Interview scorecard template

Marketing Intern Associate interview scorecard

Evaluate Marketing Intern Associate candidates across 4 weighted areas: campaigns that performed, measurement and testing, audience and segmentation, and working with the business. Campaigns that performed leads at 30%, so ask what they personally shipped: a student club Instagram account, a Mailchimp newsletter, a TikTok series. Probe follower growth, open. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthcontent calendargoogle analyticsmarketing internsocial media
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names specific posts, emails or campus campaigns they ran, with before and after numbers rather than vague team credit. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate reads basic dashboards unprompted, distinguishes reach from engagement from conversion, and cites a test that changed their approach. 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

Campaigns that performed

30% weight

Ask what they personally shipped: a student club Instagram account, a Mailchimp newsletter, a TikTok series. Probe follower growth, open rates, or event signups they can quote.

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 posts, emails or campus campaigns they ran, with before and after numbers rather than vague team credit.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they decided who a message was for: student segments, buyer personas from a course project, or list splits in HubSpot or Mailchimp.

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 a concrete audience with real detail, and explains how tone, channel and timing changed for that group.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test comfort with Google Analytics, Meta Ads Manager or a UTM spreadsheet. Ask which metric they watched daily and what a failed post taught them.

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 basic dashboards unprompted, distinguishes reach from engagement from conversion, and cites a test that changed their approach.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Look for how they handled deadlines, feedback and approvals: content calendars, revision rounds from a supervisor, coordinating with a designer or club president.

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

Shows a habit of asking clarifying questions early, delivering drafts on schedule, and absorbing edits without repeating the same mistakes.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Marketing Intern Associate

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

  1. 01

    Can you give an example of a marketing campaign you have worked on?

  2. 02

    How familiar are you with digital marketing tools and analytics?

  3. 03

    Which areas of marketing interest you most, and why?

  4. 04

    Describe how you would go about creating a marketing strategy.

  5. 05

    What is your understanding of our target audience, and how would you reach them?

See the complete Marketing Intern Associate 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