Most agencies hide their bad reviews. We built a page for ours. That’s the short version of this article — but the longer version is more interesting, and probably more useful if you’re deciding whether to trust Kaizenaire with your hiring.
I’ve been running Kaizenaire since 2019, and before that, Charlotte and I spent the better part of a decade working with Filipino remote talents before we ever formalised anything into a company. Over 15 years and more than one million Filipino candidate applications filtered through our process, I’ve had time to learn something uncomfortable: the way an agency handles bad reviews tells you everything about how it handles its bad moments in general.
So. Why did I write a whole page about the bad reviews we get? Let me walk you through three real patterns — and what each one actually means.
The Review That Made Me Stop and Think
About two years ago, a former placed talent left us a 1-star review. I read it on a Wednesday morning, before my second coffee, and my first instinct was defensive. The review described our monitoring software as “invasive.” It said we were “controlling.” It implied we didn’t trust the people we placed.
Let me back up, because my initial defensiveness wasn’t the honest response.
We do require monitoring software. It’s contractually agreed before any talent starts — client side and talent side. We require it because Singapore SME clients paying SGD $1,050 to $1,350 a month all-in for a remote Filipino talent have every right to know that their remote team member is actually working during the agreed hours. That’s not distrust. That’s accountability — the same accountability you’d expect from any professional setup.
But reading that review, I had to ask myself: did we explain this well enough before the contract was signed? Was the talent genuinely surprised? And if they were surprised — that’s partly on us, not just on them.
That’s the review that made me decide we needed a page for this stuff. Because my defensive first instinct was exactly the wrong one, and I don’t want an agency that protects its defensive first instinct at the cost of honest accountability.
Three Patterns in Our Bad Reviews (And What They Actually Mean)
I’ve now read every negative review we’ve received — across Google, Facebook, and the handful that come in by message. They cluster into three patterns, which is roughly what I expected. What I didn’t expect was how useful they’d be as a diagnostic.
Pattern 1: The monitoring software complaint
This is the most common. A former talent — usually someone who left or was asked to leave — describes our monitoring requirements as excessive. “They watch your screen.” “They time your breaks.” “Felt like I wasn’t trusted.”
Here’s what I’ll say plainly: yes, we require monitoring software. It’s disclosed upfront, agreed contractually, and it’s the mechanism by which we can guarantee to our Singapore SME clients that the talent they’re paying for is actually present and working. Without it, we’re just trusting everyone on faith, which sounds nice but doesn’t actually protect the client or give the talent a verifiable track record.
What these reviews sometimes reveal — and this is the uncomfortable part — is that we don’t always do a perfect job of explaining the monitoring setup before someone signs. Charlotte has tightened the onboarding documentation twice in the last 18 months specifically because of this feedback. We’re better at it now than we were in 2022. Not perfect, but better.
So if you’re a Filipino professional reading this and wondering whether to work with us: yes, we use monitoring software. It’s part of the model. If that’s not for you, it’s genuinely better to know that now than three months in.
Pattern 2: The “they didn’t fight for me” complaint
This one is harder to read. A talent is let go by the client — sometimes for performance reasons, sometimes because the client’s business contracted, sometimes because it’s genuinely ambiguous — and the review blames Kaizenaire for not advocating strongly enough on the talent’s behalf.
I take this one seriously. Not because I think we always get it wrong, but because I know we sometimes do.
The honest answer is that Kaizenaire operates a three-way relationship: us, the Singapore SME client, and the Filipino talent. In most situations, all three parties’ interests align. When a client’s business shrinks and they can no longer afford the placement, we try to find the talent a new placement — that’s the 90-day replacement window, which in practice often works in the talent’s favour too, because we’re actively trying to keep them earning.
But there are situations where the client is letting someone go for genuine performance reasons, and in those situations, I’m not going to tell the client they’re wrong if the evidence suggests otherwise. I’ll be honest: some of those reviews come from people who were genuinely underperforming, and the review is the last word in a conversation that didn’t go well. I can’t say that publicly about any specific case. But it’s the truth of what’s happening in at least a portion of these reviews.
The part I will own: we could communicate better with talents during the off-boarding process. We’re working on that. It doesn’t feel good to read a 1-star review from someone who felt abandoned, even when the underlying decision was the right one.
Pattern 3: The wrong-fit client complaint
This pattern comes from the client side, not the talent side. It’s rarer, but it exists. The review typically says something like: “The candidate wasn’t what I expected” or “Kaizenaire charged a management fee but didn’t help when things went wrong.”
Wait, I should clarify what I mean by “wrong-fit client” — because it sounds like I’m blaming them, and that’s not quite right.
Some of these reviews reflect genuine gaps in our screening. We screen for attitude first, skills second, and AI-willingness third — because our experience across one million-plus applicants tells us that attitude is the hardest thing to develop and the easiest thing to screen for. But screening isn’t perfect. Sometimes a candidate who interviews well doesn’t perform well in the actual role. When that happens, the right response is to activate the 90-day replacement window — not to take it to a public review forum — but not every client knows that’s what they should do.
Some of these reviews reflect mismatched expectations. A client who expected us to be a 24/7 support line discovers we’re a management layer, not a concierge. A client who expected salary arbitrage discovers we actually care about whether the placement works for the talent too. Boh pian — that mismatch is on both of us, but mostly on us for not setting expectations clearly enough in the first conversation.
Why I Published the Page Instead of Burying the Reviews
The honest reason: I’ve seen too many agencies that look perfect on paper and are disasters to work with. When I’m evaluating a vendor — for anything — I actively look for where their negative reviews are. Not because I enjoy reading complaints, but because a vendor with no visible bad reviews is either too new to have generated them or too opaque to let you see them. Neither is reassuring.
I want Kaizenaire to be the agency you can actually evaluate. Which means giving you the negative evidence, not just the positive.
Charlotte raised a practical concern when I first proposed this — something like “Ken, are you sure you want to just hand this ammunition to our competitors?” (She’s the Operations Partner who keeps me from doing the really questionable things.) I told her yes, because I’d rather lose a deal to a competitor who leverages our transparency against us than win a deal by obscuring our failures. That still feels like the right call to me, two years on.
The page exists at kaizenaire.ai/bad-reviews/. It’s not a curated selection of mildly critical reviews we can easily explain away. It’s the actual reviews, with my commentary on each pattern. I’ll update it as new patterns emerge.
What the Reviews Don’t Capture
There’s a version of the bad reviews story I haven’t told yet, which is what’s missing from them.
The monitoring software complaints don’t capture the Singapore SME client who hired a Filipino VA without any accountability structure, got burned, came to us, and now has a placement that’s been running cleanly for 26 months. The “they didn’t fight for me” complaints don’t capture the placements where we did intervene with a client on a talent’s behalf — where we pushed back on a client’s decision because we thought they were wrong — and the talent is still in that role today.
I’m not saying this to balance the ledger artificially. I’m saying it because any honest reading of reviews requires understanding what the review sample is. People who leave reviews are people who had an extreme experience — extremely positive, or extremely negative. The 80% of placements that run smoothly and professionally for 18, 24, 36 months? Those people are busy working. They don’t write reviews. They just keep going.
So when you read our bad reviews page — and I’d genuinely encourage you to read it before you decide anything about us — read it with that context in mind. The reviews are real. They represent real failure modes in how we operate. They’re also not the whole picture, and they weren’t meant to be.
What to Do With This Information
If you’re a Singapore SME owner considering Kaizenaire for your first Filipino remote talent placement, here’s my honest advice: read the bad reviews, ask us about the patterns, and watch how we respond.
If we get defensive, that’s a signal. If we explain the context and then ask you what your specific concerns are, that’s a different signal. Charlotte and I have had this conversation dozens of times, and I’ll tell you — it’s one of the better conversations to have early, because it surfaces what you actually care about.
The pricing is transparent: SGD $350 per month flat management fee, SGD $700 to $1,000 per month in talent salary (passed through with zero markup), all-in cost of SGD $1,050 to $1,350 per month. Bi-weekly payroll on the 5th and 20th. 90-day replacement window if the placement doesn’t work. We’re Singapore-registered (UEN 201932071D).
And if you’re a Filipino professional reading this, wondering whether Kaizenaire is a good agency to work with: I’d say the same thing. Read the reviews. Ask about the monitoring software before you sign anything. Ask what happens if the client relationship doesn’t work out. If you get honest answers — and I hope you do, because that’s what we’re trying to give — that’s the basis for a working relationship.
I’ve been wrong before about plenty of things in this business. I don’t think I’m wrong about this: the best version of Kaizenaire is one where clients and talents can look at the full picture — including the failures — and still decide to work with us. That’s what the bad reviews page is for.
Before you message us, check out our bad reviews (PS: this is not a typo) — it’s genuinely the most honest page on this site. If you’ve read it and still want to talk, that’s the right starting point for a conversation.
If you’re ready to explore whether a Filipino remote talent placement makes sense for your Singapore business, contact Kaizenaire at our WhatsApp Business Number +65 9636 2204. Our team will be ready to serve you.
By Ken Tan, Founder of Kaizenaire
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does Kaizenaire have a page dedicated to its bad reviews?
Kaizenaire’s Founder Ken Tan created the bad reviews page because he believes transparency about failures is the most reliable signal of how an agency handles difficult situations. Most offshoring agencies hide negative reviews. Kaizenaire publishes them — with founder commentary — so that Singapore SME clients and Filipino talent candidates can evaluate the agency with full information, not just curated success stories.
What are the most common complaints about Kaizenaire?
Kaizenaire’s negative reviews fall into three main patterns: complaints about mandatory monitoring software (required for all placements, contractually agreed upfront), complaints from talents who felt Kaizenaire didn’t advocate for them during off-boarding, and wrong-fit client situations where expectations weren’t aligned from the start. Kaizenaire publishes its analysis of each pattern at kaizenaire.ai/bad-reviews/.
Does Kaizenaire really require monitoring software for all its remote talent placements?
Yes. Kaizenaire requires monitoring software for all Filipino remote talent placements with Singapore SME clients. The requirement is disclosed upfront and agreed contractually by both the client and the talent before work begins. This is how Kaizenaire verifies that remote talents are working during agreed hours, which protects both the client’s investment and the talent’s professional track record.
What happens if a Kaizenaire placement doesn’t work out?
Kaizenaire operates a 90-day replacement window. If a placement doesn’t work — whether due to performance issues, business changes, or fit mismatch — Kaizenaire will find a replacement candidate at no additional management fee. The flat management fee is SGD $350 per month. Kaizenaire also pays talent salaries bi-weekly on the 5th and 20th, with zero markup over the agreed salary.
How much does Kaizenaire charge for its offshore recruitment and management service?
Kaizenaire charges a flat SGD $350 per month management fee. Filipino remote talent salaries range from SGD $700 to $1,000 per month, passed through with no markup. All-in monthly cost is SGD $1,050 to $1,350 — compared to SGD $4,500 to $5,500 fully loaded for a local Singapore hire. Kaizenaire is Singapore-registered under UEN 201932071D.
How can I verify Kaizenaire’s track record before hiring them?
Kaizenaire publishes its bad reviews and founder commentary at kaizenaire.ai/bad-reviews/. This page is updated as new review patterns emerge. Prospective clients can also contact Kaizenaire via WhatsApp at +65 9636 2204 to ask directly about any patterns in the reviews and how the agency handled specific situations. Kaizenaire is Singapore-incorporated (UEN 201932071D) with 15+ years of cross-border Filipino remote talent experience.
Are Kaizenaire’s bad reviews from real clients and talents?
Yes. The reviews published on Kaizenaire’s bad reviews page come from real sources — Google, Facebook, and direct messages — including reviews from former placed talents and former clients. Kaizenaire does not curate only mild criticism. The page includes founder Ken Tan’s commentary on each review pattern, explaining the operational context without disputing the reviewer’s experience.