Initial HR screening call to cover basic qualification, followed by a proctored cognitive test. Face to face/video interview with direct line manager and two more senior personnel separately. The initial call was entirely rote for a US company - if you've never interviewed for a US business it may seem more formal than you're used to, but otherwise it's very normal. The interviewer was professional, courteous and took the time to explain everything very clearly. They also handled the proctored test (a test under exam supervision - so during Covid taken through specialist software and requiring a webcam and microphone); the test is a very normal cognitive test and again quite routine for US companies. Prior to receiving the test the HR representative sent some guidance, sample tests and videos to watch on YouTube to see how the tests are conducted - the actual test is far simpler than the examples given and should not overtly worry candidates. The next stage video call interview was again quite standard, a structured 30-45 minute chat with the hiring manager talking through shared experiences. The hiring manager was personable and the company appeared to be in line with what I was looking for, though the job role had been altered from Finance Director to Financial Controller and so that facilitated a discussion during that call as I wasn't happy at what felt like a bait and switch. Since then IAS had re-advertised the role with the revised title so I could forgive a small administrative change but it should have been properly communicated from the outset as I am overqualified for a controllership position. To be fair to IAS the job description was closely aligned to a controllership, and unusually for roles advertised lately covered the entirety of the position rather than a baseline of activity. Beyond this there was a gap of about a week due to scheduling, where I met first with a UK representative (Glassdoor does not allow mention of names or job titles) who, though not part of the normal hiring process, was to be able to answer questions I had over the commerciality of the position. It was very clear that not only had that representative failed to prepare for the interview, but knew nothing about me or my aims for the role. It was at this point I had decided IAS was not the organisation for me and that this role was too junior, however I had been booked for another interview an hour later so went ahead. The final interview was with a senior member of staff in the New York office. Again they had not prepared properly for the interview and focused instead on very low impact operational matters. It was clear that the interviewee had been hired - dare I say it - beyond their capabilities and were functioning in a high level role with a strictly middle manager skillset. That is not the environment I want to work in (strict hierarchical, formal and unwilling to move) and so my resolution not to proceed was set. Naturally, given the very routine nature of the role and the lack of commerciality they did not want to proceed with my application, and while waiting for that feedback I secured a role elsewhere which is much better aligned to my abilities. I would advise anyone considering IAS for a position to remember that it is a *very* corporate environment. If you value autonomy or lack of structure then this will not be the company for you.

Very poor process - they'll ignore you once you take the CCAT test if you have not progressed to the next stage. If you applied online, you'll receive an email from their in-house Recruiter saying "congrats" you have an interview; this interview is with the Recruiter asking poorly thought out HR questions irrelevant to the role or level you're applying to. End of the interview I actually asked the Recruiter what their process is to select candidates for the interview: the relevant line manager - in this case Finance - is not involved in CV screening, the company is in the mercy of in-house Recruiters who are not exposed to daily operations so cannot have a thorough understanding of the nature & scope of the role, particularly when the role is based in London and Recruiter in Chicago! If you "pass" - which you will - you'll get invited to take a CCAT test; a test which cannot determine the true know-how, industry experience & skill set gathered throughout your career. You get recorded and watched which isn't a problem but felt weird. Once you take the test the Recruiter sends your profile / CV to the hiring manager (which they've only seen now!) & your CCAT result. If you did not progress they won't tell you why - either it's the CCAT test score or the Recruiter got it wrong with their CV screening; you'll get a general email of thanks but no thanks. I asked the Recruiter why I wasn't selected for the next round - nothing! It's really is a poor method of selecting candidates so no surprises the company has poor reviews throughout. Have they not thought about reputational risk and lost future revenue if previous candidates are in a position to select a vendor for ad fraud & viewability services? I certainly will never apply for another role here, will not recommend any of my peers to apply and will not recommend any of their services to my company!