Interview scorecard template

Digital Marketing Intern interview scorecard

Evaluate Digital Marketing Intern 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 personally shipped: a student society Instagram account, a Shopify side project, a Google Ads voucher campaign, plus follower. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthdigital marketinggoogle analyticsinternsocial media
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names a specific campaign or channel they ran, with before and after numbers and an honest account of their own contribution. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate reads their own numbers unaided, explains one A/B test or tracking setup, and admits when a sample was too small to conclude anything. 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 personally shipped: a student society Instagram account, a Shopify side project, a Google Ads voucher campaign, plus follower counts, click volumes or open rates.

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 a specific campaign or channel they ran, with before and after numbers and an honest account of their own contribution.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they decided who the message was for: buyer personas from a coursework brief, TikTok versus LinkedIn tone, or segmenting a Mailchimp list by behaviour.

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 real audience in concrete terms (age, platform, motivation) and shows how that changed copy, format or posting time.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test familiarity with GA4, Meta Ads Manager, UTM tags and basic spreadsheet work; ask what CTR, CPC or bounce rate meant in something they tracked.

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

Reads their own numbers unaided, explains one A/B test or tracking setup, and admits when a sample was too small to conclude anything.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Look for how they handled feedback and deadlines: approval from a supervisor, a brand guideline they had to follow, or a post pulled before publishing.

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

Takes edits without defensiveness, chases briefs proactively, and gives examples of coordinating with a designer, tutor or small client.

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