Interview scorecard template

Crowd Funding Consultant interview scorecard

Evaluate Crowd Funding Consultant 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 named campaigns on Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Wefunder or Crowdcube: funding goal, amount raised, backer count, pledge levels, and their exact role. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthbacker acquisitioncampaign funnelkickstarterreg cf
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate cites specific raises with dollar totals, backer counts and conversion rates, and separates their own contribution from the founder's. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate quotes real CPL and CPA figures, names attribution gaps, and shows tests that changed creative, tier structure or launch timing. 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 named campaigns on Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Wefunder or Crowdcube: funding goal, amount raised, backer count, pledge levels, and their exact role in prelaunch.

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

Cites specific raises with dollar totals, backer counts and conversion rates, and separates their own contribution from the founder's.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they build prelaunch email and VIP lists, segment cold traffic versus warm backers, and match reward tiers to superbacker versus first-time pledgers.

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 segment-specific messaging, lookalike audiences built from past backer data, and reward tier pricing tuned to observed pledge behaviour.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test their handle on cost per lead, cost per backer, Meta and Google ad ROAS, landing page A/B tests, and Kickstarter referral or BackerKit dashboard data.

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

Quotes real CPL and CPA figures, names attribution gaps, and shows tests that changed creative, tier structure or launch timing.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Check how they manage founder expectations on realistic goals, coordinate with video producers, PR and fulfilment partners, and handle stalled campaigns or refund pressure.

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

Gives examples of resetting an unrealistic goal with data, plus clear handoffs to production and post-campaign fulfilment teams.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Crowd Funding Consultant

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

  1. 01

    Can you share examples of crowdfunding campaigns you have managed?

  2. 02

    Can you explain your process for setting realistic funding goals?

  3. 03

    How do you handle unexpected setbacks during a live campaign?

  4. 04

    How do you determine the target audience for a campaign?

  5. 05

    What approach do you take to creating a compelling campaign story?

See the complete Crowd Funding Consultant 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