Conflicts of Interest

No affiliate links on this site, and no competition is named here as good or bad. For a practical reference outside the awards context, see top remote companies.

Judges frequently know entrants. In a specialised category it is close to unavoidable, and the question is not whether conflicts exist but how a programme handles them.

What a conflict is

A judge with an interest in the outcome. A client, a former employer, a competitor, a partner, an investor.

Also a negative interest, which is discussed less: a judge who has a poor history with an entrant is conflicted in the other direction and equally so. For another perspective on recognition, evidence, or professional standards, see The Webby Awards.

And a sponsor relationship, where a judge represents an organisation with a commercial stake in a category.

How well-run programmes handle it

Declaration. Judges state their connections before reading, against the entrant list.

Recusal. A conflicted judge does not score that entry, and another reads it.

Documentation. The declaration is recorded, which is what makes the process checkable afterwards.

And publication of the panel in advance, which lets entrants see who will read and raise anything the programme did not know.

Where all four exist, conflicts are managed rather than absent — which is the achievable standard.

What to look for as an entrant

A published conflict policy, which more programmes have than publicise.

Named judges, published before entries close. Which is also one of the signs of a legitimate programme generally.

And a winners list over several years that does not consist of the organiser's clients or the sponsors' customers — which no single year demonstrates and several do.

What to do if you spot one

Tell the organiser, once, factually, before the deadline.

"I notice X is on the panel. We worked with them until last year — I mention it in case it affects how our entry is allocated."

That is the whole message. It is helpful rather than accusatory, and a well-run programme thanks you and manages it.

Do not raise it after losing. It reads as a complaint about the result regardless of merit, and it was equally true before.

And do not raise a conflict that favours you, which is a real temptation and is the same rule applied honestly.

What not to conclude

That a judge you know will help you.

Most recuse themselves, and those who do not are frequently harder on entries they know well — partly from caution and partly because familiarity reveals what an entry omitted.

Nor that a sponsor's presence decides anything. Sponsorship funds many legitimate programmes and is disclosed openly; what matters is whether sponsors judge their own categories, which is checkable.

The genuinely small field

In a narrow specialism the panel and the entrants are the same community, and full recusal would leave nobody to judge.

Programmes handle this by using judges from adjacent fields, from other regions, or from outside the sector entirely — which trades expertise for independence and is a reasonable trade openly made.

Where it is not handled at all, that is worth knowing before entering rather than after.

Sponsors and categories

Sponsorship is normal and its handling varies.

A sponsor funding a category and having no role in judging it is a straightforward arrangement disclosed openly.

A sponsor sitting on the panel for the category they fund is a different thing, and worth noticing before entering rather than after.

And a sponsor whose customers keep winning is the pattern that shows across years rather than in one.

None of this makes a programme illegitimate. It makes the shortlist worth reading with the sponsorship in mind, which takes a minute.

The judge who cannot recuse

In a small field the panel may lack anybody unconflicted.

Programmes handle it by weighting the other judges' scores, by bringing in an external reader, or by having the conflicted judge score everything except that entry — all reasonable and all worth being told about.

A programme that says nothing has either not considered it or considers it none of your business, and the first is more likely than the second.

Asking is legitimate: "How does the panel handle conflicts in a field this size?" A confident answer arrives immediately.

What entrants get wrong about this

Two beliefs, both common and both mistaken.

That a familiar name on the panel is worth having. It is usually neutral and occasionally negative, and it is never worth planning around.

And that conflicts explain losses. They almost never do — the ordinary reasons account for nearly all of it — and reaching for this explanation stops the review that would help.

The useful attitude is the one a well-run programme takes: conflicts are normal, they are managed, and they are not the interesting part of the result.

Judging as an entrant

Occasionally offered, and it is the best education available on this subject.

Reading forty entries against a scoring sheet teaches more about writing them than any guidance, and it is the reason people who judge write better entries afterwards.

It also creates a conflict, which is why most programmes bar judges from entering the categories they read.

Where the invitation comes, take it — and note what you found yourself skimming, which is what to remove from your own next entry.

Anonymised judging

Some programmes strip identifying detail before scoring, which removes conflicts at the first pass.

It works imperfectly — a specific project is frequently recognisable however it is anonymised — and it removes the crudest form of the problem.

Where a programme does it, entries should avoid naming themselves in the body where the guidance says so, since a breach can invalidate an entry.

Read that instruction carefully. It is easy to miss and it interacts awkwardly with supplying evidence, which usually wants attribution.

The short version

• Judges frequently know entrants in specialised categories, so the question is how conflicts are handled rather than whether they exist
• Conflicts run both ways: a judge with a poor history with an entrant is conflicted equally
• Well-run programmes declare, recuse, document, and publish the panel before entries close
• Raise a conflict once, factually, before the deadline — never after losing, when it reads as a complaint
• Do not raise one that favours you, which is the same rule applied honestly
• A judge who knows you is frequently harder on your entry, because familiarity reveals what was omitted