Applicants without spare cash or a comfort with public performance stand to lose as more employers use high-profile pitch contests to recruit. The format can hand a direct route into jobs and wide visibility to a small number of winners, while the vast majority who take part gain nothing tangible.
Prize-driven recruitment is scaling fast. L'Oréal’s Brandstorm drew 380,000 global applicants this year, up 58% from 240,000 in 2025, yet most participants do not win roles. For a handful of competitors the process delivers rapid career access: Yumi Liberman, 24, entered Brandstorm in the UK, reached the global final in Paris and helped her team finish third. Her UK-winning idea, a haircare app, led to a place on L'Oréal’s marketing management traineeship and a planned full-time role.
Liberman linked the format to familiar performance pressure, saying, "It reminded me of when I used to do competitive sports growing up and the pressure would get heavy," and added the contest allowed her to avoid time out of work after university. She contrasted her outcome with peers who have struggled to find work despite strong credentials, saying many "have applied to over 1,000 jobs, and have been jobless."
Not everyone adapts well to public competition. Melissa Alcruz, who worked in marketing for MTV and now works in New York real estate, described an internal promotion contest she called a "bake-off." She said candidates faced daunting expectations and unpaid follow-up work, noting, "This is intimidating, even for a seasoned professional. I ultimately got the job, but even though I won I disliked the process," and that winners were later "expected to complete several substantial projects" in their own time.
Recruitment trainer Katrina Collier warned the format creates "economic discrimination," asking whether only those with financial backing can spend months on unpaid challenges and still compete. Supporters say contests broaden applicant pools and let employers see practical skills. Jamie Kohn, senior director for talent acquisition at Gartner, said competition formats can be easier to assess than interviews, and employers should cap unpaid demands and provide feedback so unsuccessful candidates still gain experience.
Psychologist Amanda Potter added a personality concern, asking whether the contests discourage people who do not enjoy public performance. "Does this approach encourage all types of people to apply, or would certain types of people avoid these assessment methods?" she asked, suggesting firms risk hiring cohorts skewed toward ambitious, competitive personalities at the expense of other styles.
The debate now centres on whether companies will continue to use public contests while retooling them to reduce economic and personality bias, or accept that the approach, as currently practised, privileges visibility and performance over equitable access to jobs.
