Kindly help review rejected application - Exceptional Promise Business Applicant

Hi everyone,

I’ve been a silent reader and I need some advice from the experts here. I applied for an endorsement on the 20th of February and received feedback after 5 edits on the 15th of March. I was rejected for all criteria and I would appreciate your feedback.

Background: I have 2+ years experience in sales, business development and marketing in product led digital technology companies. I selected Business development as the skill and chose to meet optional criteria 1 and 3.

Here’s the assessor’s feedback:

My Documents:
RL1: Recommendation letter from current CEO of speaking of my impact to sales and revenue, leadership and innovation. (Joined here in 2022)
RL2: Letter from CEO of my last company speaking on my impact and leadership
RL3: Letter from a client at my current company speaking about my impact regarding his business’ success.

Mandatory Criteria:

  1. RL 1
  2. Proof of earnings and promotion in comparison to the avg in my home country.
  3. ADPList mentorship profile (for marketing) with over 200 minutes
  4. An article about sales experts and the skills we consider essential for success which I was featured, also the youngest there. It was published by a tech enable career platform with professionals and students as it’s demographic.
  5. A document showing my total contribution to 2022 total sales and revenue (over 20%) (RL 1 also mentions this)

Optional Criteria 1

  1. A document about an innovative product from my current company. The product currently does not exist in any of our markets. I explained how it was innovative, linked how it worked, linked media about the product and my contribution to product adoption and growth.
  2. A document about the company’s first event which I worked largely on. The aim of the event was to drive product adoption and growth of some of our less popular products. I explained my contributions, the goals and the results along with proof of the event.

Optional Criteria 3

  1. A document showing my total contribution to 2022 total sales and revenue (over 20%) (RL 1 also mentions this)
  2. A self written document about my work and how that contributed to 2022 total growth. I also showed externally verifiable proof comparing 2021 and 2022 numbers where we experienced significant over 300% growth in our revenue and metrics. Finally I added social proof from clients and users.
  3. A letter from my manager at my ex company speaking to my impact and the work I did for one of our biggest social media campaigns in 2021.

My thoughts:

  1. I didn’t select specialist skill for marketing, I selected business development which combines sales, partnerships, growth hacking etc. That’s what I based my evidence on but it seems I was solely judged on marketing.
  2. A lot of the feedback appears like my documents were not fully looked at. It makes mentions to things I didn’t submit for certain criteria. I am confident that at least my OC3 was strong enough especially for promise as you only need 1 evidence so I am surprised by the feedback.
  3. Regarding OC 1: I don’t see anywhere where there’s a minimum number of years you have to stay at a company. I also don’t see why it stated “sustained performance track record” when I am applying for promise.
  4. For MC: I don’t think the letters were light on detail, they made reference to specific impact numbers, details and scenarios and were all 2 pages long, my skill is also wrong there. My other documents were ignored and only my salary was picked up on.

I apologise for the long post, but I would really appreciate everyone’s honest feedback as I plan to appeal this.

Thank you.

Would appreciate your feedback @Francisca_Chiedu @May

I think you can just respond with the things that you have observed.

Point them to the things that they probably didn’t consider.

But reflect upon the point where it is said that even when details are provided, the skills displayed are functional and not exceptional as well as the fact that the impact details are tactical.

My understanding of tactical is that your recommenders may have used bogus words like, @asaiy is an exceptional leader even when you have only just joined their company January 2022.

Tech Nation recent update states that your recommenders must know you for up to 12 months, so I could be implied that you have to have been in a company for more than a year. From what you have written, your evidence don’t look convincing, however, you can appeal and make clarifications where necessary. Your evidence for the optional criteria is obviously not strong enough. It is also tricky as you didn’t build the product and you are not a founder or senior executive. The evidence for the mandatory criteria also don’t look sufficient especially when compared to other applicants with similar profile. Don’t forget assessors have seen many outstanding application so you need to aim to standout in your appeal as it appears you didn’t make a strong case in your application.

Thank you for your feedback. Will consider it in preparing my appeal.

Thank you. All my recommenders have known me for up to 12 months.

I’ll factor your thoughts in when appealing. Thank you