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 which channels they personally ran: Google Ads, Meta, LinkedIn, email, SEO. Probe monthly budget managed, CPA or ROAS movement, and what they changed to get it.
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 owned campaigns with real budgets and cites before and after CPA, ROAS or pipeline figures they can explain.
02
Evaluation factor
Audience and segmentation
25% weight
Probe how they built audiences: lookalikes, CRM lists, keyword intent tiers, lifecycle segments. Ask which segment underperformed and how they rebuilt or cut it.
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 segments by behaviour and intent, not demographics alone, and shows how targeting choices shifted cost per lead.
03
Evaluation factor
Measurement and testing
30% weight
Test their GA4, UTM hygiene, and conversion tracking work. Ask about a specific A/B test: sample size, duration, what won, and what they did after iOS or cookie changes.
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
Runs tests to a decision rule, admits inconclusive results, and can trace a conversion from ad click through CRM.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the business
15% weight
Look for how they handled sales handoff on lead quality, briefed designers or copywriters, and defended spend to a founder or finance lead.
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
Cites concrete feedback loops with sales on MQL quality and reallocated budget after a business conversation, not a dashboard alone.
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.
