Who the Judges Are

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

A published panel is information about how to write, and most entrants read it as reassurance about legitimacy and stop there. For teams that want a concrete workplace example, learn more.

What the list tells you

How much to explain.

A panel of specialists in your field does not need the sector described, the terminology defined or the context established — and words spent doing so are words taken from the answer. Related industry context can be found at The Drum.

A mixed panel — practitioners, a journalist, a sponsor's representative, an academic — needs a plain-language version of anything technical, and an entry written for specialists will lose points with half the readers.

And a panel from outside the sector entirely, which some programmes use for independence, needs everything explained and rewards clarity above expertise.

What else is readable

What the panel will recognise as difficult.

A judge who has run a small organisation knows what a 12% margin means and what it cost. One who has not may read the same figure as unremarkable.

Which is not a reason to write differently for different judges — you cannot — but it is a reason to state why something was hard where the difficulty is not self-evident.

And what the programme values, inferable from who it recruited. A panel weighted toward finance reads differently from one weighted toward design, whatever the criteria say.

What not to read from it

That you know somebody. Which is usually neutral and occasionally negative, and never worth planning around.

That a famous name will read your entry. Prominent judges frequently join final panels only, and the first-pass scoring that decides whether you reach them is done by others.

And that a strong panel means strong judging. A real programme can still assess casually — with insufficient time, or against criteria that do not distinguish — and nothing on the outside reveals it.

Where no panel is published

A signal, and not always the same signal.

In an established programme it is an omission worth asking about. In a new one it may simply not be settled yet.

And where a programme names no judges at any point, including after the result, that is the strongest available indication that there was nothing to name.

Writing for a reader you cannot identify

The default, since most entries are written before the panel is confirmed.

Write for an intelligent reader who does not work in your field.

Define anything a colleague would need explained, once, briefly.

Avoid internal names for things — a project codename, an internal metric — which cost a judge attention and gain nothing.

And keep the technical detail where it evidences a claim rather than where it demonstrates expertise. A judge is scoring the criterion, not assessing your knowledge.

What judging is like for them

Voluntary, in evenings, alongside actual work.

Most judges are not paid and take it on because they are asked and because it is a credential.

Which means the constraint is time rather than willingness — and an entry that is easy to score is a courtesy that scores better for that reason rather than any other.

It also explains why feedback is scarce, why asking for a sentence works and asking for a review does not, and why gracious behaviour after a result is remembered.

Panels that change

Between the announcement and the judging.

People withdraw, and programmes substitute. A panel published in March may not be the panel reading in June.

Which is a further reason not to write for specific individuals and to treat the list as a description of the programme's intent rather than a promise.

Where the final panel is published afterwards, comparing it to the original is occasionally informative about how the programme is run.

The chair

Where one is named, they matter more than the rest.

A chair typically moderates disagreements, decides borderline cases and shapes the discussion at the final stage.

Their background is the best single indicator of what a panel weights — more so than the composition, because they set the terms of the conversation.

Worth two minutes where the role is named.

Judges as an audience beyond the result

People who read your entry now know your organisation exists.

A panel of practitioners in your sector has spent twenty minutes on a detailed account of what you do — which is more attention than most marketing ever buys, and it happens whether or not you win.

Not a reason to enter and worth noting when weighing what an entry is actually worth.

And it is an argument for the entry being accurate, since the people reading it are the people who would notice if it were not.

Reading the panel for what the programme is

A list of practitioners from the sector indicates a programme judged on substance.

A list weighted toward sponsors and media indicates one where visibility matters more, which is legitimate and is a different proposition.

And a list of people with no evident connection to the field indicates either deliberate independence or a panel assembled for names — and the distinction is usually visible in whether their backgrounds are explained.

In one line

Read the panel to decide how much to explain, and nothing else.

The short version

• A published panel tells you how much to explain, which is the most useful thing in it and the least read
• Specialists need no context and a mixed panel needs plain language for anything technical
• State why something was difficult where the difficulty is not self-evident to somebody outside your position
• Do not plan around knowing a judge, and note that prominent names frequently join final panels only
• A strong panel does not guarantee careful judging, and nothing visible from outside reveals the difference
• Where no panel is named at any point, including after the result, there was probably nothing to name