Beware | If you're going to join (or thinking of acquiring us) read this first!
Pros
I will say that the annual raises at least for hourly employees seem to be above average for most companies, so that is one positive Leadership team loves and talks a ton about AI
Cons
Note to general readers: This feedback i've shifted intentionally to protect my own anonymity. Through this review you won't be able to tell what part of the organization I actually work in. About Me: I am a tenured employee at Chatbooks. I am a woman. For privacy and safety reasons, my identity and department are intentionally concealed. Organizational Culture: Zero Accountability from Top to Bottom Leadership Conduct and Decision-Making -From the founders to mid-level management, Chatbooks exhibits a pattern of poor accountability. Key examples: - Nate Quigley (co-founder) treats Chatbooks as a personal playground. --Hires family members into high-paying roles that far exceed their experience or contribution. --Example: Vanessa Quigley (co-founder) was brought in to work in marketing despite not reflecting the company’s younger target demographic. She delegates most of her responsibilities to others but receives high compensation nonetheless. If you've watched Chatbooks socials, and noticed a decrease in the quality of content, the number of mistakes, and things that don't make sense, this is why. Repeated Push for Ineffective Product Ideas -Founders consistently push pet projects (e.g., an overpriced, under-featured journaling app) that consume excessive engineering and strategic resources. There is no true market testing or analysis done before the build stage of these projects. -These ideas are frequently positioned as transformative (“turning Chatbooks into a software company”), despite unanimous internal skepticism, and knowledge that these ideas are truly poor ideas -Criticism is silenced; feedback loops are broken. “The Quigley's like it” is the rationale used to continue poor initiatives, even when usage data suggests failure. Dysfunctional Senior Leadership Toxic Work Environment and Gender Dynamics Some direct feedback and criticism of current senior leaders: -Nate (co-founder, ceo), emotional and unstable. No one wants to directly report or work with him. This is commonly known, but yet a hidden topic at the company since Nate doesn't like to be questioned. Talented team members have left directly because of this leadership style (or lack thereof). Nate continually pushes for really bad ideas from a product side. He believes these new paths will 'save the company.' Literally a new one every year it seems. Journaling app (mentioned more below), HeyFam, this new Chatbooks Studio thing that is AI to create your own book. None of these ideas ever really gain ANY traction. Studio has been launched a few weeks, and I think has had like 10 people use it (and the time and cost to do it seems high). At what point will he have any level of self reflection and realize he doesn't have any good ideas, (outside of Chatbooks, which was a good idea! -- but it actually started as a bad idea and pivoted), and has also had 0 execution of any new ideas. -Dan (President), a departing exec, is broadly viewed as toxic, dismissive of his team, avoids coaching, and treats women unfairly. His exit is considered a net positive by most of the team. -Doug (COO), another exec, exhibits similar patterns: a. Multiple team members have left because his management. b. Literally he said out loud that he doesn't like a colleague of his (a woman subordinate multiple levels beneath him) because she doesn't smile enough c. He is known for being emotional, reactive, and poor at planning—traits shared by Doug, Doug's direct reports, Nate, and others. d. Every woman I know who reports to him, or works closely with him says that they literally look at his calendar multiple times when they have something to tell him, because they know certain meetings put him in a bad mood and if he's in a bad mood he's extremely rude to them. They all communicate to each other so that they can approach him properly. e. Forecasting and strategic planning are weak, often worse than even poorly-run peers in the industry. -Others a. Some other execs on Doug's team are basically Doug 2.0 as they don't really push back on things that they easily could and that would help their teams dramatically. b. Many have an opportunity to truly listen more, take feedback and drive change Senior leaders seemingly randomly question different aspects of the business when they are getting pressure from above, then back off and basically move onto the next "fire" without getting to any sort of resolution. Most of the poorly executed ideas or processes were designed by the very same execs questioning them. The broader company/teams know this, but can't discuss or bring it up with the execs. This cycle discourages accountability and honest feedback, and is especially targeted at women. Speaking up is implicitly discouraged (especially a woman speaking up to a man), often resulting in deflection and blame-shifting (typically toward a woman team member). Team-Level Operations and Accountability Failures Customer Support Team Dysfunction This is included as the support org is a large % of the overall Chatbooks team. 1.The support team operates without consistent leadership or accountability. a. When a recent org leader left, the replacement inherited more responsibilities without increased compensation or even the title that matched their predecessor. b. Customer Support Orgs leadership team is easily swayed since they are interested in keeping everyone happy. One call they'll have one view, then the next call the opposite based on what is being said during the call by a different person, and then if there's another conversation or meeting the original view may be presented and looked at positively again. c. Coaching and performance management are minimal or nonexistent. Many employees have never receiving adequate coaching, including the leadership teams (from top to bottom) Example: Almost all team members have missed multiple shifts without consequence (even though they implemented a "strikes" system...which doesn't matter since no one follows it or are held accountable). I, just like all of my peers, have personally missed many shifts over the last 6 months, and haven't 'even been made aware that I violated the policy. I appreciate that flexibility, but it is a main factor for the teams performance to continue a downward trend. One leader told me directly that they only work around 10 hours a week while earning significantly more than their peers. This leader also doesn't hold their team accountable at all, and to my knowledge almost never completes any valuable coaching sessions or 1/1 with their team. This is pretty standard for the support orgs leaders, but not always their fault as this disfunction rolls down hill from the very top. Equity, Compensation and Promotions Promotions and Raises 1. Promotions are rare and often symbolic — employees are expected to take on more responsibility without a title change or pay increase. a. One exception: Annual raises for hourly employees have been slightly above average compared to peer companies. Gender and Racial Equity 1.Women consistently face dismissiveness, are talked over, and are more likely to be blamed when issues arise. 2. Office-based employees (who are often male) receive more flexibility and better compensation. This has improved slightly over time, but the poor accountability and leadership play into this heavily. Racial Diversity 1. There appears to be little to no racial diversity in leadership or broader teams. 2. A former BIPOC employee told me were they fired for infractions significantly less severe than those regularly committed by peers or leadership. Exit Strategy Obsession Selling the Company 1.Leadership, particularly Nate, frequently talks about selling the company. a. This is openly discussed this publically and it's well-known. b. However, few employees have received any equity participation — even long-tenured team members have no ownership. Misaligned Strategic Focus 1. Obsession with "big bets" has caused the company to ignore basic improvements and core operational fixes. 2. These big swings rarely pay off and further erode morale and productivity. Misleading Public Image 1. Most positive reviews on Glassdoor are incentivized or orchestrated, which conceals the company’s dysfunction Final Thoughts for Readers, Investors and Acquirers 1. The lack of accountability and leadership failure at Chatbooks is pervasive, and largely hidden from external due diligence. While the company may show surface-level traction or marketing flair, internal dysfunction should raise serious red flags and influence valuation. 2. YOU'RE MOST LIKELY GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY OVERPAY Search Keywords (for added visibility to incoming team members, and/or investor/acquirers doing any sort of due diligence): Chatbooks Due Diligence, Chatbooks Due-Diligence, Chatbooks Investor, Chatbooks Leadership, Chatbooks Culture, Nate Quigley, Vanessa Quigley, Chatbooks Market Analysis, Photobook Market Analysis, Chatbooks employee reviews, Chatbooks leadership review, Chatbooks founder problems, Chatbooks management issues, Chatbooks internal culture, Chatbooks employee turnover, Chatbooks employee experience, Chatbooks Glassdoor truth, Chatbooks org structure problems, Chatbooks company morale, Chatbooks toxic culture, Chatbooks acquisition risks, Chatbooks internal due diligence, Chatbooks investment risks, Chatbooks red flags, Chatbooks insights, Chatbooks leadership evaluation, Chatbooks management due diligence, Chatbooks pre-acquisition analysis, Chatbooks valuation risk factors, Chatbooks organizational risk, Photo book industry review, Photobook SaaS insights, Consumer tech leadership review, Direct-to-consumer tech company review, Subscription app dysfunction, Consumer tech valuation risk, Mobile app leadership review, Consumer tech due diligence, Utah startup review, Utah tech company culture