I’ve noticed a pattern in how founders hire creatives. We chase seniority when we should be chasing skill. Early on, I made this mistake too. I looked for designers who had “been around the block.” Big titles. Familiar logos. Fancy job history. I thought that was the safe bet. But over time, I realized: Some of the best designers we’ve hired were “junior” on paper. Their titles said mid-level. Their portfolios said something else entirely. In fact, some outperformed designers with 10+ years of experience. Now, we hire differently. → We cast a wider net Not “who’s the most senior?” But: “who can actually do the job?” → We vet for skill, not status Every designer we interview goes through a visual portfolio review We don’t just read résumés; we look at what they’ve made → Then comes the design test We’ve got a few options: - Redesign a microwave interface - Reimagine a thermostat - Build a homepage for your favorite product No fake client briefs. No spec work. Just fun, thoughtful exercises that take 2–3 days. Some of the best creatives out there aren’t the loudest. But their work speaks volumes.
Do you pay them 2-3 days contract rate for the work??
I’d wager the same can be applied to non-creatives, too.
Redesigning a microwave interface sounds fun!
I agree with this approach, since I’ve also noticed that the market is full of so-called “experts” who claim many years of experience and call themselves seniors, but in reality their work is on a junior level. That’s why I believe this approach makes sense. Actual skills > years of experience «on paper»
Senior Designer/Art Director
2wIn other words, your creative budget is now 50% less. Good job man, although I wouldn't be patting myself on my back just yet.