Free download. Use it offline or customize it for your company.
Welcoming questions
Can you tell us about yourself and the audiences you have written for?
What to look for: A strong answer describes distinct audiences and how the candidate adapted for each; writers who describe only topics, never readers, tend to write for themselves.
Sample answer: I have written professionally for about five years, split between an agency and an in-house role at a fintech startup. The agency years meant switching audiences constantly, from facility managers to dental practice owners, which taught me to interview a subject matter expert fast and find what that specific reader worries about. In-house I wrote for small business owners choosing payment tools, so every piece had to respect that they were busy, skeptical, and comparing us against two other tabs.
Which piece in your portfolio best represents you, and why?
What to look for: Look for pride grounded in process or results, not just topic enthusiasm; strong writers can explain the decisions behind the piece.
Sample answer: A 3,000 word guide on payroll compliance for first-time employers. I picked it because the topic was dry and crowded, and I still made it the piece our sales team sends to prospects. I interviewed our head of compliance, structured it around the five mistakes that actually trigger penalties instead of a generic checklist, and it has held a first-page ranking for over a year. It represents how I work: unglamorous topic, real reporting, structure that respects the reader's time.
Role-specific and technical questions
Walk us through your process from brief to published article.
What to look for: Strong candidates describe a repeatable process with a self-editing step and realistic timelines; a red flag is jumping straight from brief to drafting with no research or outline stage.
Sample answer: I start by interrogating the brief: who is the reader, what should they do after reading, and what does the current top-ranking content miss. Then research, usually a mix of published sources and 20 minutes with an internal expert if I can get it, and an outline I share for a quick sanity check before writing a word. Drafting is fast once the outline is approved. I always leave the draft overnight before self-editing, because I catch structural problems cold that I miss warm, then it goes to the editor, one revision round, into the CMS with metadata and internal links, and out.
How do you research a topic you know nothing about, and how do you verify accuracy?
What to look for: Look for a preference for primary sources and expert input over recycling other blog posts, plus a concrete verification habit.
Sample answer: I start with primary sources where they exist: regulations, official documentation, original studies, because the top ten blog posts on any topic mostly paraphrase each other, errors included. Then I try to talk to someone who does the work, even 15 minutes with an internal expert, and I ask them what everyone gets wrong about the topic, which is usually where the best angle hides. For verification I keep a source link next to every factual claim in my draft, so the editor can check anything and I can update the piece when facts change.
How do you write for search intent without producing generic SEO filler?
What to look for: Strong answers treat the keyword as a question to answer well, and the candidate can name something specific they add that ranking competitors lack.
Sample answer: I read the keyword as a question and the search results as the current best attempts to answer it, then I look for what they all skip. Usually it is specificity: real numbers, an honest tradeoff, a step everyone glosses over because it is hard to explain. I answer the core question in the first screen instead of burying it under a 400 word throat-clearing intro, and I let headings follow the reader's follow-up questions. The SEO mechanics like metadata and internal links take ten minutes at the end; the ranking advantage comes from being the one piece that was clearly written by someone who understood the topic.
How do you use AI tools in your workflow, and where do you draw the line?
What to look for: Look for deliberate use with clear boundaries and full ownership of accuracy; both blanket refusal and uncritical dependence are warning signs.
Sample answer: I use AI for the scaffolding: brainstorming angles, pressure-testing an outline, suggesting alternatives for a clunky sentence, and summarizing long source documents before I read the relevant parts myself. I do not publish AI-drafted prose, because it averages out exactly the specificity that makes content worth reading, and I never trust it on facts; every claim still gets a source I have checked. My line is simple: AI can help me think faster, but the reader is owed a human who actually understood the topic.
Pick one of our published blog posts before the interview. How would you improve its opening?
What to look for: Strong candidates arrive having done the homework and critique specifics constructively; inability to articulate why an opening fails is a craft gap.
Sample answer: I read your piece on structured interviews. The opening spends three paragraphs defining the concept before giving the reader a reason to care, and anyone searching that term already half-knows the definition. I would open with the cost of the status quo, something like the fact that unstructured interviews barely outperform a coin flip on predicting job performance, then promise the piece delivers a usable scoring template. Same information, but the reader now has a stake in paragraph one instead of paragraph five.
Behavioral and culture fit questions
Tell us about the harshest edit or feedback you received. How did you handle it?
What to look for: Look for a candidate who separated ego from craft and changed something durable in how they work; lingering resentment toward the editor is a red flag.
Sample answer: An editor once returned a draft I was proud of with the note that it was well written about the wrong thing, and she was right: I had answered the question I found interesting instead of the one in the brief. It stung for about a day. The durable fix was adding one step to my process: before drafting, I write a single sentence stating what the reader should be able to do after finishing, and I confirm it against the brief. I have not had a piece rejected for scope since.
Describe juggling several deadlines at once. How do you keep quality consistent?
What to look for: Strong answers include a concrete system for staging work and honest early communication when something will slip.
Sample answer: At the agency I typically had four or five pieces in different stages, and the trick I learned is that the stages are the system: research for one piece, draft another, edit a third, because each mode uses a different kind of energy. I front-load anything with an external dependency, especially expert interviews, since those blow deadlines more than writing does. When a collision is coming, I flag it to my editor a week out with a proposed trade, not the day before. Quality stays consistent because my self-edit checklist does not shrink when I am busy; scope does.
How do you maintain a brand voice that is not your natural style?
What to look for: Look for a practical method for absorbing and checking voice, and evidence the candidate treats voice as a craft skill rather than a constraint on their artistry.
Sample answer: I build a private cheat sheet from the brand's best existing pieces: sentence length patterns, words they use, words they would never use, how they handle humor and certainty. Before submitting, I do a dedicated voice pass separate from the accuracy pass, reading a few paragraphs aloud against a published piece. At the fintech job the voice was warmer and more casual than my natural register, and the cheat sheet caught my formal tics for the first few months until the voice became automatic. I think of it like an actor's accent: it is craft, not compromise.
Problem-solving and case questions
An expert reviewer says your draft has a factual error, but your source disagrees. What do you do?
What to look for: Strong candidates investigate the conflict rather than deferring automatically to either side, and they know how to hedge honestly when a question stays unsettled.
Sample answer: First I ask the expert for their basis, because the disagreement usually dissolves once you compare sources: my source may be outdated, or we may be talking about different jurisdictions or editions of a rule. This happened to me with a tax threshold that had changed mid-year; my source was technically correct for January and the expert was correct for the date of publication. If both sources are credible and the conflict is real, I either find a third authoritative source or write the claim to acknowledge the nuance. What I never do is silently keep my version to avoid an awkward conversation.
A post you wrote ranks well but converts nobody. How do you rework it?
What to look for: Look for diagnosis of intent mismatch before cosmetic fixes, and realism about what an informational post can be expected to convert.
Sample answer: Ranking with zero conversions usually means an intent mismatch, so I would start by checking which queries actually drive the traffic in Search Console. If people arrive for a definition and we pitch a demo, no CTA redesign will save it. My rework would match the ask to the reader's stage: for an early-stage informational post, that might be a template download or a related guide instead of a demo button, plus a CTA placed right after the section where the reader's problem becomes concrete. Then I would give it a month and compare assisted conversions, not just last-click, because top-of-funnel content mostly converts on the second visit.
You must produce eight articles this month with design support for only three. How do you plan?
What to look for: Strong answers allocate scarce design work by expected impact and show resourcefulness with self-serve visuals, rather than treating the constraint as a blocker.
Sample answer: I would rank the eight by how much visuals change their outcome. Data-heavy pieces and anything targeting a competitive keyword where the ranking pages all have custom graphics get the three design slots. For the other five, I can self-serve a lot: annotated screenshots, simple tables, diagrams in Figma or Canva that follow the brand palette, which honestly cover most B2B content needs. I would also sequence the design requests in week one so designers are not squeezed at month-end, and note the two pieces that deserve a visual upgrade later when capacity opens up.
Generate custom Content Writer interview questions
Need questions tuned to your industry, seniority level, or interview stage? Describe the role and our AI interview questions generator will draft a set in seconds.
