Evaluate Campus Ambassador candidates across 4 weighted areas: campaigns that performed, measurement and testing, audience and segmentation, and working with the business. Campaigns that performed leads at 30%, so ask what they actually ran on campus: freshers fair booths, dorm flyer drops, club collaborations, referral code pushes. Look for sign-up. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names specific activations with numbers: 240 sign-ups from a societies fair booth, 60 installs via their personal referral code. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate tracked results with codes or UTMs, compared two versions of a post or flyer, and changed approach based on what converted.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Campaigns that performed
30% weight
Ask what they actually ran on campus: freshers fair booths, dorm flyer drops, club collaborations, referral code pushes. Look for sign-up counts, footfall, and app installs attributed to them.
Evidence to listen for
Names campaigns or programmes they ran, with the metric they moved and the baseline it moved from
Distinguishes their own work from the team's or the agency's
Knows the audience and the offer, not just the channel
Can describe a campaign that failed and why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No numbers; describes activity rather than results.
2
Needs Improvement
Vanity metrics only; attribution to their own work is unclear.
3
Satisfactory
Real campaigns with some numbers; baselines often missing.
4
Very Good
Named campaigns with metric, baseline, and clear personal ownership.
5
Excellent
Names specific activations with numbers: 240 sign-ups from a societies fair booth, 60 installs via their personal referral code.
02
Evaluation factor
Audience and segmentation
25% weight
Probe how they map the student body: engineering versus business faculties, first years versus finals, society leaders, residence hall groups, and which channels each subgroup actually reads.
Evidence to listen for
Describes real customer segments and what differs between them, not demographic guesses
Has built lifecycle stages, journeys, or nurture logic that reflect actual behaviour
Knows where the audience data comes from and its limits
Writes for the segment rather than for everyone
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
One message for everyone; no segmentation thinking.
2
Needs Improvement
Segments by demographics only; no behavioural insight.
3
Satisfactory
Workable segmentation; lifecycle logic is basic.
4
Very Good
Behaviour-driven segmentation and lifecycle design with evidence behind it.
5
Excellent
Segments campus precisely and picks channels to match, citing WhatsApp year groups, society mailing lists, or specific hall noticeboards.
03
Evaluation factor
Measurement and testing
30% weight
Test whether they tracked anything: UTM links, unique promo codes, sign-up sheets, Instagram story reach, or A/B testing two poster designs or caption hooks.
Evidence to listen for
Tests deliberately rather than changing everything at once
Understands attribution limits and does not overclaim
Knows what sample size and duration a test needed
Can name a test whose result contradicted what they expected
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No testing; claims credit for correlation.
2
Needs Improvement
Runs tests but reads them badly; overclaims attribution.
3
Satisfactory
Tests sensibly; rigour drops under deadline pressure.
4
Very Good
Disciplined testing with honest attribution and a result that surprised them.
5
Excellent
Tracked results with codes or UTMs, compared two versions of a post or flyer, and changed approach based on what converted.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the business
15% weight
Check how they worked with the brand team: weekly reporting, sticking to brand guidelines and disclosure rules, escalating stock or budget issues, and handling university event permissions.
Evidence to listen for
Works with sales, product, or operations rather than throwing campaigns over a wall
Briefs designers and writers well enough to get usable work
Manages agencies or freelancers to a standard
Reports results to leadership without spin
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Works in isolation; reports only flattering numbers.
2
Needs Improvement
Limited coordination; briefs are thin.
3
Satisfactory
Coordinates adequately; reporting is honest if basic.
4
Very Good
Strong partner to sales and product; briefs and reports clearly.
5
Excellent
Reported reliably on schedule, respected brand and campus approval rules, and flagged supply or permission blockers before events.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Campus Ambassador
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you describe any previous leadership or ambassadorial roles you have held?
02
Are you comfortable organising and hosting events on behalf of an organisation?
03
Do you have any experience with social media marketing or digital promotion?
04
What would your strategy be to engage students and promote a brand on campus?
05
Do you have ideas for initiatives or events that would work on your campus?
