Grading an ad campaign only makes sense if you assess the approach, not just the outcome. In a simulator the figures are fictional, which is actually an advantage: it forces you to look at the reasoning. This article offers a complete rubric, a ready-to-use marking scheme, a worked marking example and tips for staying fair.
Assess the approach rather than the number
Two students can reach the same result for opposite reasons: one reasoned, the other got lucky. A simulator makes this even more obvious, since chance plays a role. Assessing the result alone would therefore reward luck. The right question is: did the student make justified decisions and draw the right lessons from them?
Four criteria
1. Soundness of the set-up. Does the chosen objective match the intent of the case? A local launch is not handled like an online sale. See Choose the campaign objective.
2. Quality of targeting and budget. Is the audience justified? Is the budget allocated with arguments, and does the duration leave time to learn? See Optimize without breaking learning and Targeting and audiences on Meta.
3. Reading the results. Does the student pick the right metrics for the objective? Do they tell a cause from a correlation? Do they compute a CPA or a ROAS correctly? See Digital marketing formulas.
4. Optimization approach. Did they state a hypothesis, change a single variable and measure again? This is the logic of the A/B test and of the article The ad A/B test.
Mastery levels
Four levels per criterion are enough:
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| Insufficient | Unjustified choice, or justification unrelated to the case |
| Fragile | Coherent choice but partial justification or reading errors |
| Proficient | Choice justified by the case and the metrics, clear approach |
| Advanced | Alternatives considered, limits acknowledged, transferable lessons |
Sample marking scheme out of 20
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Set-up | 4 |
| Targeting and budget | 5 |
| Reading the results | 5 |
| Optimization approach | 4 |
| Clarity of the presentation | 2 |
Adapt the weights to your course: a module focused on measurement will give more weight to the third criterion.
Which deliverables to ask for
- A justification note of half a page: why these choices for this case.
- A logbook: hypothesis, change, measurement, conclusion, for each round.
- A short oral presentation for team projects.
Fairness practices
- Share the rubric before the exercise.
- Assess each student on their individual approach, even in pairs, by asking for a short personal reflection.
- Reward a disproved hypothesis that is well analyzed: that is successful learning.
- Remind students that simulated results do not predict those of a real campaign.
- Do not grade the gap to the group’s “best result”: it partly reflects chance.
Frequently asked questions
Can grading be automated? The numbers can help, but reasoning is read in the written justifications.
How do I limit copying between students? Give each group a slightly different case (another budget, another audience) or ask for an oral justification.
How long does marking take? With the rubric, allow a few minutes per paper.
Want to try this rubric with your class? Request access.