I applied on October 27. I received a weird email almost looks like a scam email. It came from the HR's workday account. I accepted the invitation for the interview. Then I get a calendar invite with various days and times. I chose the earliest time of 7:45pm on Dec 4th because I assumed the interview was gonna be conducted on East coast time while Im on West coast. The day of interview came and the HR person was late. She finally calls and complains about the 7:45am time that she setup on her calendar! So she proceeds with the questions that seem to be spun off from AI. The questions seems to be hard and disingenuous to answer. After about 20 minutes, I was told that if I get selected for 2nd interview to hiring manager that I would get an email the following week. Today Dec. 8th at 6am PT, I get a rejection email.

ATS garbage process. HR screening where the HR rep didn't understand the creative or the technical aspects of the position. HR questions sounded like they came straight out of ChatGPT AI slop. The hiring manager was pleasant enough in demeanor and I answered all of the questions thoroughly and correctly. I got the impression though that they hire based on demographic quotas, rather than actual qualifications and who has the best work. Or at least, this team does, but given the information on the company website, it would appear that it's also a company policy. This is fairly obvious when as a creative services candidate, you have better creative work in your portfolio than the company has featured on their social channels and website and better work than other people on the creative team have in their portfolios, including the hiring manager. It's also pretty obvious when you answer all of the interview questions correctly, have a friendly outgoing demeanor, but you still don't get hired. The above statement isn't ego, either. All creatives know where they fall in their level of work and they know when they improve. At the time of any given interview, a creative professional knows when their work is better or at the same level (or not as good) as the company or entity and team they are interviewing with and they know how they can contribute to the team. It's also pretty clear that demographic quotas are the primary method of hiring, when, as a creative services candidate, you've worked at numerous places with a higher bar of creative content than the company you're applying to, have a portfolio reflecting that and no one on the hiring team falls into your demographic. Even though, your demographic is also actually known for being more competent in the field, as a whole; but somehow your demographic is entirely missing from a team and appears to be excluded. That said, it's very common for companies that hire based on demographic quotas to interview a demographic they won't hire, despite a person's qualifications, in order to cover their tracks. It's always a risk to call this sort of thing out, though it is becoming less so. Like ghost jobs, it's become so prevalent and such a problem, that it needs to be called out. Speaking of ghost jobs, that's probably another thing I should mention. Word on the virtual street is that Playfly is posting jobs and interviewing, but they aren't actually hiring. Make of that what you will, but it's been mentioned online, in other forums. And that was my overall impression: that I didn't get offered the position because of either demographic quotas or it was a ghost job. I would love to be wrong and see in the near future that someone in my demographic cohort, with a better portfolio than myself, actually got hired for the job, but I'm extremely doubtful that this is the case.