Pros
* The people I worked with were fantastic. When I started, I had great mentors who encouraged growth, and I had the opportunity to collaborate with some of the smartest and hardest-working individuals from around the world. * My first four to five years at MonetizeMore were truly great. I worked with leaders who fostered talent, encouraged innovative thinking, and genuinely believed in their team members. The leadership during that time was inspiring, especially in Ad Ops. The team was intelligent, driven, and supportive. We hustled, worked as a team, celebrated wins together, and tackled challenges with camaraderie. * Company retreats were held every few years, providing a great opportunity to connect with colleagues, improve communication, and strengthen professional relationships. * A good entry point for those starting in ad tech—you’ll gain exposure to programmatic fundamentals. * The diversity and fully remote setup were aspects I appreciated, offering flexibility and inclusivity for global talent. * While no job is 100% fulfilling all the time, I’m grateful for the valuable experiences I had and the incredible people I worked with. The team I worked with toward the end of my tenure was outstanding—resilient, full of grit, and rich with ideas.
Cons
1. I was part of the recent layoffs, and while I understand that restructuring was necessary given the company's situation, the way it was handled was less than ideal. Layoffs happen, and we get that, but it felt like the process lacked professionalism. Many loyal employees who would have understood the situation were given exits that weren’t as tactful or respectful as they deserved. A simple, direct email notification would have been more respectful than the unnecessary theatrics. There were several other instances before and after the layoff that the company really mishandled, certain business practices/decisions raised concerns about ethical considerations. 2. There was also disparity in how employees were treated and compensated. - One example that stood out was when feedback was relayed to me through someone else instead of being communicated to me directly—simply because that person and I shared the same country of origin. At the time, I was surprised by this reasoning, but upon reflection, I realized that similar situations had occurred in different ways. This approach felt unprofessional and gave the impression that feedback was not being handled equitably. It reduced the conversation to a personal characteristic rather than my role and expertise. The company needs to ensure that feedback is delivered professionally and based on merit, not superficial factors like background. - For industry newcomers, this company can provide a decent entry point for experience, but given the recent layoffs, long-term job security is uncertain. More experienced professionals should carefully review contracts and research growth opportunities before joining. Some Ad Ops staff, even after years at the company, were still earning around $600—far below what’s reasonable given the performance expectations. - Some unprofessional remarks and behavior from some coworkers can be dismaying to deal with because some leaders will excuse them as "it's part of their culture". In a diverse team, professionalism and respect should be a priority, regardless of cultural differences. 3. The company talks a lot about being open to feedback and fostering kaizen but in practice, it sometimes felt like feedback was more welcomed when it aligned with existing views. There was a lack of consistent vision at the C and V levels, with only a few individuals demonstrating clarity on direction.(e.g., the new finance leader stood out as highly strategic and well-structured). There were too many short-term workarounds without clear consideration for long-term impact and goals. The workarounds even often become issues due to the lack of planning and basic RCA. Pointing out these issues was sometimes dismissed as pessimism rather than acknowledged as constructive, data-driven input. 4. Many meetings lacked follow-through, making it difficult to see tangible progress. At times, these meetings felt more performative than action-driven. While some improvements were made over time, this remains an area that needs attention. Greater alignment and consistency from C and V-level leadership would help the organization succeed. Encouraging discussions that lead to clear actions—rather than surface-level check-ins—would foster accountability and meaningful progress. The same level of accountability should also apply to C and V-level leadership, ensuring they follow through on commitments and set the tone for execution. Additionally, the imbalance in workload across departments suggests a need for clearer goals and better strategic planning at the top.