Weber Shandwick reviews

--As others have said, there's most definitely a sense of favoritism and office politics; whether you are recognized or given new opportunities will depend on who you're buddies with at the office --Low salary for the market and not negotiable --IT resources (old equipment, takes forever to get upgraded) --Virtually nonexistent training (formal training is maybe once every 4-6 months but it's not prioritized) --Very top heavy...waaaaay more VPs than AEs or SAEs -- that just doesn't seem sustainable

Inconsistent team structures & ways of working makes it difficult to manage projects efficiently. Let's put it this way: someone new comes into the picture and wants to change everything? Micro-manage from top to bottom? Then, you have to roll with it. They hire lots of interns. And some of these interns stay in this role for 10+ years; for some, it's their only role ever. There are pros and cons to this -- but it does create a very specific bubble where new methods, ideas, different terminologies or ways of working outside of this boxed agency world are unappreciated and unwelcome. Plus, most of their work processes are inconsistent, messy, and clunky. Do you like only using Teams for project management? It’s archaic. And if you're lucky - you'll get interesting accounts. It feels like a popularity contest with accounts. Interns always seem to get interesting work. But interesting work is not guaranteed for experienced hires. Personally, I feel like I’ve been lured by recruited with big names and then catfished to do grunt work no one else wants.