Pros
There are some genuinely strong people across the business, particularly in legal, product, tech and finance. These teams often feel far more grounded, collaborative and focused on delivering real work. The CTO is widely respected — and it’s not hard to see why. Other senior leaders could probably take a leaf out of his book because the contrast between these areas and others is noticeable.
Cons
This is one of the most difficult environments I’ve worked in, not just professionally, but personally. What makes it worse is that it presents itself as a fun, values-driven, people-first company, when in reality that couldn’t be further from the truth. Over time, I felt increasingly marginalised and uncomfortable in the environment. It reached a point where taking time off became necessary just to cope with the atmosphere, something I know others also had to do. By the end, I wasn’t focused on growth or development, I was simply trying to get through each day and leave with my confidence intact. Favouritism is a consistent issue, particularly at senior levels. Progression, recognition, and opportunities often feel influenced by alignment with senior leadership rather than merit. This isn’t limited to one or two individuals, it feels embedded in how certain parts of the business operate. If you’re not in that orbit, it becomes very clear and very limiting. In certain parts of the business, particularly those centred around brand, storytelling and internal visibility, there is an overwhelming focus on optics over output. I witnessed multiple presentations led by the same senior female leader where the narrative consistently centred on individual contribution (very me, myself and I), overlooking the reality that the work was delivered through multiple teams and stakeholders across the business. This wasn’t a one-off but a clear pattern. In one instance, a fully developed piece of work was dropped in favour of something more performative and “fun” for a final presentation intended to showcase team-wide achievements, yet entire functions were excluded, leaving large parts of the team, including more junior contributors, underrepresented. Choosing optics over accurately reflecting the work delivered (especially at that level) felt misjudged and at odds with the “collaborative” culture the company promotes. That same environment often rewards a very specific personality type: loud, performative and outwardly “fun.” This was reinforced by multiple individuals in leadership positions. If you are more detail-focused, thoughtful, or simply not as extroverted, it can feel like there is little space for you. In my experience, this translated into feeling personally undermined rather than supported. At times, the behaviour felt unprofessional and unnecessarily pointed, which only added to an already difficult environment. The culture can feel cliquey and, at times, surprisingly immature. There are clear in-groups and dynamics that feel closer to a “mean girls” environment than a professional workplace. Relationships between certain senior leaders and their direct reports often appear overly familiar, creating a perception of blurred boundaries and favouritism. This is reinforced by what feels like inconsistent application of rules, including around expenses and general treatment, where there is a noticeable divide in who benefits. It’s difficult to ignore, and over time it erodes trust in the fairness of the environment. There is also an excessive focus on presentations. Endless decks, constant internal PR, and a need to repeatedly “sell” minimal progress means very little time is left for meaningful work. This behaviour is encouraged across multiple teams, not just isolated pockets. It often feels like you’re working in a loop of visibility rather than delivery. HR is present, but frustratingly ineffective. Issues can be raised, but it’s difficult to see meaningful change. Patterns continue, and it can feel like double standards as certain behaviours are overlooked depending on who is involved. Attrition is high, and it’s not surprising. I also know multiple people who have left the business and felt so disillusioned by the experience that they’ve completely changed career direction afterwards. That alone should be a red flag. I’m now at a company where the difference is night and day. The quality of work, the access to tools, the level of thinking, and the consistency of leadership are on a completely different level. People stay, not for 1–3 years, but 5–10+ and they actively praise the culture, even through leadership changes over time. That in itself says everything. Looking back, I genuinely regret how long I stayed, hoping things would improve. It stalled my growth more than I realised at the time. If you’re serious about your career, about growth, genuine investment in employees, and working in an environment that will actually develop and recognise you, do yourself a favour and look elsewhere. They say the grass isn’t always greener, but at ETV it’s artificial and I'm back in an environment where I'm touching real grass again.