friendly, polished, and even sometimes delightful on the surface, but chaotic and problematic beneath.

Cons

Despite some incredibly liberal policies regarding attendance, dress code, etc., management hasn't yet embraced the idea of more flexible work schedules. I would love the opportunity to work four 10-hour days with Fridays off, for example.

Cons

The area isn't known for terribly high salaries

Cons

There are still some employees who are fighting the necessary changes that must take place for us to be a better organization. It is frustrating to see these people "poison the well," so to speak.

Cons

On the surface, TechSmith looks like a great company. They advertise an open, collaborative, and innovative environment where you can be excited to come into work every day. They say that they put their people and customers first providing the highest quality support in the industry. For many years that was true. However, sadly the culture and focus has been rapidly changing over the past 8 months and a lot of very talented people are leaving. It is now an organization where bottom line is number one, period.
The executive and senior leadership team talks a great game and you’ll find yourself nodding in agreement believing every word when they give updates in companywide forums. However, when you meet with them one on one, or talk to the people who are working directly on the projects it is another story. There is an open-door policy and you are encouraged to make suggestions and foster healthy conflict. However, if your thinking is too far from their vision you will at best be ignored at worst be belittled and subjected to further scrutiny. People who were once very passionate, vocal and innovative have started shutting down. It’s a complicated game that you can’t win. If you keep head down and focus on your job you are punished for not being an engaging and innovative team player. If you engage in a lot of meetings and discussion you are punished for not producing numbers.
Very clear favoritism is given to good self-promoters. Individuals who spend a lot of time on experimental projects, grossly inflate their success and then spend more time discussing and promoting the project than actually working on it are favored over those who try to balance current responsibilities and dabble in experimental projects. Collaboration between teams and departments has been weak for years which makes it very easy to point fingers and lay blame elsewhere when a product or project doesn’t perform.
A great example of the Jekyll and Hyde personality is the new CEO. While there is no doubt she is intelligent and experienced in many areas her communication skills are off-putting. When speaking in large groups she tries too hard to be likable and comes off as almost ditzy. In smaller groups and one on one she is often extremely narrow focused demanding and aggressive.
The culture is reminiscent of a small town high school. For the most part everyone knows everyone and seems to get along well. However, gossip and slander runs rampant and is often taken as truth without verification. The circle of trust is growing smaller and smaller every day and people you thought were allies will stab you in the back if given the chance to make them look better. Casual hook ups and relationships among employees are common and not discouraged unless they are direct reports. This can make it very uncomfortable for coworkers once the relationship fizzles out. Rumors are that there have been harassment dismissals and restraining orders in the past few years but of course none of that can be confirmed. As a whole, I think there are a lot of good people but the environment and situations they have been put in make them want to fend for themselves instead of work together.
You will be required to learn and work with several different systems to do your job (20+) with very little formal training. Most of which are antiquated, underused or so customized it is difficult for the manufactures to support. The front-line staff is often asked “You are a tech company; how can you not provide X information or service?” It is quite embarrassing. Several system reviews to update and consolidate systems have occurred during my time but rarely result in anything. Recently there was an outside consultant in for several days to map the systems and I believe that project is underway but I imagine it will be years before anything changes.
Great award winning products but their future is questionable. Snagit is a fantastic product but will likely become obsolete very soon as free products are improving and organizations are tightening their budgets. Relay has hemorrhaged money from the company for years. At one point it was going to be killed but now it is being revitalized. I have hopes for it but it is a saturated and fast moving market and our products have been behind from the start. Coach’s Eye was high performing in its market but could not generating revenue. Morae is dying a slow death. The only hope is in Camtasia and moving to SaaS. However, TechSmith has and will likely continue to struggle to support SaaS.

Cons

A lot of change is happening, in leadership and in the day-to-day organization of work.This can cause a lot of disruption.

Cons

The management needs some improvement for sure and needs to evolve to be more than what is currently is. Senior leadership is changing for the better and is becoming more transparent and is becoming much more approachable.

TechSmith is currently in an evolving state, and those who have the patience for it will be rewarded with not only a better employee hierarchy, but an overall better place to share ideas and progress in their careers.

Cons

- Being overpaid while doing absolutely nothing to move forward in your technical career. What type of people does that retain?
- No sense of innovation, just keep doing whatever you were doing in the past.
- Don't be "that guy/girl" with a new idea. No one wants to put in more time.
- Change product direction every two months. And the hardest working people who keep up with that, who want to be part of a great product, end up walking away.
- Have no product direction. Start a project and kill it before it ever has a chance to get anywhere. Then place the software engineers that were on that product on a terrible CMS solution as a day job. And overpay them.
- No branding. People who use Camtasia and Snagit have no idea who Techsmith is.
- Seniority based on time and not experience + effort.
- Management is too proud and doesn't want to take any real blame.