Interview scorecard template

Social Media Intern interview scorecard

Evaluate Social Media Intern 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 which posts, Reels, or TikToks they personally made and what reach, saves, or follower growth followed; check for handles you can. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthanalyticscommunity managementcontent creationsocial media
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names specific posts with view, save, and follower numbers, and shows live accounts they built or grew themselves. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate reads retention and save rates rather than likes, tests hooks or posting times, and reports what the data changed. 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 which posts, Reels, or TikToks they personally made and what reach, saves, or follower growth followed; check for handles you can open and view.

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 with view, save, and follower numbers, and shows live accounts they built or grew themselves.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they adapt tone and format per platform: LinkedIn versus TikTok versus Instagram Stories, and who they picture watching each one.

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 distinct audiences per channel and gives examples of reworking one idea into platform-native formats that performed differently.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test familiarity with native insights and schedulers: Instagram Professional Dashboard, TikTok Analytics, Later, Buffer, Metricool, plus which metric they judge a post by.

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 retention and save rates rather than likes, tests hooks or posting times, and reports what the data changed.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Look for how they handled comments, DMs, approvals, and content calendars alongside other people: designers, founders, or a marketing lead.

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

Ran a shared content calendar, escalated sensitive comments appropriately, and turned brief feedback into revised posts fast.

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