I went through a very extensive hiring process with Smile, which included a detailed assignment and two rounds of interviews. In the second round, I interviewed with the CMO (who mentioned he was a part-time consultant). The discussion was largely centered around my assignment and my thinking. Toward the end of the interview, he explicitly stated that they were impressed, that they had spoken to four candidates so far, and that they would be setting up another interview with the CEO and Founder. I was also clearly told that scheduling might take time because it was the holiday season in Australia. Based on this explicit communication, I prepared and waited accordingly. Four days later, I received a rejection email, without the next interview ever taking place. The issue here is not rejection itself. That is always a possibility. The issue is the disconnect between the very clear positive signals and commitments communicated during the interview and the eventual outcome, especially after the time and effort spent on a lengthy assignment and preparation. Additionally, during the conversation, it was mentioned that the CEO was initially unsure about hiring a marketing team and later decided to do so. That internal uncertainty may explain the outcome, but for candidates, it results in misaligned communication and unnecessary whiplash. Given this experience, I would not recommend applying to roles at this company, or at the very least, not banking your hopes or significant time on the process. This kind of misaligned communication during hiring can also be reflective of broader decision-making and work culture issues. I would strongly advise future candidates to invest their time in opportunities that respect candidates and communicate clearly, rather than processes that create avoidable uncertainty after explicit positive signals.