Choosing What to Enter

No affiliate links on this site, and no competition is named here as good or bad.

A strong entry in the wrong programme scores no better than a weak one, which makes the choice more consequential than the writing and it receives a fraction of the attention. A useful comparison point is employee PC activity tracking, which approaches the issue from an operational angle.

The five questions

One. Who recognises the name? The question that separates programmes more than any other, and it is answerable by asking two customers.

Two. Is there a category that fits precisely? A specific category competes against a handful; a broad one competes against everybody, and judges score against the category's criteria. Related industry context can be found at The Wall Street Journal.

Three. Can you evidence the criteria? Read them as a specification and list what you hold against each. A programme where two criteria have nothing under them is a programme to enter next year, after measuring.

Four. What does it cost, all in? Fee, hours, other people's time, attendance, and what those days would otherwise do.

Five. Would you enter it twice? The second entry costs a fraction of the first, which makes a programme worth repeating worth substantially more than one worth entering once.

Fewer, properly

Three entries written in a rush score worse than one written well, and cost more in total.

Because the failures are administrative and evidential — both functions of time — and time spread across three entries produces three thin ones.

One or two a year, entered properly, with the evidence base maintained between them, is the arrangement that produces results.

And it is the opposite of what most advice suggests, which treats entering widely as a numbers game.

Where the numbers game fails

Because entries are not lottery tickets.

A thin entry does not have a small chance of winning. It fails the administrative check or scores in the bottom half, and the probability is close to zero rather than merely low.

Which means three thin entries have roughly the expected value of none, at three times the cost.

Finding programmes worth entering

Ask your customers what they respect, which is the only source that answers question one.

Look at trade bodies and professional associations in your field, which run programmes that are frequently unglamorous, cheap and genuinely selective.

Check what appears in procurement matrices you respond to, where a credential converts directly into points.

And ignore anything that approached you, which is a different category entirely.

When not to enter at all

When no category fits. Forcing an entry into an approximate category wastes the work.

When the criteria ask for what you do not measure, and the honest answer is next year.

When the timing is impossible. An entry written in the week of a deadline, alongside everything else, is the thin entry described above.

And when you cannot say what winning would be for, which is the question the cost page turns on and which is worth answering before rather than after.

Keeping a list

Programmes you would enter, checked in advance, with deadlines.

Five or six entries on one page: name, category that fits, deadline, fee, and what you would need to evidence.

Reviewed once a year, which takes an hour and removes the annual scramble.

And it changes how approaches are handled — anything arriving unsolicited is either on the list or it is not, which converts a judgement call into a lookup.

Timing across the year

Deadlines cluster, and the clustering is the practical constraint.

Two programmes closing in the same fortnight means one of them gets the thin entry, whatever you intended.

Put the deadlines on a calendar when you make the list, and where two collide, pick one — the decision is better made in January than in the week itself.

Entering something new

Where a programme is unfamiliar, the ten-minute check applies even though you found it rather than being approached.

Legitimate programmes you have never heard of are common, particularly trade body ones, and the check clears them quickly.

And ask one past winner what came of it, which answers the question the check cannot.

The programme somebody else suggested

A customer, a supplier or a trade body recommending one is the best available lead.

It answers question one immediately — somebody in your market knows the name — and it usually comes with a view about whether it is worth entering.

Ask them what they know about it: whether they have entered, whether they judge, and whether the winners are people they respect.

Which is three questions to somebody already inclined to help, and it is more informative than any amount of research.

When the deadline has passed

Note it and enter next year, having prepared properly.

A programme discovered a fortnight before its deadline is a programme to enter the following cycle — the entry written in that fortnight is the thin one this page argues against.

Use the year: read the criteria now, see what you cannot evidence, and start measuring it.

An entrant who prepares for twelve months submits something the rushed version cannot match, and the preparation is mostly not writing.

In one line

Enter one programme you would enter again, and the choice has done most of the work.

The short version

• A strong entry in the wrong programme scores no better than a weak one, so the choice matters more than the writing
• Five questions: who recognises it, does a category fit precisely, can you evidence the criteria, what it costs all in, and would you enter twice
• Three rushed entries score worse than one done properly and cost more in total
• The numbers game fails because a thin entry has a probability close to zero rather than merely low
• Find programmes by asking customers, checking trade bodies, and looking at procurement matrices — and ignore anything that approached you
• Do not enter when no category fits, when the criteria ask for what you do not measure, when the timing is impossible, or when you cannot say what winning is for