Interview scorecard template

Junior Copywriter interview scorecard

Evaluate Junior Copywriter candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for their writing samples: landing pages, email sequences, product descriptions, social captions. Check whether pieces shipped live, and who the client or brand was. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationbrand voicecontent marketingcopywritingseo copy
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows a varied set of published pieces with links, names the brand and format, and explains what each was meant to do. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains word choices against voice guidelines, cites structures like PAS or AIDA, and writes cleanly within platform 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 their writing samples: landing pages, email sequences, product descriptions, social captions. Check whether pieces shipped live, and who the client or brand was.

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 a varied set of published pieces with links, names the brand and format, and explains what each was meant to do.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe how they build a headline, structure a CTA, and adapt to a brand voice guide. Look for grasp of AP style, SEO briefs, and character limits.

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 word choices against voice guidelines, cites structures like PAS or AIDA, and writes cleanly within platform constraints.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handle a marked-up draft from a senior writer or legal review. Look for evidence of rewriting to a fourth version without defensiveness.

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 specific edits accepted and rejected with reasons, and treats rounds of revision as normal rather than personal criticism.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Judge how they interrogate a thin brief: audience, offer, objection, channel, deadline. Look for questions asked before writing rather than after the draft.

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

Lists the questions they ask a marketer upfront, flags missing information early, and reliably delivers copy on the agreed deadline.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Junior Copywriter

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

  1. 01

    Can you provide samples of your previous writing?

  2. 02

    Do you have experience writing for a particular industry or audience?

  3. 03

    Do you have experience creating content for social channels?

  4. 04

    How would you describe your grasp of grammar and style guidelines?

  5. 05

    How well can you turn a complex idea into simple language?

See the complete Junior Copywriter 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