From Adweek:
Here's a pretty cool project from Mullen for a client we won't immediately reveal, lest we spoil the surprise. (Scroll down to the bottom of credits, or watch the video to find out.)
The Boston agency posted this job listing online for a "director of operations" position at a company called Rehtom Inc. The requirements sounded nothing short of brutal:
• Standing up almost all the time
• Constantly exerting yourself
• Working from 135 to unlimited hours per week
• Degrees in medicine, finance and culinary arts necessary
• No vacations
• The work load goes up on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's and other holidays
• No time to sleep
• Salary = $0
The job ad got 2.7 million impressions from paid ad placements. Only 24 people inquired. They interviewed via webcam, and their real-time reactions were captured on video.
Check out what happened below. It's worth watching to the end.
16 Comments
ChaosEngineNo, it's bloody not.
articianUgh, wish I could downvote.
TrancecoachBill Burr thinks otherwise...
Trancecoach*lies
siftbotAdding video to channels (Lies) - requested by Trancecoach.
sickiosays...My mother is so awesome she tells me not to waste money on stupid greeting cards.
chingaleraI'd agree to a certain extent because the men women have to choose from continue to become more clueless and dick-less as the second-hand moves, worldwide.
ChaosEngineOn behalf of artician... downvote.
Ugh, wish I could downvote.
chingaleraYESSsss! Way to rock that down-vote, CE-
(...always thought the ratio of ups to down-votes should be close to equal here....folks, y'all really need to lose that whole, "But nobody will liiike me!" shit, right?? it's...it's...pussified.
The moral here is, Don't litter, please recycle, and don't be a pussy...OH, and don't drive one of those energy-efficient tin-coffin's posing as a car, cause you look like a gimp goin' down the street bein' in the only one on the road surrounded by ginormous ones, and that shits' just plain dangerous.
On behalf of artician... downvote.
ChaosEngineyep, there is a difference between "your video is awful" and "you are a terrible person and should be ashamed".
..always thought the ratio of ups to down-votes should be close to equal here....folks, y'all really need to lose that whole, "But nobody will liiike me!" shit, right??
BoneRemakeOdd how both of your views are scewed as to the actual general purpose, although CE seems to have a better grasp.
For free you receive the VS FAQ :
Down voting is available, but only for members with a Bronze Star or higher. (See above.) Down voting is useful for when you find something you really don't like or just feel does not belong on VideoSift. If a video dips too far into negative numbers in its vote tally, SiftBot will automatically discard it. Please do not down vote a video because you dislike the Sifter who submitted it; this is entirely unacceptable. Instead, vote solely based on the quality of video content. If down voting or any other member privilege is intentionally misused, the offending member will be temporarily banned for no less than 2 weeks. A second offense will result in a permanent ban.
yep, there is a difference between "your video is awful" and "you are a terrible person and should be ashamed".
siftbotMoving this video to walle's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
ChaosEngineI fail to see how either of us are missing the point here.
I really don't like this video.. hence downvote. What's the problem?
Odd how both of your views are scewed as to the actual general purpose, although CE seems to have a better grasp. ....
Down voting is useful for when you find something you really don't like or just feel does not belong on VideoSift.
BoneRemakeI may have misunderstood
" On behalf of artician... downvote. "
I figured you were downvoting for him, not with him. Big difference as I am sure you can appreciate.
I fail to see how either of us are missing the point here.
I really don't like this video.. hence downvote. What's the problem?
ChaosEngineAh, that makes more sense. Point taken, but yes, I down voted for myself. I just felt artician should share in the vitrioldata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/655c6/655c6a23bda85a4f1cff1f6d96b8376aab44b3c6" alt=""
I may have misunderstood
" On behalf of artician... downvote. "
I figured you were downvoting for him, not with him. Big difference as I am sure you can appreciate.
X-Eko[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.