Interview scorecard template

Content Creation Internship interview scorecard

Evaluate Content Creation Internship 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 for specific posts, blogs, or short videos they published, on which handle, and what the reach, watch time, or engagement numbers. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthcontent marketingcopywritinginternshipsocial media
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names live URLs and real numbers: a TikTok that hit 40k views, a newsletter issue with 38 percent open rate. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate cites a specific metric they tracked weekly and one change (hook rewrite, posting time) they made because the data said so. 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 for specific posts, blogs, or short videos they published, on which handle, and what the reach, watch time, or engagement numbers were. Student society and personal accounts count.

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 live URLs and real numbers: a TikTok that hit 40k views, a newsletter issue with 38 percent open rate.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they decide what to make for whom: who reads or watches, why a hook works on Reels but not LinkedIn, and where they got that read.

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

Describes a defined audience (final year CS students, indie gym owners) and adapts format, tone, and length per platform deliberately.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Check whether they look at anything after posting: native analytics in Instagram Insights or YouTube Studio, UTM links, thumbnail or hook A/B tests, retention curves.

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

Cites a specific metric they tracked weekly and one change (hook rewrite, posting time) they made because the data said so.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Test how they take briefs and feedback: turnaround on edits, use of Canva, CapCut, Figma, or Notion content calendars, and handling brand tone rules.

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

Works to a documented calendar, absorbs revision notes without ego, and flags deadline risk early rather than delivering late.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Content Creation Internship

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    What kind of content have you created in the past?

  2. 02

    Do you have writing samples you can share?

  3. 03

    Do you have any experience with video content or editing?

  4. 04

    Can you describe how you research a topic you know nothing about?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience writing articles, blog posts or press releases?

See the complete Content Creation Internship question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards