Interview scorecard template

Digital Reputation Manager interview scorecard

Pre-screening scorecard for Digital Reputation Manager candidates.

See AI scoring
marketing growthcrisis commsonline reputationreview managementsentiment monitoring
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

Check for named reputation programmes they ran: negative SERP suppression, Trustpilot or Glassdoor rating recovery, review velocity campaigns, or a live crisis they managed from first post to resolution.

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 brands or accounts, the starting rating or SERP position, the intervention, and where it landed within a stated timeframe.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they map audiences across platforms: which reviewer segments, forums, subreddits, or Glassdoor cohorts drive sentiment, and how messaging changed per channel and reviewer intent.

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

Distinguishes detractor types (billing, product, ex-employee) and tailors response tone, escalation path, and outreach channel to each.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test their measurement stack: Brandwatch, Meltwater, Sprout Social, or Google Alerts setups, share of voice, sentiment scoring methods, review response rates, and branded search click behaviour.

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 concrete dashboards and baselines, explains sentiment scoring limits, and tested response templates or outreach timing against measured lift.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Assess how they work with legal, support, and PR: takedown and right-to-be-forgotten requests, Google policy violation flags, review platform guidelines, and internal escalation thresholds.

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

Describes an agreed escalation protocol with legal and support, and knows which review removals are actually eligible under platform policy.

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