I went through one of the longest and most poorly run interview processes I've experienced for a mid-level marketing role. The timeline stretched nearly four months: initial application in January, recruiter screen in February, hiring manager round in March, and a president-level final round in April.
The process was poorly structured from the start. No clear timeline was communicated, no milestones were shared, and candidates were left in the dark between rounds for weeks at a time. For a company that markets itself on customer experience, the candidate experience told a very different story — I'll let the other reviews speak for themselves on how they're building their "Dream Team."
There was also a take-home assignment involved that was never referenced or discussed during any of the interviews. It's unclear what role it played in the evaluation, or whether it was reviewed at all.
In the end, I received a boilerplate rejection from the Talent Acquisition team, after 4 rounds, including a president-level conversation, that felt tone-deaf.
Another Glassdoor reviewer appears to have had a strikingly similar experience, which suggests this is a pattern rather than an exception.
Update (May 8): This position has been reposted as of May 8. After dragging out a hiring process that began in January 2026, it's become clear there was never a genuine intention to hire — and that the process may be being used to crowdsource ideas from candidates. If you're reading this and considering interviewing, be cautious about how much effort you put into their case presentation and don't work on their case without even speaking to the hiring manager
