Blog

And the award goes to….the ‘promptest’ submission?

The industry award entry has always been more art than science. Historically, it’s been a game of mastering the high-stakes craft of catching a judge’s eye — swimming in superlatives, leaning on a beautifully turned phrase, and rolling the metrics in just enough glitter to make them truly shine.

But the times aren’t just changing; they’ve already changed.

Like many in the industry, we’re keeping a close eye on how AI is disrupting long-standing processes. The ripples have now reached the annual awards circuit. We all remember the furore at Cannes last year regarding LLM-created case studies. Having sat on all sides of the curtain — as judge, jury, and awards writing executioner — I know the pressure to make a submission stand out. But when the proof in the pudding is pulled entirely from a prompt, it casts a shadow over the whole meal.

For the adtech and media sectors, awards aren’t just a vanity metric. They are fundamentally tied to commercial growth and market credibility. Solving the problem of their authenticity isn’t merely about protecting entry fees and awards reputation. It’s potentially existential.

We’re starting to see two distinct, conflicting approaches emerge in real-time:

The Gatekeeper: Outlets like Ad Week now require a declaration box, forcing submissions to explicitly state if—and how—AI was used to craft the entry.
The Automated Scale: Conversely, the Festival of Media just introduced an AI tool that scans your submission, recommends your strongest categories, and instantly translates it into three major LatAm languages. While translation efficiency is one thing, how successful a machine will be at accurately decoding and contextualising complex programmatic jargon…well, I’d want to hear judge feedback there.

Winner’s Circle or Uncanny Valley?

We’re navigating this challenge daily for our clients: pinpointing the exact boundary between machine efficiency and human soul.

AI is brilliant at the plumbing. It can ensure an entry flawlessly hits compliance criteria, giving copy an automated spit-and-polish to make sure every digital ‘i’ is dotted. But reading an AI-generated award entry triggers the exact same feeling I get when reading a string of purely AI-generated thought leadership.

You can tell.

On the surface, the KPIs are there, the syntax is flawless (the odd em-dash or two notwithstanding), and the conclusions are correct. But look at three or four in a row, and the heart disappears, blending into a beige mass of similar tone and bold swing claims.

Machines cannot yet fully replicate the distinctiveness of a company’s true voice, nor can they adequately simulate the passion of a team that spent 12 months grinding to deliver a breakthrough campaign. When you’re a judge skimming ten entries at once, it’s the heart that speaks to you the strongest.

Keeping the Human Touch
If we want awards to retain their value, we need an airgapped human in the loop as a key part of submission. A human advocate to ask the hard questions: Is this our actual voice? Is this genuinely distinctive? Or are we just automating our way to mediocrity?

AI can optimise the grunt work. It cannot replace the judgment of a panel that responds as much to the conviction and pride behind an entry as it does to the headline stats.

We’re curious to hear from the judges and founders in our networks: are you seeing the AI speak through the entries you read? As scales tip further toward automation, how much does the origin of the story matter to you?