Wrote a mock article, phone screened with a recruiter, then a 3-hour in person interview with two editors and the editorial director, a caliper (IQ and personality test- taken online), and finally a reference check. Almost a two month long process. The company is incredibly slow to move forward. The team seems very bright, but they clearly strung myself and possibly other candidates along for over a month after the in-person interview. A more organized and capable company would have not wasted so much of a candidate's time nor their own. After satisfying a very challenging writing test, which should in theory weed out quite a few people, they went on to interview, in the director's words, "5-6 other candidates." So they subjected somewhere near 5-6 other people to near 2 months of deliberations. More importantly, they had no standard for months to narrow the pool down. How can a "well established company" have no better idea on narrowing down to a candidate or two after so many tests and so much time? All the tests were decently difficult. So it leaves you to wonder how much of it was meaningful or noise? The only exception to the trend with this hiring process was the in-person interviews, which were thoughtful and meaningful experiences. The editors and the director asked inspired questions about my resume and experience, and seemed to know me very well as a candidate. The interviews also got to the heart of what the role entitled, but not so much what the company needed at the moment--that it seems, they do not have a clear vision of. I was told I had a very strong article, and the interviews seemed to indicate very much a positive reflection of my credentials. In essence, they seemed to like me but still considered quite a few other people, which one can infer from in quite a few ways: my experience with the company leads me to believe that they simply don't know what they want. They have a clear sense of what is needed as they expand with this position (this was not a replacement role but a new role altogether), but not at all what they want. Hence, considering for months half a dozen (possibly a bit less or more) candidates. Overall, the experience was the near perfect representation of a poorly run and badly designed hiring process. I fortunately received another offer shortly before I was cut, but other candidates might not be so lucky. I would advise that if you chose to apply in the future that you continue to interview with other companies. Pitchbook's process is long, vague, and unpredictable. The smart thing to do is to hedge your bets with this company, at least with the editorial team.

The first round was with a buffoon who kept repeating "this is not an editor position" as if I was unaware of the role I'd applied for. Didn't hear anything for weeks and accepted another role but someone in the US had seen my CV and wanted to talk and this person and their team, will real journalists, confident in their own abilities and not terrified I was going to take their job.