THE MARKETING HIRING SCORECARD
Hire on the signals that predict performance, not the polish that predicts interviews. A hiring scorecard is a structured way to evaluate marketing candidates against the evidence that actually matters: did they survive a downturn, was marketing make-or-break where they worked, do they stay long enough to live with their decisions, do they understand that retention drives growth, and can they explain how their results actually happened.
Not to Be Confused With
A job description lists duties and requirements to attract applicants. A scorecard defines what good looks like so you recognise it when it walks in. Write the scorecard before you write the advert: it tells you what you are actually shopping for.
Culture fit is how bias dresses up for interviews. A scorecard forces you to score evidence: what they did, where, and what happened, instead of how much you enjoyed the chat. You are hiring for the team you need, not the lunch you would like.
Recruiting finds candidates; the scorecard chooses between them. Most companies over-invest in sourcing and under-invest in deciding. This is the deciding instrument.
The Five Evaluation Criteria
Rocket Ship or Dip?
- ★Strong Signal: Survived a company downturn and was part of the turnaround
- ○Neutral: Steady company, no major ups or downs
- ✗Red Flag: Only worked at companies during their peak growth (rode the rocket ship)
Was Marketing Critical?
- ★Strong Signal: Marketing was make-or-break for the company (eBay affiliates, Amazon, Facebook, Tripadvisor SEO, King mobile ads)
- ○Neutral: Marketing existed but wasn’t the primary growth driver
- ✗Red Flag: Marketing was a cost centre with minimal scrutiny
Tenure & Stability
- ★Strong Signal: Longer stints (3+ years) at most companies, ideally one ~10-year one. Tenure is one signal among several, not a rule
- ○Neutral: 2–3 years average, no long stints
- ✗Red Flag: Job-hops every 1–2 years, no long tenure anywhere
The Growth Question
Ask: “What is most important for growth?”
This is the one interview question I ask where there is a correct answer.
- ★Strong Signal: Customer retention (the correct answer)
- ○Neutral: A reasonable answer with good reasoning
- ✗Red Flag: Only talks about acquisition, viral loops, or hacks without mentioning retention
Can They Prove It?
- ★Strong Signal: Describes specific projects, explains HOW they achieved results, results mattered to the company
- ○Neutral: Can describe projects but fuzzy on methodology
- ✗Red Flag: Claims great results but can’t explain the mechanics
The Scorecard Template
| Criterion | Score (1–5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Rocket Ship or Dip? | ___ | |
| Marketing Critical? | ___ | |
| Tenure & Stability | ___ | |
| Growth Question Answer | ___ | |
| Can They Prove It? | ___ | |
| TOTAL | / 25 |
Reference Check Questions
- What were the critical marketing channels at their company when they were there?
- Were they on the team responsible for those critical channels?
- Did they drive results, or ride the rocket ship?
- How did they perform when things got hard?
- Would you hire them again?
“The majority of my direct reports have worked with me for over a decade. I have worked for my manager for over a decade, and most of my agencies have been with me for as long as I have been Chief Data Officer at Meta. That makes the work fun and builds a rapport where we can move fast because we know and trust each other.”
Know Its Limits
My position: the scorecard checks my biases; it does not replace my judgement. Scorecards are built from the past, and the past is an imperfect predictor. These filters favour people who have already held the right jobs at the right companies, which means they can screen out exactly the unconventional candidates who would do your best work. Some of the strongest marketers I have met had strange CVs.
And these filters assume experienced hires. For junior roles there is no track record to score: you are betting on potential, which needs a different instrument: work samples, curiosity, and how fast they learn.