Future reviews

Unfortunately, after numerous reductions in the job benefits, forced furloughs and a shrinking workspace over the past few years, if you stick around you become numb to how dire the situation truly is--especially when the UK parent keeps telling you that it's "turning the corner." And when headcount cuts happen (repeatedly), there's a potential for higher-ups to throw staff under the bus to save themselves, so you always feel like your job is sitting on the edge of a razor. In an Internet age, media business is evolving and companies/executives need to adapt, but Future can't seem to find its way to keep readership and find profit, so it loses (or kills off) great, established brands, and with that, loses lots of good, qualified people. I'm not sure the management--especially if there are new people regularly brought in to try to effect positive change--knows what it has to do to change with the landscape, so there's a lot of "let's try this...okay, now let's try this..." strategy shifting. It's sad, because the company successfully redefined itself a number of years ago (as it went from Imagine to Snowball, then to Future) and built its business back up, only to stumble badly as it seemingly missed seeing how the Internet was forcing it to radically change its business. Right now, I'm not sure it'll maintain relevance and find a good business model before its emperors discover they're not wearing any clothes...or more that the investors will discover the clothes they bought for the emperors aren't being worn.

I worked at Future US for more than a decade, rose up the management chain, and quit when it became clear the UK-based leadership was incapable of making a successful transition from print magazines to online. The company seems to believe that digital magazines will be its salvation--which defies all conventional wisdom about the future of games, tech and enthusiast media. Digital magazine editions do nothing more than bandage print magazine wounds. They're an exit strategy. Not a growth strategy. The most fatal series of decisions involved the UK leadership pouring investment into internationalized online start-ups (Gamesradar, Techradar) instead of helping established US-based magazine brands (Official Xbox Magazine, PC Gamer, Maximum PC and Maclife) make the transition from print to web. The two "radar" properties have zero name recognition in the US market, and employ some of the most craven strategies you'll find online to monetize content. They blur the lines between advertising and editorial, and use obscene search-engine tricks to garner page clicks. The two radars may eek out revenue for the UK parent company, but they will never be major players with their current content plans. Meanwhile, the magazine brands have been gutted, and so the world watches to see these once-proud brands fade off into nothingness. Future would call this putting a brand into "maintenance mode": not investing, grabbing what revenue it can, and waiting for a war of attrition to come to an end. Other cons: Incompetent US management (though it appears they have all been sacked, and the UK runs everything now). Widespread employee contempt for the company. A building location in the middle of nowhere, accessible only by car and shuttle, and miles away from San Francisco's thriving games and tech media center. Finally, the company has zero name recognition. It means nothing on a resume.