I had a job interview with a company recently and one of the negative feedback I got was that I hadn’t tried out their product. Now this might be a valid concern if they had any sort of free trial for it, but the lessons they offer start at 60€ and I didn’t feel comfortable spending that amount just to get a better chance at an interview. They also offered no free credits or anything like that during the interview. I did understand how the product worked by researching it online.
I definitely feel that there’s something wrong in asking for an interviewee to spend money on the product they are interviewing for. For one it’s a great setup for a scam. But is there any regulation that should prevent companies from doing this? I am based in the EU and was interviewing for a Spanish company.
Oh like SAP. It’s a requirement to know how to program their ERP/CRM systems, or they proprietary database system, or their online e-commerce platform. All of which the software and documentation are unavailable to the public and certifications cost thousands of dollars.
You basically can’t apply unless you previously worked at a company that used said product, but then that company requires the same experience for their jobs. So…
There are certainly commercial (enterprise) software suites that many jobs would expect you to have familiarity with. If you were applying for a job with Atlassian then yeah I’d expect you to have familiarity with JIRA at least. There are lots of instances of businesses expecting you to have experience with specific not-free software, but it mostly falls under the category of work experience.
JIRA is free for individuals though so not the best example
Except that everybody and their grandma is using Jira, and not having any experience with it is unusual (well, maybe not for an entry position).
Yes, I can see cases where this might be valid. For example, if you wanted to be some kind of SAP administrator / programmer (a paid-only enterprise management software), nobody would hire you for such a role without having some experience with that product. Same for something like Salesforce.
I don’t know about your field, but that does seem somewhat suspicious to me. I suppose it depends on which company, which product, and which field.
For instance, I could presumably see an argument for turning down a salesperson applicant to Microsoft for not having used Microsoft Office before. ie, if not using a given product demonstrates lack of experience in the field.
Is the product well-known or a standard in the field?
I’ve updated the description to mention that this is definitely not a scam, more like weird and unreasonable behavior.
Honestly, be grateful you even received notice you didn’t make it past the interview. Most jobs just leave you on read so to speak.
If its worded the way you’ve worded it, then I don’t think it is illegal in most countries. That said, if the details could be phrased dramatically, a 60 second news story calling it a fishy practice, might make it illegal… which it should be
This definitely sounds like they’re trying to trick you into some MLM type scam. Stay far away for sure.
As for legal… I imagine they can ask if you’ve used the product, but it certainly FEELS like something questionable in this particular situation.
I do see some cases where “experience using our product is a plus”, but the way it was told you as a “negative feedback” I feel is wrong.
They probably don’t want to spend time training a new employee on their product, which to me is a huge red flag. You dodged a bullet there.
My country (Brazil) doesn’t have any regulations about it. Don’t know about the EU.
Familiarity with the product is often just a baseline for jobs like sales, especially if they have high turnover.
It’s not a great sign about the work environment, so you may have dodged a bullet.
I don’t know if there’s any legal implications, but morally it’s pretty abhorrent. The question I’d be asking is would you even want to work for a company that engages in that type of tactic, especially since they’re likely to repeat that kind of nonsense after you’ve started the job.
I mean if it was after I started the job that would make sense. You have to know the product you’re working on.
But it seems like a power asymmetry that they have dedicated 1 hour of their time to the interview and I am expected to spend money and more research time, in addition to all the usual interview preparation.
Legally it’s OK, having no experience in some specific product is not a protected class.
Morally no, if the research wasn’t enough and they expect you to have paid for their product already, thats just weird. Just pass and move on.
I’ve seen a lot of fashion sales jobs be really picky. If you don’t own any of the clothes from a particular brand. If you want a job selling, say, Louis Vuitton, they expect you to come and dress in those sorts of clothes.
But having purchased a particular product? Or a service? Typically that sort of thing is something you would be trained on after you get hired. Familiarity with the product? Yes. Necessarily owning it? No.
It does seem unfair but if I were the interviewer I would take into consideration, among other things, if the candidate cared enough about the position to use the product on their own. If I were someone applying for a job and wasn’t terribly confident in my experience for the position, I’d probably go out of my way to inform myself of the product in a hands-on manner. If it’s a competitive position, you’ve gotta compete.
You would expect the candidate to spend 60€ to try out a niche product? If I were in the position I would definitely expect them to research the product and understand how it works (I did), but not to spend that kind of money to use it.
It sounds somewhat reasonable and you just are not the candidate. From what it sounds like, it would be like applying for a job as a pool lifeguard but your only experience around pools was from YouTube. They want someone who has handled that item before not someone who says “let me take a crack at it”
A lifeguard needs training/certification to do their job, so you wouldn’t just hire anybody.
In OPs case, they are qualified to do the job but the recruiter didn’t like that they hadn’t used their product. That is more like not hiring a qualified lifeguard because they have never gone swimming recreationally at that location.
This seems like a poor analogy.
“I don’t have experience with the ‘Megamart Pool TM’ brand of pools, but I’ve got my Lifeguard certificate through a training program that operated at a nearby lake.” Oh sorry, we want our applicants to be familiar with our specific pool with 50+ hours of paid visits logged. Please come back next year after you’ve gather this.
Exactly, this is a good analogy. I actually got the feedback that I was technically qualified and most of the other feedback was positive.
That’s not the case at all. Where did OP say they had training on the product but not the specific brand? They just said they were familiar with the product but never used it.
Of the two positions stated, theirs in the interview feedback and yours here, yours is BY FAR the more reasonable. That they would even feel free to say that to you indicates a bizarre level of entitlement or pre-employment loyalty there, one that’s made worse if it was the literal truth.
Entitlement is like an iceberg: what you see is just the tip. There’s always a whole lot more right behind it.
So let’s go there. I haven’t seen anyone else bring it up yet, but hypothetically, let’s say you drank the koolaid about their brand and, to increase your chances, you did spend a wad of cash (that you probably can’t easily afford) on their product before you even got to the interview. You walk in with that experience, able to tell them you’ve had their lessons and talk about their platform from a user’s experience, etc. Great!
Now what? How much farther does that actually get you? Not a goddamn bit, IMO, since you’re still behind anyone who has ever worked on a product of their own brand, and/or kissed whatever other invisible and undefined rings they want most but were not actually disclosed in the job posting. You spent all that cash, but your deficits as a candidate are still hanging in the air: you’ve never actually worked on it, just familiarized yourself with the product, albeit at a cost to you.
I am so glad you are writing this from the perspective of “should I have spent the cash?” rather than the perspective of “I spent this cash and now I’m out” because above and beyond the weirdness of their behavior, the last place you ever want to sink cash is on a job posting that can’t be bothered to include its most important requirements. Doesn’t matter that it’s a well known company, individuals and departments can be unethical too, and these certainly were.
It’s also entirely possible there’s an internal battle going on over this job, with some insisting it should go to someone already in-house and others, possibly even company policy, forcing it to be posted to external candidates – but in reality it has already been decided and they are just going through the motions of ticking the boxes until they can hire the one they wanted from the start. If so, you were never going to win it, and the whole thing was a gargantuan waste of time.
Add to that the fact that the posting itself omitted the company’s own most important requirement for the job, and I can only add to the chorus of people here who have already said you dodged a bullet.
Relax, you did good. Glad you made the decision you did. Best of luck in your job hunt.
This is definitely not a scam, the company is fairly known.
Plenty of
pyramid schemesMLMs easily pass themselves off as legitimate, at least for a little while.nope. not unless they give you a freebie. Main example I can think of companies having this requiremnet are mlms.
Name the fucking company
