>You've been reading too much Guardian.

No, just the early statements from Cambridge Analytica and Leave.EU.

Was rather odd that Cambridge Analytica and Leave.EU both claimed to be working together until it started to look bad - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analyt...

Another reply from me. You can also review this report from Julian Malins QC.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.assets.commercial....

I am somewhat suspicious of a report funded by the people being investigated. - https://www.malinschambers.com/2018/05/julian-malins-q-c-and...

Well, I think you should be willing to give a little weight to the fact that this is a QC. But still, fair I suppose.

Knowing one or two, not really.

Yes, they were going to work together. Nix was a salesperson and wanted to sound like business was going well, and I suppose leave.eu wanted to sound like they were getting things done. I refer you again to the ICO report.

Based on your experience what was CA good at except the marketing part. In how far were they able to deliver results for their clients or did they limit their results to strategic recommendations?

> what was CA good at

I am not really sure we were good at anything. The company had no direction coming from upper management, so we weren't really able to become experts at anything. The salespeople used the psychographic nonsense to sell to clients, which everyone internal knew was nonsense, so we were sometimes forced to use nonsense to solve problems. We were also forced to tackle impossible challenges because of salespeople's promises. There was very high turnover.

The technical teams were nice and had a lot of smart people. Most were fresh out of uni; first job.

> except the marketing part

I don't think we were particularly good at marketing, unless you mean marketing ourselves as evil geniuses. In which case we were too good for our own good.

Soo... You worked at CA? Might be informative to note that in your comments....