Scribd is being transparent about not being a customer-first organization in which every team contributes to customer happiness. It's saying the company doesn't want to deal with customers, and you're constantly going to be nagging them for the smallest scraps to improve the customer experience.
Overall, I don't think the company presents itself well, and I have concerns about what this role is expected to do. I don't think we've quite hit Seriously, Maybe Don't, but it's definitely a BINGO.
I know, there's someone out there who loves this kind of thing. But I can't help but read that as, "we have no idea what it takes to actually run Support or Trust & Safety in this space and therefore we have unrealistic expectations for this role and have no idea how to meaningfully support it."
Seems great. We get a little more information about the seniority of this role, so I don't really have any concerns about the responsibilities, and the pay seems great for the region.
This role is very similar to the other Product Support Specialist role, and so I have the same questions about leveling. But again, everything else is good, and the pay range makes sense for what seems to be a slightly more senior role.
The rest of the job description seems fine. And while the pay is good for this role, it isn't for frontline roles, which pisses me off, so into Tread Carefully it goes.
I mean, the comp is $140,000-$180,000, but that doesn't seem nearly enough for a role that's running CS, Ops, IT, HR, and maybe also the rest of the company?
I'm glad that my anxiety was proven unnecessary – this sounds like a great job with great pay and benefits. It's not so outstanding that I feel comfortable giving it a Green Means Go, but it's a high Eh, It's Probably Fine.
I'm sorry, the fuck? You want this role to build out its own completely separate product development function to fix a product so seemingly broken that even the Engineering, Product, and Design teams don't want to deal with it anymore? ARE YOU KIDDING ME
Aside from the higher experience requirement, it's not at all clear what makes this role more senior than the other Success role. It's not *that* worrisome, but I'd ask about it in interviews.
Can we just acknowledge that maybe it is recklessly, unforgivably irresponsible to allow 20-somethings who appear to have no professional experience before 2022 to be in charge of AI products that could destabilize democracies?
