Red Bee Media Reviews

I can write a book on how not to run a company during my time working here but here are my top 5 cons. 1. The Worst Management i have ever witnessed, no training or communication skills acquired across the board. The higher up you go the worse things get. Management is either extremely passive leading to a jungle environment or the complete opposite leading to needless stress. 2. Corners cut in every angle, IT Support outsourced as cheap as possible causing more outages, complete lack of equipment and constant hiding problems under the rug attitude to avoid clients knowing the awful truth. 3. Sexism and bullying hidden by team leaders and ops leads by telling people it’s part of their culture and they can’t change. 4. Team morale in every department abysmally low due to lack of respect to staff. Complete ignorance from the highest level to the health awareness of workers in a 24 hour work environment, extreme staff cuts have meant members of staff are working more than 8 nightshifts in a row clearly affecting their mental health, management ignore this issue as long as the client is happy 5. A complete who you know employment culture within the company which had led to a virus of incompetence in every area, this has spread throughout the building to a point in which the company is as good as dead.

I was a manager in this office years ago and left when I couldn’t tolerate any more. I’ve spent much time in the aftermath reflecting on this departure and have come to, for me at least, a definitive conclusion that made sense of my experience there. If you’re thinking of joining, then please consider my thoughts before applying. The fundamental problem is mistaken identity. Since the early 2000s when I joined, subtitling has become a factory. A word-production plant. But this is never acknowledged and the self-denial gives rise to flawed recruitment. Red Bee has a habit of hiring and promoting the wrong people to do the wrong job – myself included. Subtitling is relentless and monotonous. It’s all about productivity and accuracy, with everything accounted for. This isn’t a criticism of the role: it’s a fair description of its nature. It suits a specific type of person; the vast majority of people I worked with did not match the ideal model, because management held a different one in their imagination. The candidates who sailed through interviews were intelligent, expressive, highly educated and creative. This leads to an inevitable workforce disaster: these individuals – and they are individuals – begin to view themselves as automatic word-churning machines. One of a huge number on the factory line (hello, ‘sick’ days). It’s a relentless, monotonous job that’s been aggressively corporatised through the years. There is no room for freedom, let alone creativity. Of course, applicants should be bright and, yes, it’s hard to seek lovers of language who aren’t creative. But think about the job function: subtitlers support all that exciting stuff that goes on in TV land. Big shows, fast-shifting schedules, round-the-clock action, crazy deadlines. Except subtitlers aren’t the creatives in a BBC studio – they are providing an auxiliary service. They experience the long unsocial hours associated with television without any of the prime-time glamour. The ideal candidate therefore needs to enjoy repetitive work spread over long, variable hours, while coolly handling any mini emergencies. A cross between a data entry clerk and a security guard. Don’t picture it to be an office: ‘on the floor’ would be a better term. If this sounds like your idea of a great job – something ceaselessly high volume and meticulous – then go for it because the department needs you. But if you’re in any way dynamic, then you would find the role something of a professional stranglehold. Forget it if you have a big personality. Doubly forget it if you have a big social life! My error was to assume that I would be able to express myself when I got into management. Not so. Essentially, my job was to ensure that all work got covered. But a more accurate description would be: my relentless and monotonous job was to ensure that all relentless and monotonous work got covered by staff who were fed up with the relentless and monotonous nature of their jobs. The cognitive dissonance was unbearable. I apologise if this comes across caustic; as I said before, I was simply not suitable for the world of subtitling. It was my own mistake to believe otherwise (I now work in the creative industries). Reading contemporary reviews, it seems the issues have persisted. I am not surprised. For the unhappiness to fully dissipate, it'll take (a) many, many more waves of the right recruits (b) a comprehensive replacement of management as they wither away (c) new-generation management to keep hiring and promoting staff in their image. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with the job, much like there is nothing wrong with being a plumber, a seamstress, or a snooker referee. It suits a certain type of character, and that needs to be properly underlined in the job description. Stop hiring candidates with flair and earmarking them for progression, since cracking senior management (the point at which it becomes non-relentless) is ultra-rare. And accept that the job is a slog, instead of taking offence when this is fed back. When you’re job hunting and the Red Bee Media Subtitler advert pops up, it’s all too tempting to buy into the promise. The pay’s good, the novelty's twinkling, it’s sort of like working in TV. I mean, it’s even got ‘Media’ in the title. That’s pretty cool, right? Proceed with caution. There’s a good reason why this office suffers a bitter legacy. It’s a niche job for niche workers. To source them, I have thought of an apt question they should ask at interview – it may come across as sarcastic but I do feel it’s an insightful query, given my significant history with the organisation. Have you had any call centre experience before… and did you enjoy it?