Interview scorecard template

Marketing Professional interview scorecard

Evaluate Marketing Professional 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 for two campaigns they owned end to end: budget, channels (paid social, email, SEO), and the pipeline, MQLs, or revenue figures they. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthcampaign managementcontent strategydemand generationmarketing analytics
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names specific campaigns with spend, channel mix, and outcome numbers, and separates what they personally owned from team results. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate explains attribution choices and test design honestly, quotes sample sizes or confidence, and cites a losing test they learned from. 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 for two campaigns they owned end to end: budget, channels (paid social, email, SEO), and the pipeline, MQLs, or revenue figures 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 campaigns with spend, channel mix, and outcome numbers, and separates what they personally owned from team results.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they built personas or segments: data sources used, CRM or CDP lists, and a case where messaging changed by segment or lifecycle stage.

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 segments grounded in real data (firmographics, behaviour, lifecycle) and shows messaging that measurably shifted for one segment.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test their measurement stack: GA4, HubSpot or Marketo reporting, UTM discipline, attribution model used, plus one A/B test where the result contradicted their expectation.

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

Explains attribution choices and test design honestly, quotes sample sizes or confidence, and cites a losing test they learned from.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Check how they work with sales, product, and finance: lead handoff SLAs, budget defence, and a time they pushed back on an unrealistic request.

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 concrete examples of aligning with sales on lead quality and defending budget with performance data rather than opinion.

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