marketing growthengagement metricslooker studiosocial listeningsprout social
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 which posts, paid boosts or always-on content they personally reported on, and what moved: engagement rate, follower growth, reach, CTR, or share of voice against named competitors.
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
Cites specific posts and campaigns with before and after numbers, and explains which creative or timing choice drove the lift.
02
Evaluation factor
Audience and segmentation
25% weight
Probe how they segment followers versus reached non-followers, and whether they used Meta Audience Insights, TikTok analytics or listening queries to describe distinct audience cohorts.
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 real cohorts by platform, age and interest, and shows how findings changed posting cadence or creative direction.
03
Evaluation factor
Measurement and testing
30% weight
Test their reporting mechanics: UTM hygiene, GA4 attribution for social traffic, Boolean listening queries, sentiment tagging accuracy, and how they built recurring dashboards in Looker Studio or Sprout.
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
Names the dashboards and queries they maintained, admits sentiment tooling limits, and separates genuine trends from normal weekly noise.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the business
15% weight
Assess how they handed insight to content, paid media or PR teams, including weekly report formats, flagged spikes or crises, and pushback on vanity metric requests.
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
Gives examples where their read of the data changed a content calendar or escalated an emerging comment issue quickly.
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.
