Pros
The non-leadership staff is incredibly hardworking, talented, and creative. These are the people who actually bring campaigns to life and support each other through impossible workloads. Exposure to a wide variety of clients and projects in the homebuilding space. You learn quickly and wear many hats, which can grow your skill set.
Cons
Leadership is disproportionately focused on hiring more executives and VPs rather than investing in the people who actually do the work. This creates a top-heavy structure where decisions are made far from the realities of daily execution. Because of this, workloads for those producing the work are overwhelming. Unrealistic deadlines are the norm, and the lack of adequate staffing makes it almost impossible to deliver the kind of quality expected without significant personal sacrifice. Pay inequality is stark. Leadership compensation is extremely high, while those underneath struggle to earn raises of just a few thousand dollars after years of going above and beyond. Raises and promotions are tied to vague, often invisible criteria that feel unattainable for most employees. Leadership builds a false sense of hope for those trying to do their best. They often reel people in by faking personal care and investment in the employee’s future growth or recognition, only to turn around and make a cold “business decision” that directly impacts employees’ lives. There is a lack of transparency between leadership’s intentions and the company’s outcomes. Employees are frequently pushed into roles, responsibilities, or workloads they didn’t sign up for without any clear explanation of why. This creates confusion, burnout, and distrust. Not every department has equally measurable business goals, and some are saddled with completely unrealistic targets. Despite the company’s struggles to retain clients (often losing as many as it gains each year), leadership continues to set lofty annual profit increases that simply do not match the business reality. This creates stress and resentment when employees are pressured to hit goals that are unachievable from the start. Leadership presents themselves as relatable, but their view of day-to-day reality feels out of touch. Conversations about equity, diversity, or work-life balance rarely translate into action, largely because these issues do not affect them personally. There is a double standard when it comes to expectations: employees are expected to work at high-capacity and quality, quickly, and cheaply at all times, while leadership regularly takes time away for family or extracurriculars without concern. PTO flexibility seems to apply only to those at the top. Culture-wise, the agency views itself as a large corporation, not a small, people-first agency (which is how it promotes itself). Employees are treated as replaceable; someone with a flashier background can always be brought in for clout. This creates an environment of insecurity rather than loyalty. Employee retention is poor, but not because people quit. It’s because so many are fired. There is a constant revolving door, and it’s clear the agency has a serious hiring problem. Instead of addressing it, leadership continues to cycle through people at all levels, which destabilizes teams and morale. Leadership often emphasizes the “we’re a family” mantra, but there is a clear barrier between themselves and the rest of the company. Most executives have little to no knowledge of who their employees are, their struggles, or even their contributions. The culture at the top operates like an exclusive clique. You either get invited into it or you get shut out. And for those outside it, advancement feels impossible. Diversity is severely lacking. The hiring pipeline continuously reflects the existing leadership: primarily white, extroverted, and culturally similar to those already in power. This results in a lack of new perspectives and limits the company’s ability to truly connect with a wide range of audiences. Many clients hold outdated marketing views and unreasonable expectations, and when the agency attempts to push the work in a stronger direction, clients are often condescending or dismissive. Some clients have questionable morals and world views, which can be directly harmful to employees’ values and identities. Yet leadership continues to work with them because it’s “just business,” sending a clear signal that revenue matters more than people. Account management frequently allows clients to steer the work entirely, even when it’s not in their best interest. This results in watered-down campaigns and lackluster results. Inevitably, clients then wonder why performance is poor, which creates a cycle of blame and frustration. Leadership only seems to care about their credibility for winning industry awards, prioritizing that over clients’ happiness or the quality of performance or number of conversions. Not every campaign can or should be an award-winner, yet leadership treats them as if they must be. This creates impossible pressure on employees and fuels constant burnout. Leadership positions the agency as “the best in the homebuilding industry,” but their approach hasn’t meaningfully evolved in decades. The industry itself is resistant to change, and rather than leading innovation, leadership reinforces the same outdated playbook, leaving staff stuck executing strategies that don’t align with modern marketing trends. Benefits leave much to be desired. The company contributes a flat amount to healthcare each year, and that number never increases, even as premiums rise annually. This means employees effectively pay more out of pocket every year, with no adjustment or scaling to help offset the cost. A fairer system would be for the company to contribute a percentage that grows alongside premium increases.