Do you need to meet 100% of a job description to apply? Here’s how hiring managers really evaluate candidate fit, experience gaps, and potential.
Programmatic interviews can feel intimidating because the skill set is technical. But the candidates who stand out are rarely the ones who simply list the most platforms or use the most impressive terminology.
They’re the people who can really explain their thinking.
When the Campfire team and I speak with programmatic candidates, the answers can start to sound quite similar. Similar platforms. Similar campaigns. Similar metrics. And that makes sense, because a lot of people have worked across the same tools and similar types of activity.
The real difference is how you talk about the decisions you made.
Hiring managers will usually assume you understand campaign setup, optimisation, reporting, and platform navigation. That’s the baseline. What they are really listening for is how you think when performance changes, when something does not go to plan, or when you have to make a trade-off.
A strong candidate can talk through what they noticed, what they changed, what they chose not to touch, and why.
So, instead of saying, “I optimised bids and audiences,” go one step further. What made you make that decision? Was it CPM inflation? Audience fatigue? Signal loss? A drop in conversion rate? And what were you expecting to happen next?
That’s where the stronger answer sits.
I asked Manjit Singh, GM Activation and Product at Together, what makes someone stand out in a programmatic interview. Manjit leads activation across programmatic and search, and has hired activation talent from specialist through to director level.
He said the standout candidates usually cluster around five things: platform knowledge, curiosity, commercials, precision, and passion.
Platform knowledge matters, but Manjit made an interesting point here. It’s not about having a shallow knowledge of every platform. It’s far more impressive when someone has real depth in one or two. They can talk about the quirks, the limitations, the recent changes, and where a platform genuinely performs well.
Curiosity matters, too. Programmatic changes constantly. Identity, AI, CTV, DOOH, retail media. Something’s always shifting. The candidates who can talk about what they are reading, who they follow, or what they have been testing show something valuable. They’re not just relying on what they already know.
Commercial thinking is another big one. A CPA improvement on its own doesn’t prove very much. What did that improvement actually unlock? Did it free up budget? Improve margin? Help the client test something new? Support a wider advertising objective? That framing shows you understand you are in advertising, not just operations.
Precision also matters. Programmatic is unforgiving with detail. A wrong frequency cap, a poor exclusion, or a messy UTM can quietly cause problems for weeks. That’s why skills tests exist. Attention to detail is not just admin, it's part of the craft.
And then there’s passion, which is very hard to fake. It comes through in how someone talks about a campaign they're proud of, or one that didn’t land. The best candidates don’t just describe what happened. They talk about what they learnt, what they would do differently, and why the work mattered to them.
So, how do you prepare?
Choose two or three campaigns you can talk about properly. Not just what you ran, but what happened, what you noticed, and what you did next.
For each example, think about:
- What the business was trying to achieve
- Which platforms or channels were involved
- What signals you were watching
- What trade-offs you had to make
- What you changed first, and why
- What the result meant commercially
- What you would do differently now
Also, prepare one example where the performance was not perfect. I know that can feel risky, but it’s often where the best interview answers come from. Campaigns do not always behave. They can be naughty little campaigns! Audiences fatigue. Creative misses. Budgets shift. Good hiring managers know this.
What they want to hear is how you responded.
Did you diagnose the problem clearly? Did you test something sensible? Did you learn anything useful? Could you explain it without blaming the platform, the client, or the creative?
That’s the difference.
Programmatic interviews are not about proving you know every platform. They are about showing that you can interpret signals, make thoughtful decisions, and connect those decisions back to commercial outcomes.
.svg "MA-Logo (1)")
