Rubicon Interview Questions
& Process

The hiring process was quite slow and comforting. I was in constant touch with the recruiter, who kindly answered all my questions. This made for a stress-free experience. I wish you all the best!

The interview process was brief. I didn't encounter any problems. However, after meeting with the interviewer, I realized the job wasn't the right fit for me. The interview itself was quick, and I didn't have any issues. It just turned out the role wasn't suitable for me after our conversation.

I put in my application online in February 2015. About a few weeks later, the HR manager emailed me to schedule an in-person interview. The interview was on March 31, 2015, and I met with the Accounting Manager, VP of Finance, and an interim Controller. A few days after that, the HR manager emailed again asking for my references from my current and previous jobs. From this point, things got a bit messy and disorganized, and it seemed like there wasn't a solid plan for hiring. After a week, I reached out to the HR manager to ask about the next steps, since they'd requested my references. I didn't get an instant reply, but I was told that a second interview, which would involve an Excel/Accounting test, was likely the next step. I figured they'd do the test before asking for references. The follow-up was really poor; it was tough to get any information or even know where I stood in the process. After the second interview, I asked about the results, as the hiring manager had told me to do. I only heard back when I emailed to check on my status, as I had received another job offer. I was initially really excited about potentially working there, but the whole interview experience soured things and really changed my perception of the company. I thought I'd get an offer, but they said they were moving in a 'different direction'.

The interview process began with standard phone screens, followed by a series of onsite interviews. Despite the company's appealing exterior, I'd strongly advise against pursuing a marketing role here due to several red flags. They dismissed their VP of Marketing earlier this year, seemingly in spite of excellent performance. When questioned about this, most individuals were evasive, though one mentioned a partner, a trash hauler, disliked the VP's messaging, which I found to be an insufficient reason to terminate a high-performing executive. During the onsite interviews, I learned about plans to restructure marketing into specialized departments (PR, demand gen, content), each reporting directly to the Head of Sales. This approach, while strategically flawed for a company of this nature, is also detrimental to staff morale and recruitment. Notably, this reorganization plan hadn't been communicated to the current marketing team, and indications suggest some staff are already looking to leave. The company acknowledges its market position is nearing its limit due to aggressive pricing by larger competitors. They operate as brokers offering lower prices without a distinct value proposition, making them vulnerable to larger players who can sustain even lower prices. This assessment, shared by the company, highlights an urgent need for strategic adaptation. It's perplexing they're heavily investing in current sales tactics at the expense of marketing, which could offer future strategic direction, and that investors apparently didn't uncover these fundamental issues.