This "awards" stuff is straight-up bulls@#$

SO I got this email about participating in an awards program. The subject line of the email is "Get more visibility, vendors." That just screams impartial adjudication right off the bat doesn't it? It says, 'you can trust these awards to guide you toward really remarkable solutions' right? Of course it does. 

Now let's be clear, the email in question came from Brandon Hall Research and while I do think that BHR does some good work and has some really fine people working there (I think Gary Woodill is particularly smart), I couldn't hate this email any more. 

From the email: "If your commercially-available product "raises the bar" in any of seventeen categories, then we have an awards program for you"...ouch. So I'm going to self-nominate my own product as a bar-raiser...so what...am I actually supposed to sit down and compare my product honestly and objectively with other products in the field and determine that yes, indeed my product is better than everyone else's...I'll send in a nomination? Does anyone actually think any company out there might conduct such an investigation and conclude the opposite? "Darn, we were going to nominate Widget X, but turns out that its just crap compared to everyone else." Hmmmm.

Also from the email:

"We make it as easy as possible to enter. You can link whatever gives the judges the best look at your product: a trial version of the technology; a recorded demo; videos, Web pages, documents, or slides describing the technology; or whatever combination of descriptive information you choose."

Wow. That's great. So there won't be any kind of standardized submission...so if someone else does really great slides but I send in an actual product, they could beat me. That seems...odd. Kind of like the Oscars saying we're going to give prizes for really great films but if you have some stills you'd like us to look at or maybe just a script to read, we'll do that instead. If you are going to judge products, then judge PRODUCTS. Not marketing materials. Not slide decks. Products. Wanna know why? Because as a potential customer of said product, I could give a crap about the powerpoint behind it. Get it? "Wow, the product is money pit, but the slide deck was AWESOME - thanks BHR Awards!"

So I click over to the awards site and BANG <slaps hand to forehead>...it all makes sense now! From the site: "The entry fee is $795 US." Oh, and I thought you really liked my product. You do? You really like my product and think it would be great if everyone had one and it would make learning that much easier and it would end poverty and cure hunger? Awesome :-) What? You're still going to need $800 from me to get considered for an award? 

Well...um...that's awesome. So I have NO idea how the process works once I pay the $800. I don't know who will judge my product that I have self-nominated and paid to have judged. I also don't know from a consumer standpoint, how much I can trust these awards. You've limited them to self-nominations. You've established a paywall. Now do you really expect me to believe, ESPECIALLY given the subject line of the email, that this is ANYTHING other than another product line for you? Do you really expect me to give ANY credence whatsoever to these awards? I'll tell you this, if-as a potential client, you give me a presentation and tout in that presentation that you've won one of these awards, that might not kill it right there, but your credibility as a vendor just took a hit in my eyes. "wow you won an award that you nominated yourself for and you paid to have judged. Here's a contract." Not happening. 

Now look, you want to run an awards program because you want to highlight advances in the field? Unique contributions? Brilliant new products? That's terrific. You guys know a lot...have smart people working there...you could probably set up real, very strict criteria and do a real service to both companies and the marketplace by highlighting the superstars. You know what? You'd also generate a lot of good PR for your own firm. This though? This serves no one but you and the companies who "win" (what's the percentage of 'losers' by the way - and the percentage of those losers who pay for the privilege the next year?). So let's keep the awards and just do them in a way that makes then real, earned badges of honor and not literally, bought and paid for.  

Comments

[Rbacal]

The business practices of e-learning and social media "research companies" tend to be very questionable at best, and at worst scam like and taking advantage of people ignorant of how things work. Their research tends to be propaganda that always seems to prove and support what they do.

[Sivasailam Thiagarajan]

Mark, thanks for demonstrating that the Emperor is naked. You can nominate this piece for the Most Courageous and Objective Blog Rant for 2010, if you believe that you have done better than other blog article of approximately this type. But first, send me a link and a slide. Also enclose your credit card number. For a one time fee of $1129, you article/rant will be judged by an expert panel and certified on it merits and writing style. This will immediately increase your visibility and number of registered readers. Don't miss this opportunity. Give yourself a special boost. Operators are standing by.

[Kevin Thorn]

Three cheers for Mr. Mark! As I've said before, you're among the company of folks who ask the tough questions everyone else is afraid to ask.

Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out for this sort of thing and being our advocate!

[twitter.com/jaycross]

Many years ago, back when the entry fee was $200, I volunteered to judge some Brandon Hall Awards. One vendor sent in a demo reel instead of a program. Another sent highlights. Most volunteer judges aren't going to go the extra mile to dig into how a product works.

You are right to call these guys on this shit.

So tell us, what do you think of the sham certificate programs which require attendance at a conference and hundreds, if not $1000+, in fees? Most of them are no better than diploma mills. The "professional" organizations that sponsor this crap should be ashamed. They tell me their fraud is "a significant source of revenue."

[Michael Hanley]

Bravo, sir!
A scam by any other name is still a scam, after all.
Rgds

[Rick Ladd]

Wow! Nice rant. Makes sense to me. I have great respect for anyone who self-nominates and pays for recognition. I mean, what could be more objective evidence of quality? Thanks to @hjarche for sending me this way. Good read.

[Kel Smith]

To quote George Bernard Shaw, "awards are for children."

[KoreenOlbrish]

Awww, c'mon...isn't this what we're pushing in schools too? Everyone's a winner, everyone gets a ribbon? Except...what this really is, is paid for marketing...not an award. I think it's a difficult task to judge on an apples-to-apples basis, but if we were really going to judge learning programs or technologies, it'd be based on learner performance and/or ROI (gasp!) and we know many in this field aren't capable of measuring either of those yet.

Let's just recognize these "awards" for what they are...participation ribbons on Field Day. If we all win, then there are no standards for excellence. I'm not willing to give up on standards just yet...