More awards bullsh@%t!

So I wrote this little blog post last year about an email I got concerning an awards program. My problem was the cost associated with entering the contest and the utter lack of transparency and the fact that empty contests like this demean our industry and our efforts. Small problems right?

I was actually alerted to this contest by someone in my network but I also just got the email announcing it myself. 

Last year the cost to be in this fine "contest" (pls use airquotes when reading aloud), was over $800 - I guess the economic downturn has hit everyone  and the cost is now down to $575. 

Let me say again - this is the "Brandon Hall Excellence Awards". Now I should say, like I did last year, that I admire not only the some of the work that BHR does but a lot of the people that are analysts there. Really do....BUT....

...awards like these just cheapen and demean our industry. Any awards program that is administered and run by a for-profit company is suspect by nature. Why can't we forge some non-commercial group that will ajudicate an awards program - that would be cool and helpful. One that is not associated with any one conference, publication or company - what about an awards program that is associated with our industry?

Here is one truth - that won't happen on one level because awards programs like this are money makers. Pure and simple. I think another truth is that our industry is just too fractured. We have designers, developers, consultants, academics, 'legends', edupunks and more - how do we bring that group together?

So I'm sorry BHR, I won't be paying the $575 to "get the recognition I deserve"....I hope that will come from my peers, my clients and my stakeholders. 

Comments

[mark oehlert]

Tom,

First, to be clear, my organization doesn't ask me before it applies for awards and I don't ask them before I post something on my blog. Thanks for the implication of hypocrisy however.

Second, would the word "Bullsh%t" be ok if DAU had not applied or won a Brandon Hall award?

Third, I think you're right about a "validated" process that is "refereed". I think a large part of my problem comes from the fact that neither I nor a couple of those leaving comments, seem to feel that the current awards program is either validated or fairly refereed.

So feel free to turn over the judging process to a not-for-profit org (like Clive mentions), keep everything else the way it is and proceed. What do you say?

[Tom Werner]

Mark, I can certainly understand that someone would decide that awards programs (either all or one in particular) are not their cup of tea.

But your use of the term bullsh@%t seems a little strong given that your organization, Defense Acquisition University, entered and won a silver medal in the 2010 Brandon Hall Excellence Awards.

Some organizations, in their efforts at evangelism, find outside validation (in the form of some type of refereed process, like publication, votes, awards, shoot-outs, etc.) helpful.

[Jay Cross]

Several years back I signed up as a judge for the BH awards because I wanted to see how the sausage is made. One entrant submitted a greatest hits demo reel instead of a program. Worse yet, there was no way to get further information about the submissions. Judges could not ask questions. Not to mention that there's no verification that what's submitted has any basis in reality.

There's another class of awards, too -- the ones that publishers and conference hosts give out to their biggest advertisers. I remember IBM telling me years ago, but "We are the training company of the year." I pointed out that they were platinum sponsors of every event where they won an award.

Vendors run these scams to make money. However, the "winners" are happy to play along (wink, wink).

[mark oehlert]

OK...that's getting me there. Do they charge a registration fee?

[Cliveshepherd]

In the UK, the main e-learning awards are also run by a for-profit company (Bizmedia) but the judging process is administered by the eLearning Network, a not-for-profit organisation. This works just fine and provides the transparency needed to reassure entrants.