Torn between 👍 and 👎 - Avis employé Employé (anonyme) Go Local Interactive

This company is amazing. The leadership team is strong, supportive, and genuinely cares about the culture they are building. I would take some of the negative reviews with a grain of salt, as they may come from former employees who were unhappy with being held accountable for their performance. I found it to be a fun and rewarding place to work, with competitive pay and plenty of opportunities to grow. One thing I appreciated was that leadership set clear expectations and held employees accountable, which helped create a high-performing environment. Overall, it was a great experience, and I would recommend the company to others considering a career there.

Only thing would say is that the food downstairs sucks.

Some of the employees are true gems that will help you improve and be a better human.

I worked here for several years and left with mixed feelings. There are genuinely talented people at this company, but structural and leadership issues held it back in meaningful ways. Direct management was often ineffective and difficult to work with. Compensation increases were consistently underwhelming, and it became clear over time that meaningful pay bumps were reserved for those in favor with leadership, frequently disguised as title changes rather than real advancement. The CEO's fixation on in-office presence over actual results signaled a fundamental distrust of employees and reflected a broader culture that prioritized optics over outcomes. The sales team operated with too little oversight, which created persistent friction with other departments. Go Local has a tendency to reward difficult client behavior rather than address it, which only encouraged more of it. This made not only the day to day, but also evenings for the poor souls who had to manage the fallout. Product development was too heavily influenced by individual client requests rather than a coherent long-term vision. The web department and leadership has a habit of chasing new projects and features before stabilizing what already exists. This spreads the team thin. Low performers were given far too many chances, with some able to coast without consequence for extended periods. This eroded morale for those carrying the weight and sent the wrong message about what was expected.