I rejected a writer last week. Her writing was genuinely better than mine. But I still said no. And I've been thinking about why ever since. She sent a sample. Clean. Structured. No errors. I read the whole thing and felt absolutely nothing. So before I decided, I asked her one question. "What do you want the reader to feel after reading this?" She said: "Informed." And that was it for me. Informed is not a feeling. Informed is what a textbook does. I've gone through 40+ applications at Varchasv Global in the last few months. Most people who applied could write. Actually write. Good sentences, good flow. But writing well and making someone feel something — those are two completely different skills. The writers who get hired and rehired and referred — they don't start with "what should I say." They start with "what should this person feel when they finish reading." Angry. Seen. Stupid for not doing this sooner. Like they need to forward this to someone right now. That's the job. If your content looks good but nobody's sharing it — you're writing for editors, not for humans. Save this. It took me 40+ applications to figure it out. WELL we had a 2 hour Zoom call. brand, audience, purpose — all clearly on the table. she knew exactly what kind of content this was for. after all that context, INFORMED still wasn't the right answer for a creative agency's brand content #ContentWriting #WritingTips #VarchasvGlobal #HiringAdvice #ContentStrategy
So, her writing was better than yours, she delivered a pristine article, on point and error free, which gave the reader information, and you still rejected her? If you wanted the content to convey emotion, perhaps you should've mentioned that in the initial brief. It's mindblowing to me that you would reject a competent and professional writer just because she couldn't read your mind and intentions. And then people like you complain that everyone who applies to their job openings stink of GPT. But when you actually get a good writer, you do stuff like this.There's no way you people are real.
"Informed is not a feeling." It sure is, though. I can feel: - Trust in the product/service - Confidence in making a decision about said product/service - Trust in the company behind the product/service given what information they choose to convey - Satisfaction about finding a product/service that best fits (or not) my needs But I do understand the need for more psychological priming as part of marketing content. It is more persuasive (or manipulative, depending on how one views it). My issue is with how the writer didn't seem to receive clear instructions on the style and content SOPs required for the test sample. Or at least that's what I'm getting from your post, and I might be wrong. Content that makes the reader informed is perfectly fine in a huge number of contexts, and valid by a large number of company content SOPs.
I don't agree with you completely. Writing has many forms and purposes. Imagine an academic writer writing content for feel, but not for informing audience? Will it be justified. It's all about the purpose of content whether it wants to educate, inform or ignite a particular emotion among readers.
Finally a post that everyone else makes fun of. I always used to see this in memes. Also to sum it all up, you liked the way she wrote but not the way she communicated. So basically you rejected her for her speaking skills, since you yourself said she writes great. This is why I am always worrying what would happen if someday I have to look for a job. I will have to sit through interview processes like this one. Are all founders now like this? Do we treat our writers like this? Sad.
I respect your opinion, but to it seemed to me that you did anything other than exercising your power to reject and hire. Instead of asking the writer the question you have asked, perhaps it was a more relevant question to ask yourself to judge and compare her to other candidates.
As a writer this question is not a valid question to reject someone. I am a technical writer and my job is to inform people. Yes I agree the content may vary from audience to audience but I think what she actually meant was the understanding and the audience connection she wants to convey from her writing and I think that’s fair point.
Did you not tell her what brand is looking for? What is a brand objective? This just shows incompetence on your part, not hers. If you didn't tell her anything about the brand, she might have figured out everything by herself and the audience as well. Anything people would post on LinkedIn
So were you looking for a writer with no 'information' quotient in their pieces? An interesting copy that gets shared but ends up doing nothing for the reader? I believe when a writer is creating a piece, the first thing that hits their minds is to make reader aware of why they need that piece in the first place. Shareability comes secondary. I respect your choice and the perspective, but thinking of the content writers as if their sole purpose is to get their content shared, is not something that should be promoted.
With due respect, but there are naked contradictions here...1) You mentioed that her "writing" is better than yours....it itself open few dorrs for the writer. 2) You asked a wannable writer as to what reader should think after reading the piece and she promptly answers whatever comes to her mind and you are making some grand theory about writing as to what "writing" should be...awesome...some justification for rejection....(sometimes we reject, simply because we have power to reject.....) 3) We do not know the brief given to writer...{Yes, generally speaking, writing should evoke and/or provoke...but kintu parantu...here....we do not know the perspective....Lastly...and if she can write so better,(as per your analysis) a simple nudge could have helped her do wonders! Well, that is what I figured it out in hurry!