marketing growthcircle discoursediscord moderationmember engagementonline community
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 community programs they ran end to end: AMAs, ambassador cohorts, Discord or Circle launches, virtual town halls. Look for member counts, activation rates and retention figures.
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 programs with before and after numbers: monthly active members, thread response rate, ambassador cohort retention over several quarters.
02
Evaluation factor
Audience and segmentation
25% weight
Probe how they mapped member types (lurkers, power users, ambassadors, churn risks) and tailored channels, onboarding flows and content calendars to each segment.
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 member segments by behaviour, not demographics, and shows how onboarding or channel structure changed per segment.
03
Evaluation factor
Measurement and testing
30% weight
Test their analytics habits: Common Room, Orbit, Discord insights, Discourse dashboards, UTM tracking. Check how they tested prompts, posting times and event formats.
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
Tracks engagement and health metrics weekly, runs deliberate tests on formats or timing, and abandons tactics the data does not support.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the business
15% weight
Judge how they fed member feedback to product, support and marketing, and how they handled moderation escalations, code of conduct breaches and crisis threads.
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 feedback loops that changed roadmap or docs, plus a moderation escalation handled calmly with clear policy grounding.
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.
