What do people think of companies asking for free work in the form of a 'test', before they hire you, or as part of an application process?
I personally think if you like me, you like me. If you don't, thanks and bye. What's with this uncertainty? "Oh...we just want to "make sure" you're good enough." No. If you like the portfolio that I have spent years crafting, you like the sound of my CV and you're impressed with the cover letter and all the other hoops I've jumped through, you should hire me. If there's a few select candidates and they really can't decide without some sort of test, just pay them.
Would love to know people's thoughts regarding this and if you'd like to share your experiences. What other practises have been people through, that are considered 'industry standard', but are actually exploitative?
Replies27
- It's all a gimmick. Don't work for free-- the only exception I would personally make is if the task being put forward is really minute.
- This was over a year ago now, but I've gained some more experience and thought about it again. I haven't wavered at all from my original opinion: Interviews should be to get to know the candidate as a person. If the portfolio and CV aren't enough to determine if a candidate is suitable, any further 'work' as part of the interview should be paid. As standard.
- Hello Hajra,I have also been on both sides of this conundrum and whilst I appreciate it can be frustrating and I agree, if a portfolio is good then you want that person, I would not take it as a personal attack, and having prospective designers complete a brief, it can be invaluable to the hiring process. When I was interviewing for another designer at a previous role, we had people complete a fictional brief. You could choose from 3 different ones but all would show a designers thought process and design process which was great to see.When everyone makes a portfolio, you’re more often than not presented with the finish piece and not how you got there. That for me is the most interesting part! It’s a chance for the applicant to show off their skills / process / talent, and a chance for the employer to see how the designer puts things together. We had some really great interviews but when it came down to the brief, they we’re organised or didn’t quite have the experience to put something cohesive together. It puts everyone on a level playing field in my opinion. What was also interesting is I had completed the brief when I applied, so it was great to see what other designers would do with the same problem. I don’t believe it is ever meant to come across as exploitative. I understand even if it’s not intended it can come off that way but I genuinely feel in the right circumstances, interview briefs can be very helpful to both parties. Hope this helps
- I have also been on both sides of the coin with this issue.As an art director for a publishing/media company and part of an editorial team I can understand why requesting a design test sometimes seems necessary in order to choose the best candidate for the position, especially when competition is very high.However, I have also been asked to do a design test myself on two occasions following successful interviews and the first time was quite stressful, being in-house, in an environment I was not yet acustomed to, plus under a tight time limit, I was feeling completely out of my comfort zone, this one didn't go so well but I was glad I tried!The next time (for a different company), following a promising interview, I was asked to go home and do a test design over a weekend, which was fine and I was then offered the job, after submitting my work. The design I created was not used, so it was purely to see if my design style suited the expectations of the head of design.I think as with most situations, communication is the key thing here, ensure you understand why you are being asked to do the test, that the work you are being asked to do is not going to be used commercially in any way, unless of course you are paid for the work you create.If there is a positive outcome then it will of course have been worth your time, and if you're not succesful in gaining employment you will have at least gained some experience from the task.
- This is an interesting and important topic. I've also been on both ends and we sometimes gave applicants small (1-2 hour) tasks (never actual projects and def. never anything beyond a day) to see how they tackle a given challenge. And we also only did it if the applicant(s) were promising, but who's portfolio was lacking certain aspects or specific type of work.So with that issue of “tests” in mind, what's the general opinion on free pitching for a project?
- Hi Hajra,I've been asked to come up with a design approach to a specific project as a 'test' during the hiring process. I don't think it's a fair ask from a company but I undersand their struggle in figuring out if a designer can easily adapt to a specific style or project. I would recommend you asking if it's for a real ongoing project or if it's just a trial... this changes the game!
- Hi Hajra,I've seen this question be asked by a few people in the industry at the moment. I too have been on both ends of this ask. As a hiring manager at my old agency I wanted to ask candidates to tackle a brief that we had already completed to see their take on it. Some of the responses were not what I expected and helped me chose between two candidates. It can be a great way of seeing someones creativity that might not otherwise be shown in their portfolio. I think the important thing with this brief was that it was one we had already completed. We could share what we had created to the candidates as inspiration and meant that their work would never be used in client work without payment. However if the agency would like to use what you've created for client work I do think it's the agencies responsibilty to pay you for the time you've taken to create it.On the other end I was asked to create an animated logo for an agency as part of the hiring process. At the time I was a junior designer and didn't have loads of motion graphics work in my portfolio, so I got that they wanted to see my motion skills before getting me on board. It turned out that I actually went with another offer from another agency at the time.In conclusion I think sometimes doing a brief for an agency can be important to the role, especially if you don't have any examples matching the type of work the agency does. Just as long as if they want to use your work in client projects then they pay you for the time you've taken to create it.
- Oops! Just reread my post, I meant to say in the 4th line: .."something they would not use..."That would definitely have been exploitation!
- Hi Hajra. I've been on both ends of this. As a prospective employee I was asked in prep for a third interview to tackle a brief, so they could see how I would approach it and what I would do – this was a project they had already done but not published, so not something they would use. I think it's a good exercise – you get to find out something about them, the work they do and their appoach, so it's not a one way street. Also, your willingness to tackle the project shows how willing you are to join them – there's nothing wrong with being competitive, it's a pitch.On the other end, as a prospective employer, I have offered people a 2 week paid placement, so that we both get to 'try before you buy'. What we always said was: take 2 weeks leave from your current employer and if we employ you we'll give it straight back to you. What's to loose: you get paid double for the time and if it works out, you still get your paid holiday. Some people got the idea and thought it was great, others didn't take up the offer which meant we parted ways there and then.Everyone who took us up on the offer ended up being employed full time. It's one of the most valuable self-selecting exercises I've done to find great people with a really positive attitude, and nobody ever felt cheated or exploited.
- I think it depends on the situation! I think a quick task during an interview is ok as you have already committed your time to attending the interview.However, if you have an interview, and then the employer expects you to create further design work, then it can raise a red flag. Personally, I have completed work following an interview. I felt I needed to jump through the hoops in order to have a chance of getting the job.Since becoming a director, we still get requested to complete free work as part of a pitch. However, we suggest that the best work is achieved when both parties are fully committed to the process.
- I’d prefer to do a test and show a way of thinking than show a portfolio of existing work.If it's the free work that’s an issue, then the fit may not be right.I like the story of the client who rejected all the creative work presented.Most designers would be crushed.But this one was happy and said ‘I’ll take another look’.They just loved the process of coming up with ideas.
- I've been a part of the hiring process recently and we set a small task for the best applicants. It was to respond to a brief for a campaign that we had already completed (but not yet published) - to produce a small sample of work from the overall project.It's been a really useful process to compare their different interpretations of the same brief using the same source materials.I'd be really uncomfortable with asking somebody to do work we'd actually use for free though.
- This makes my blood boil. There's NO version of this that's justifiable. It's always wrong, it's totally unacceptable, but it's still happening. I think we're all broadly aligned here: take your talent elsewhere : )
- There are a lot of great answers here. I especially agree with @Geoffrey Bunting in that an interview is just as much about you sizing up the employer.By default I think we are predisposed to thinking the interviewer has all the power, when it shouldn't be such an imbalance. A good employer will be looking for someone to either mold into their image/ways of doign things, or hirign someone with experience that they think will fit. I have this nugget of an idea that I can't quite articulate: asking for a test seems like a power-move, almost as a way to say "you do this for me". I need to think about that more. Basically I just think if they are a legit client or agency then they won't feel the -need- to test you in that way.A much better alternative is using probation/trial periods of at least a month. This way you get paid, and the client gets to see you in a real life scenario, which will give them a much better idea of how you will fit in than a short, high-pressure test.
- it is a solid NOP.I generally ask if they would let me use their service or product for free...Guess their answer
- @sadiiquet mughal I'm sorry to hear this Sadiiquet. You're definitely not alone. Judging by the responses to this question it seems we're definitely becoming increasingly aware of the often hidden, unspoken ways in which companies/clients love to get free work out of creatives. It sounds like hopefully we're heading in a positive direction, the more we're open and honest about what we go through, the more we can help each other and shift the industry.
- hithis is a real problim that I face every day due to my disablity from peopel wiith smalll minds they hope I will work for free
- @Tanicia Pratt I really like that phase "customised sample", that really sums up the fact that it's something that you're catering for them, which therefore justifies a fee.
- I've done a test (free) before but I would not do it again. I feel as though a creative's portfolio is enough to know whether you want their services or not. If they demand a customized sample, you should be able to charge them a fee.
- When I was younger and more naive I have done unpaid tests but now I know better, I'm completely against them,Now I see them as a big red flag and are totally against my principles.I once went for an interview/test for a company who were hiring.Afterwards, they told me that we were all going for lunch at a local pub where I made small talk with one of the guys.Turns out, like me he was there for the same job which was a bit awkward and weirded us both out.We even had to buy our own lunches FFS!.
- I recently got to the 'next stage of the application process' and they want me to do a 'creative challenge' I don't know what it is yet. I've done 'test' designs and animations for roles before though where they just see how you do with a typical day to day client brief. I kind of get it, they want to see if you'll be a good fit for the role and if the role will be a good fit for you. I think at times it can be for your benefit too, because if you really dislike the challenge they've set for you then it also helps you figure out that the company might not be right for you. However I totally agree that it can be a massive pain. I think as long as the challenge set isn't too strenuous and time consuming I don't mind too much.
- It’s important, also, to consider why a company might test you. The idea that they can make sure you’re up to the quality in your portfolio is a little erroneous given that projects takes several hours, over at least a week, and recreating that quality is unlikely in a 15-40 minute skills test. It’s the kind of unrealistic expectation that should be a red flag for anyone. Same for trials and unpaid probation, that’s just unethical. As I mentioned, interviews are about the employer presenting themselves as a place you want to work not wasting your time with meaningless tests because they have no idea what they’re doing. It can be hard when you’re desperate for a job to refuse, but we do need to start questioning employers why exactly they’re conducting these kind of exercises – other than having seen others doing them – because they’re not going to be able to give reasonable answers. Similarly, consider why major employers don’t utilise these kinds of tests – because they a) understand the importance of the portfolio and b) know what they’re looking for. Really, an interview is just about making sure you fit in as a person rather than whether your work is up to scratch.
- Great question and I recently found myself accepting an offer of a months *free trial* which I was reluctant to do. it turned out I proved myself within a week so I got the job. I think it’s unethical that companies expect you to work for nothing but unfortunately they are taking advantage of the current employment situ.I understand that they were uncertain due to me not living in the same city but if I’d turned them down I wouldn’t have gained in the end.I am in a similar position with another brand who hadnt advertised a role but I am proving my worth by showing how social media can increase their sales. If it doesn’t work out then I’ve learnt from experience but if it does I’ll be working for a brand I really want toWe should all work together to change how employers view self employed creators....
- Really interesting thoughts so far. I think ultimately, it's not the test itself that I have a problem with. I understand that clients/employers may want to get a sense of how you respond to THEIR kind of work. But if a client/employer is impressed with your portfolio and has met and liked you, I'd count any further 'test' after this as a form of free work, which should be paid as standard practise. I have seen some companies do this so I hope more pick up this trend.I also reckon that in the case of a employer hiring process, if employers had to pay the select candidates they weren't able to choose from, maybe they would be able to think more seriously about who to hire.This is part of a larger problem alongside accepting very low rates of pay and doing free work for exposure. As creatives we're the ones that accept practises for them to become the norm so be careful what you're making okay because it can and will hurt and devalue the work of everyone else.
You must sign up or log in before you
add a comment.