This looks like a "pay-to-win" scenario for the awards, where you have to pay to be able to get the higher level rewards.
I've worked on a lot of awards events during my career. The key is to have a non-biased approach to identifying the winners. Whether that's done with a panel of expert industry judges, or through data provided by a large aggregate of users, ie from reviews.
Without that it's difficult to justify the authority around the awards.
So you might ask, what will happen if the business doesnt meet the requirements for the Hyper Growth?
Well, in that case the award will be declined.
The whole propose for awardin, is to get metric-based awards, like Userbase Growth or Revenue Growth. Do you feel like even this way it could look biased?
Regarding the panel, that already came up to my mind, the problem here might be the budget costs to get that panel.
Do you feel like its possible to get a panel without paying for it?
Metrics can of course be used, but growth metrics when going by percentage can be more easily swayed. For example I have seen fairly small companies top the finance ratings for the most profitable companies because (in a hypothetical example) their revenue had gone from $1,000 MRR to $100,000 MRR so it was showing a growth of like 10,000% when another company had gone from $1.21bn/mo to $1.22bn a month and because the percentage was so small it was ranking them much lower even though the money change was $10m/mo.
Extreme example but gotta be careful how rankings can be swayed by this and bias given unfairly.
In terms of a panel of judges at no charge, the key is to either:
1) Build a reputable brand that people would be happy to be associated with and share on socials they are judging to improve their profile.
2) Partner with a brand who does not currently do awards but wants to do them - work out the partnership and probably have it the X Awards by X brand, or the X Brand Awards. That way it's much easier to source judges as they want to be associated and you can still do the work on the awards, leverage that audience for entries etc as well and potential sponsors/revenue, split accordingly as per your partnership and probably make more money than you would have going it alone for a lot less work.
Yes, ive already realised that could be a problem for companies >1M for example, but to be honest thats a problem for the future 😁 but might create separate categories depending on company size.
Super appreciated for your feedback regarding 1) and 2) that makes total sense and will definitely take them into consideration!
This looks like a "pay-to-win" scenario for the awards, where you have to pay to be able to get the higher level rewards.
I've worked on a lot of awards events during my career. The key is to have a non-biased approach to identifying the winners. Whether that's done with a panel of expert industry judges, or through data provided by a large aggregate of users, ie from reviews.
Without that it's difficult to justify the authority around the awards.
Hello!
Appreciated for your feedback.
This topic was actually to discuss the need for product awards (in general, not the ones from awardin)
But getting back to your point, right now awadin have 2 awards and the requirements are public
- Amazing Product 2023 (Free) awardin.co/awards/view/amazin…
- Hyper Growth - 2022 (Paid application, not award) awardin.co/awards/view/hyper-…
So you might ask, what will happen if the business doesnt meet the requirements for the Hyper Growth?
Well, in that case the award will be declined.
The whole propose for awardin, is to get metric-based awards, like Userbase Growth or Revenue Growth. Do you feel like even this way it could look biased?
Regarding the panel, that already came up to my mind, the problem here might be the budget costs to get that panel.
Do you feel like its possible to get a panel without paying for it?
Thank you 🙏
Metrics can of course be used, but growth metrics when going by percentage can be more easily swayed. For example I have seen fairly small companies top the finance ratings for the most profitable companies because (in a hypothetical example) their revenue had gone from $1,000 MRR to $100,000 MRR so it was showing a growth of like 10,000% when another company had gone from $1.21bn/mo to $1.22bn a month and because the percentage was so small it was ranking them much lower even though the money change was $10m/mo.
Extreme example but gotta be careful how rankings can be swayed by this and bias given unfairly.
In terms of a panel of judges at no charge, the key is to either:
1) Build a reputable brand that people would be happy to be associated with and share on socials they are judging to improve their profile.
2) Partner with a brand who does not currently do awards but wants to do them - work out the partnership and probably have it the X Awards by X brand, or the X Brand Awards. That way it's much easier to source judges as they want to be associated and you can still do the work on the awards, leverage that audience for entries etc as well and potential sponsors/revenue, split accordingly as per your partnership and probably make more money than you would have going it alone for a lot less work.
Yes, ive already realised that could be a problem for companies >1M for example, but to be honest thats a problem for the future 😁 but might create separate categories depending on company size.
Super appreciated for your feedback regarding 1) and 2) that makes total sense and will definitely take them into consideration!