Interview scorecard template

Performance Marketer interview scorecard

Evaluate Performance Marketer 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 specific paid campaigns they owned: monthly budget, channels (Google Ads, Meta, TikTok), CAC or ROAS before and after, and what drove. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthconversion trackinggoogle adspaid mediaroas
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names budgets managed, cites CAC or ROAS movement with dates, and explains which levers (bids, creative, audiences) produced the lift. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate distinguishes correlation from incremental lift, sets sample and duration up front, and admits when a test lacked power to conclude. 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 specific paid campaigns they owned: monthly budget, channels (Google Ads, Meta, TikTok), CAC or ROAS before and after, and what drove the change.

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 budgets managed, cites CAC or ROAS movement with dates, and explains which levers (bids, creative, audiences) produced the lift.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they build audiences: lookalikes, customer match lists, exclusion of existing buyers, LTV cohorts, and how targeting shifted after signal loss from ATT and cookie deprecation.

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 segment logic tied to LTV or purchase intent, and adapts targeting to privacy constraints using first-party data and modelled conversions.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test measurement literacy: GA4 events, server-side tagging, incrementality or geo holdout tests, attribution windows, and how they call a creative test with thin volume.

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

Distinguishes correlation from incremental lift, sets sample and duration up front, and admits when a test lacked power to conclude.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Check how they work with creative, product and finance: creative briefs to designers, landing page requests, blended CAC targets, and pushing back on unrealistic spend goals.

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 working loop with creative and analytics teams, reports honestly against blended targets, and renegotiates goals with data.

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