Complete waste of time and very suspicious. I rarely write reviews, but I feel compelled to share my experience to prevent others from going through what I did with Butternut Box. The journey began when I applied for a position through a recruiter. After passing the initial stage, I was given a creative task without meeting the team—an unusual first step that raised a red flag. Despite the broad brief, I put considerable effort into the task, providing strategic direction, insights, and creative solutions. I even did a bit extra and focused on their new sister brand, Marro. While working on this task, I received a LinkedIn message from a Butternut Box recruiter about a different position (Maternity cover CD). Surprisingly, it was the same recruiter who had sent me the task for the Head of Creative (HOC) role. This led to confusion, as another recruiter I know had apparently suggested my name without realising I was already in the process. The direct message made it seem like the recruiter had found me independently, which felt unethical. This oversight was the second red flag. I progressed to an interview with the hiring manager and two team members. They were welcoming, and the hiring manager praised my task. She even mentioned that she showed the Marro team my idea for a TV ad and said ‘here you go, there’s your ad’’. I also found it odd that I didn't present the task—a common practice in creative interview processes. At this point, I learned I was being considered for both the HOC and CD maternity cover positions. I expressed a preference for the HOC role due to it being permanent. The next stage was an interview with the co-founder (in the office) and CCO, who also praised my task. Another week went by and the Butternut Box recruiter mentioned reopening the job ad "in case I wasn't offered the role or didn't accept it"—another red flag. Unexpectedly, I was then asked to meet the other co-founder in an additional interview. He was relaxed and complimentary but inappropriately asked about my age. At this stage, I thought I was one of two or three final candidates. After each stage, I waited a week for feedback. Later, I learned there were still several candidates in play for both roles, with ongoing screening interviews. Ultimately, I was rejected. The feedback was nonsensical, stating I was more suited to an in-house creative studio leader role rather than an agency—despite Butternut Box being an in-house brand. This contradictory feedback left me speechless and frustrated after such a lengthy process of 6 weeks. I've lost trust in this company. The fact that I completed an unpaid task and offered valuable ideas is concerning. Like previous reviewers on Glassdoor have mentioned, it seems they might use these tasks to gather ideas without compensation. I'll be vigilant to ensure my concepts aren't used without permission. This process revealed a lack of leadership and clarity about their needs. Having multiple candidates at the final stage suggests indecision about their requirements. Moreover, for a company of their size, separate HOC and CD roles seem redundant—they're essentially the same thing. This points to a lack of experience in how to structure creative functions. I strongly advise against applying to Butternut Box. It's a complete waste of time, and the company's actions contradict their outwardly kind and moral image. They give the impression of being ethical but behave quite differently behind the scenes.

The entire process felt disconcerting from the beginning. After applying for the head of creative role, I received an email from the in-house recruiter stating that three candidates were already in the final stages of interviews. Despite this, they wanted to invite me for an interview because my CV seemed like a good fit. They also mentioned that they were re-advertising the role "just in case" those candidates were unsuccessful. This raised alarm bells for me; it seemed unnecessary to go through the full interview process with three candidates if there was any uncertainty about their potential success. Following the initial screening, I was asked to submit a task, which felt out of place without any preliminary chemistry meetings with the hiring managers. I was provided with a single page of generic data insights and instructed to create a fully fleshed-out 360-degree global marketing campaign. This request was particularly concerning. Requiring candidates, especially those in senior roles, to produce substantial work before even meeting the team raises serious ethical questions. It can appear that the company is more interested in extracting ideas from experienced professionals rather than genuinely evaluating their fit for the role. Despite my reservations, I decided to proceed. I delivered a comprehensive campaign that encompassed various elements, including PR, OOH, digital, and social strategies, all based on the loose data provided. I even crafted key visuals to support my pitch. After submitting my work, I received an email stating that I wouldn't be moving forward because my ideas "weren't bold enough." This response, given the vague nature of the task and the lack of direct interaction with the hiring team, left me perplexed about what was truly expected. It seems that this wasn't a technical capability test as such, rather an idea generating exercise. Overall, this experience highlighted a fundamental misunderstanding of the creative process and creative recruitment on the company's part. Asking senior creatives to complete extensive tasks during the interview process not only reflects poorly on the organisation but also brings in to line an unethical approach to recruitment. How many candidates have they asked to submit full campaign ideas and do they really expect us to think that they won't use at least handful of these ideas in their future campaigns?