Evaluate Search Engine Marketing (SEM) Specialist 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 check the accounts they personally managed: monthly spend, Google Ads and Microsoft Ads structure, and movement in CPA, ROAS. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate quotes real budgets and before/after CPA or ROAS figures, and explains which bid strategy or structural change drove the shift. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate names a specific test with sample size, duration and outcome, and flags a tracking flaw they found and corrected.
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
Check the accounts they personally managed: monthly spend, Google Ads and Microsoft Ads structure, and movement in CPA, ROAS or blended CAC over a named quarter.
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
Quotes real budgets and before/after CPA or ROAS figures, and explains which bid strategy or structural change drove the shift.
02
Evaluation factor
Audience and segmentation
25% weight
Probe how they build keyword and audience layers: match type strategy, negative lists, search term mining, remarketing lists, customer match, and handling of Performance Max audience signals.
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 negative keyword and audience signal workflow, showing which query clusters they cut and why intent differed.
03
Evaluation factor
Measurement and testing
30% weight
Test conversion tracking hygiene: GA4 and Google Ads tag setup, offline conversion imports, enhanced conversions, attribution windows, plus how they ran RSA or landing page tests to significance.
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 a specific test with sample size, duration and outcome, and flags a tracking flaw they found and corrected.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the business
15% weight
Assess how they work with sales, creative and finance: pacing against budget, feeding lead quality data back, and defending spend decisions to a sceptical stakeholder.
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
Cites cases where sales feedback on lead quality changed bidding or keyword scope, and reports pacing clearly to budget owners.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Search Engine Marketing (SEM) Specialist
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Do you have experience managing budgets for search campaigns?
02
Can you give examples of successful search campaigns you have managed?
03
How do you handle marketing a product with very low search volume?
04
Can you describe your process for keyword research on a new product?
05
Can you explain your approach to negative keyword discovery and implementation?
