First and foremost, this is a 1099 (self-employed) job, and that was the deal breaker for me. If you are looking for a W-2 type position, this most definitely is not for you. The interview process was a bit unusual. There are what they consider 3 interviews: the first was a career fair; the second was basically a sales pitch in a classroom setting; the third ends up as a 1-on-1 after getting some info on compensation. I hardly consider filling out a questionnaire at a career fair an interview. They called me in for a second interview, as they did quite a few people from the career fair. Unfortunately, there was a mix-up--blamed on a sick receptionist--in which the second interview I went to was actually considered a first. There were quite a few (guesstimate of about 20) people that came in and went out that had to reschedule for the second interview. The second interview was a presentation in their meeting room on the history of AIL and the McAdams Agency: there were approximately 30 people in this meeting. There was an opportunity to ask questions after the presentation, but no one asked anything. They then call each person what sets them apart from other candidates (a fairly standard question; nothing surprising). After your turn comes, you're handed a packet of information as you leave with a 3rd interview questionnaire. For the 3rd interview, you start out in a small meeting--a manager with 3 people, including yourself--where they break down the compensation method. Then it's onto a 1-on-1. I came loaded with questions, first & foremost being "is this a 1099 position?", and the first thing they asked was if I had any questions about the compensation. I asked my question. He asked if I thought I'd have any problems meeting their sales goals they explained and I said "no, but being self-employed and having the more difficult tax filing process wasn't worth the trouble". The thing that stands out to me is the number of people involved in the "interviews" and not truly getting to ask questions appropriate for a 1-on-1 until a 3rd and final interview: this is something that should've been taken care of much earlier (either on their part or mine, to be honest). You can draw your own conclusions on mass hirings from a large group of people. The expediency of the hiring process also troubled me. My references were never contacted by them, which tells me they did not do their due diligence on me (and I have nothing in my history that would be considered negative). They were more interested in bringing people aboard first, and THEN researching them which seems counter-intuitive to good business practice. I've had bad experiences in the past with employers who either a) hired first, asked questions later; or b) had expedited hiring timelines, and in both cases the job was an epic disaster (i.e. bad work environment, horrible work schedule-->lack of downtime).