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 which growth experiments they personally ran: paid social creative, referral loops, onboarding email sequences. Ask for signup, activation or CAC numbers before and after their work.
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 experiments with owned metrics, for example lifting trial-to-paid from 4% to 7% via a three-email onboarding sequence.
02
Evaluation factor
Audience and segmentation
25% weight
Probe how they defined target segments: ICP filters in Apollo or Clay, cohort splits by acquisition channel, or lifecycle stages inside HubSpot or Customer.io.
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 segments by behaviour and source, and can explain why one cohort converted differently from another.
03
Evaluation factor
Measurement and testing
30% weight
Test their handling of GA4, UTM hygiene, event tracking in Mixpanel or Amplitude, and whether they know when an A/B test lacks sample size.
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 funnel dashboards critically, calls out attribution gaps, and refuses to declare a winner on underpowered test data.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the business
15% weight
Assess how they coordinated with sales, design and product: brief turnaround, creative requests, lead handoff quality, and weekly growth standup or reporting rhythm.
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 concrete handoffs, for example flagging poor lead quality to sales and rewriting form fields to fix it.
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.
