Interview scorecard template

Email Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Email Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for live campaign examples: lifecycle flows, promotional blasts, newsletters. Look for before and after templates, brands worked on, and click-through or conversion lifts they can attribute. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationemail designhtml emailklaviyolitmus testing
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows real sends across Klaviyo, Braze or Marketing Cloud with rendered screenshots and open, click and revenue figures per campaign. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains specific fixes for Outlook conditional comments, retina images and dark mode inversion, and defends layout choices against inbox constraints. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Ask for live campaign examples: lifecycle flows, promotional blasts, newsletters. Look for before and after templates, brands worked on, and click-through or conversion lifts they can attribute.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Shows real sends across Klaviyo, Braze or Marketing Cloud with rendered screenshots and open, click and revenue figures per campaign.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe how they build: Figma to MJML or hand-coded table layouts, hybrid responsive techniques, dark mode handling, Outlook Word rendering engine quirks, and alt text plus semantic accessibility.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Explains specific fixes for Outlook conditional comments, retina images and dark mode inversion, and defends layout choices against inbox constraints.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they respond to Litmus or Email on Acid failures, brand team notes and A/B test losses. Ask about a design they revised after subscriber data contradicted it.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Describes iterating a hero or CTA after variant testing, citing the metric shift, and separates personal taste from evidence.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess intake with lifecycle marketers and merchandisers: campaign calendars, modular template systems, asset deadlines, and how they handle late copy or shifting promo dates.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Runs a reusable modular component library, clarifies segment and offer before designing, and consistently ships to the send calendar.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Email Designer

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

  1. 01

    Tell us about your experience designing email, and who you did it for.

  2. 02

    How many emails do you typically design in a week?

  3. 03

    What is your favourite and least favourite campaign you have designed?

  4. 04

    Are you comfortable with the markup and styling used in email?

  5. 05

    Can you explain your process for creating responsive email designs?

See the complete Email Designer 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