This week I had the privilege to be part of the 60 strong line up of “the industry’s most respected practitioners” judging panel on the final day of the Mumbrella Awards 2015.
The Mumbrella awards aspire to highlight the best and brightest of the industry across 25 categories from Creative and Media Agency of the year to the under 30 Achiever of the Year.
We think it’s essential for industry awards to be assessed by an eclectic cross-section of the industry: marketers, agency folk: media, PR, ad, intell/CRM and data specialists alike. A broad approach serves to minimise inherent bias and to optimise knowledge and perspective. This is critical as the very definition of our industry is morphing by the day. You might be amazing at brand but not be so hot on data or vice versa. It’s one of the reasons I was glad to be involved - it’s an important part of developing the industry.
My role was to panel with four other judges on the Mumbrella Awards for Data-driven Marketing and Direct Marketing Agency of the Year.
After being a judge for other awards such as the Effies and ACE awards for ADMA, there was one major and refreshing difference in the final round of judging for the Mumbrella Awards. Finalists all presented their submission in person to the panel and we were able to ask questions of them.
In at least a few cases, it changed the judges’ understanding of the submissions and affected the scores for entrants with the ability to prod and poke their cases more intensely. In one case, the outcome of the winner was changed as a result of the presentation.
Having experienced this process I’m hoping that other award shows take note and include the same opportunity in their judging process.
It was clear after an entire day of award submission presentations that there are some really talented people in this industry. It’s also clear there are some really talented award entry writers. It’s important competitions are set up to spot the difference.