We should say at the outset that the quality of submissions each year is really high. As judges we have the privilege of reading about many fantastic research projects that are conducted across our industry every year by some very clever and innovative people. Judging a winner is often not easy, there is discussion and debate.
Having judged these awards for a number of years we felt it might be useful to reflect on some of our learnings – what often separates the winners from the others. We’re talking here specifically about the effectiveness awards as opposed to the company, partner or young researcher awards.So here are some observations:
1. Address ALL the criteria
All the listed criteria for each award are important. We score all submissions on each criteria. It is very difficult to win if you haven’t covered them all. Don’t skip or gloss over any of them.
2. It’s got to be robust
That doesn’t mean vast samples, it means we need enough clarity of the method used to be confident that the research approach was fit for purpose. Telling us you did a survey or ran some groups isn’t enough. We don’t need lots of details but sample sizes and target audiences matter.
3. Size doesn’t matter
We have seen small but mighty projects in terms of impact and also very large expensive projects with little evidence of effectiveness. Size doesn’t necessarily matter, it’s about how well a project of any size delivered effective outcomes and that the methodology used was fit for purpose.
4. It’s got to be effective
You can’t win an effectiveness award without it. We’ve seen a number of submissions over the years detailing really excellent pieces of research that have been submitted too early because they don’t have the data to demonstrate effectiveness yet. If the report has been delivered and the client is really happy and in the process of working with it, that is not effectiveness…yet…it might be better to wait a year until your client can give you the evidence of the impact/outcomes of having implemented your recommendations.
We understand that impact from social research can be hard to demonstrate because social change can take time so in this category we are looking for evidence that it has been adopted into policy or being actively implemented. If you have any evidence of social change then that is obviously great.
5. What does the client say?
It isn’t a deal breaker but endorsements from your clients and/or stakeholders can really help as evidence in a number of criteria. We all think we do a great job but when your client says you do it adds some credibility to your claim.
6. It’s OK to be part of a team
Sometimes we are asked by clients to operate as part of ‘village’, for example when we do communications research, working together with ad agencies and others in an iterative process of development and testing. That’s fine, be upfront about that and tell us about your contribution. We don’t need to (and probably won’t) believe that you single handedly developed the client’s new campaign.
7. Stick to the format you’re given
A new platform this year will ensure all entries are entered in the same style and with the same limits. We want to judge on content alone. We want a level playing field where anyone with a good story to tell can get a fair hearing regardless of whether they can pay graphic designers to tart up their submissions or not. We institute word limits because there is a limit to how much we can all read and because if you can’t tell your effectiveness story in the provided limits then you are probably waffling. Going forward we won’t read attachments, watch videos or follow embedded links. Trying to find clever work arounds the limits will not work in your favour.
8. Ask someone to review it for you
Sometimes you can get very caught up in what you’re writing and it can be helpful to get someone not involved with your submission to review it before it goes in.
At the end of the day winning a research effectiveness award simply comes down to the ability to make a clear and compelling case that your research has delivered against each of the judging criteria. We try our best to come up with only one winner in each category and unfortunately that means that some really good work will miss out. As judges it’s terrific to be able to read so many excellent submissions and as an industry we should be really proud that we have a wealth of strong case studies to speak to. I think we’re all better off if the judging is hard!
Chief Judge
QPR, Former President Research Society
