Hi guys,
I am highly disappointed with the assessment that I received, that barely said feedback that I could use to appeal, but I still keep persistent to try it, so that is why I will appreciate so much your feedback I know it looks very hopeless, but I really want your advice maybe for a 2nd application.
First:
I applied as Promise and business applicant, because I have 9 years as digital marketer, but less maybe 5 only working with business considered as only digital businesses or product led company. I will try to appeal that point too.
Here my evidences
MC:
-
About company 1 is an online news media that great part of their income comes from digital advertising (so it’s a product led company about data). I presented how I helped the company creating some products that helped to increase sales for the company. These products were created from 0. I attached part of a presentation where they can see the number of sales from my products, and all the process that I had to do to create the product. I attached a preview of the formats (new advertising formats) I created. Also, I explained my contribution, all the variables that I had to introduce to make it happen.
-
About company 2 (an online business school) I provided an explanation about my role as digital marketer manager, my function, and daily tasks, some reports where it’s shown the increases in sales, congrats from marketing director in a chat, and my answers about some strategic decisions to make in the account to improve results. I also attached a print from Google Ads results.
Besides, I have 2 Lor (from the 3 ones) to confirm all this info.
Rejection argument:
For the mandatory criterion, in addition to the reference letters, the applicant has submitted income confirmation, [company name 1] information and [company name 2] information. The applicant is well recommended by her referees, although there is little evidence that she has been recognised as having the potential to be a leading talent. The [company name 1] and [company name 2] information shows that the applicant is good at her job, but does not show exceptional performance. The salary level does not materially support meeting this criterion.
Overall, the applicant is a talented marketer, but has not demonstrated that she has been recognised as having the potential to be a leading talent.
OC1 : I must say I was not sure about this, but still I think I can reinforce this:
The is from the online news website (mentioned above) that is a product led company because they need to develop products online, such as new ads formats, new methods to invest in their website, new digital content, etc, I said, one of the big money sources for this company is data. I explained how was the product before I introduced an upgrade, I compared it with products that Google or Facebook have, to explain the kind of innovation I made, and then I explicitly introduced the variables I included in the product, also I showed traction from this product.
*Rejection argument:
the applicant has submitted [name of the product] product innovation and a sales
traction document. Although this it has yielded results, it was not sufficiently shown how this approach was innovative or how it was part of a product-led digital technology business. There needs to be more focus on what was innovative about this approach in order to meet this criterion.
OC3: assessor doesn’t say too much, but same case, it’s a university that is not product led company, but it is considered digital business, because main income source depends on digital, based on this explanation they said in the guideline:
The “digital technology sector” or “product-led digital technology companies” are defined as businesses that provide a proprietary digital technical service/product/platform/hardware as their primary revenue source.
So I provided a annual plan, that evidences that main income of the university comes from digital sources, and I am the digital marketer manager, where I explained my role/functions, I presented reports, emails, presentations where I show I overachieved the goal that the company expected using digital channels, and thanks to that I could achieve my year bonus. Also I attached a peak from Google Ads in the time I managed the university.
*Rejection argument:
the applicant has submitted income at company 3 and a bonus document. It was not
shown that the applicant’s employer was a product-led digital technology company and therefore work at this company cannot qualify for this criterion. Notwithstanding this, the income generated and bonus is noted, but there is not a strong enough link in the evidence between the impact (income) and the applicant’s work being the direct cause of that impact to meet this criterion.
Pls your valuable advice 
@Francisca_Chiedu @mbkuru @alexnk @alex_james