A Step by Step Awards Lifecycle Planning Guide

Start Earlier Than You Think

Planning begins before the calendar year you’re targeting. If you want to launch entries in March 2027, you’d ideally be starting November 2026.

Running your first programme? You won’t have a debrief to start with, but you can learn from others. Do some research, talk to colleagues who’ve run similar programmes, review post-mortems from comparable awards in your sector, or study what went wrong (and right) in programmes you’ve entered.

Returning organisers: The best programmes begin with a proper debrief. Within two weeks of closing your current programme, document what worked and what didn’t while memories are fresh. Not vague feelings, specific friction points (e.g. we should have had a week extra to shortlist entries, 5 out of 8 judges didn’t have time to complete).

What took longer than expected? Where did candidates get confused? Which judges want to return? Calculate your actual time costs: entry processing hours, judging coordination time, candidate support load.

Set realistic targets. Doubling submissions without doubling capacity is likely going to give you headaches further down the line.

If you managed 90 entries comfortably this year on a Google Form, aiming for 350-400 next year may need you to rethink your systems.

Phase 1: Foundation Decisions (6-9 Months Before Launch)

This quarter determines everything downstream. Rush it and you’ll pay the price in Phase 3.

Judge Capacity Reality

It’s very easy to underestimates judging time.

If you’re asking for time for free – you can assume judges will give you 2-3 hours weekly (and that’s optimistic for busy professionals).

To reduce bias you’ll also probably need a minimum of 3 scores per entry. With that in mind if you get 500 entries you’ll need 1,500 scores in total. If you have 5 judges that’s 300 entries per judge. If each entry take 3 minutes that’s 900 minutes (15 hours) per judge!

Here’s a table to make you rethink your times – I’ve used 2 minutes as a average baseline to review an entry and assumed each entry needs 3 scores to be non-bias – but this could be far more if your entry form is very thorough, you have many scoring criteria or your process is heavy on administration (spreadsheets, attachments…).

This table is there to make you think – it’s likely you will have your own unique requirements – ultimately you can control a few variables to make these numbers more palatable. How long a judge spends on each entry, how many judges you have, and how many submissions you are expecting.

For more accurate numbers based on your own criteria, we’ve built you a judging time calculator .

Judge Recruitment Timeline

Securing quality judges requires 2-3 months minimum. If you’re going in cold, it’s likely to take a little longer.

First-time organisers: You’re cold-calling, which is harder. Emphasize the opportunity (exposure to emerging work, networking with other panelists, portfolio review access) over prestige you don’t have yet. Start with 1-2 impressive names who lend credibility, then build from there. Look for people who judged similar programmes and might be curious about yours.

Returning organisers: Leverage past judges who had good experiences -they’re your best recruiters and most likely to return. “Would you judge again?” / “Do you know someone who could be a good judge” beats cold outreach every time.

Month 6-7 before launch: identify targets and draft personalised invitations. Month 5: first outreach with clear time commitments- not vague “participation” requests but actual hours expected.
Month 4: follow-ups and backup recruitment. Month 3: orientation and platform access.

Wait until Month 2 and you’re scrambling or settling for whoever’s available.

Our guide to approaching judges covers the psychology and tactics to increase success in reaching out to potential judges.

Fee Strategy & Value Proposition

Entry fees need to feel proportional to what candidates receive. £5-10 works for emerging talent programmes. £15-25 is typical for established creative awards. Above £30 requires substantial prizes or career-changing opportunities. If you’re pitching to companies these values can grow significantly based on the sector you are targeting.

Our pricing strategies guide covers this topic in much more detail. In a nutshell : the needs to be worth more than the effort to submit and cost. Miss that balance and candidates won’t bother.

One thing to watch for when evaluating platforms: systems that charge based on submissions rather than programmes let you test and adjust.

Annual contracts that lock you in before proving demand are risky – you should validate audience interest first, then scale appropriately.

Phase 2: Marketing & Entry Collection (3-6 Months Before Deadline)

With foundation set, you’re opening the doors. Entry periods typically run 8-12 weeks. Shorter creates urgency but requires strong marketing. Longer allows for life interruptions but risks slow trickle until final-week panic.

A Realistic Marketing Timeline

Programme marketing doesn’t start when entries open. Building awareness takes months (sometimes longer than you’d expect).

Months 3-6 before open: Share last year’s winners, announce judges, reveal programme changes. You’re priming your audience that something’s coming.

Months 1-2 before open: Shift to education. What makes strong entries? How does judging work? Remove barriers, build confidence that submitting is worth the effort.

Entry period (weeks 1-12): Social proof (“50 entries received!”), deadline reminders, value reinforcement. Convert awareness into submissions.

Our marketing guide covers channel-specific tactics. If you’re relying mainly on organic channels rather than paid promotion, you need that full 6-9 month runway. Word-of-mouth compounds slowly.

Consider leveraging industry connections through ambassador programmes, and remember professional recommendations are gold dust, they weigh far than promotional posts.

Entry Volume Checkpoints

If you open submissions for 8 weeks, it’s unlikely many candidates will enter in the first couple of weeks; it’s far more likely that you’ll get 60%-70% of all entries in the last week.

That being said, it’s vital that you measure progress week on week to ensure that you are progressing as you go. If you reach week 6 and you’re expecting 1,400 entries and you have only 20 you’ve got a problem.

Check your data: Are people starting but not completing? That’s likely a complex process or too many required fields or confusing navigation. Getting no starts at all? That’s awareness.

You can benchmark your progress with our Submission Projection Calculator

Early Bird Strategy

Early bird deadlines (typically 4-6 weeks before final close, 20-30% discount) reward organised candidates and give you early proof for marketing. “Over 100 entries received” converts fence-sitters who need social proof.

Some organisers worry everyone will submit early and the final weeks will be dead. This never happens. Ever. Most people still submit in the final week regardless of discount availability. You’re just converting some of the super-organised ones to commit sooner.

Phase 3: Judging Transition & Evaluation (Deadline to Results)

The 2-3 weeks post-deadline are critical, they will create a smooth experience for everyone. Miss them out, and that stress will compound until the end of your programme.

Week 1: Entry Processing

Eligibility screening takes longer than expected. Even with clear guidelines, 5-10% of entries will be borderline or obviously ineligible. Someone will submit from the wrong country or ignore your format requirements.

Processing 500 entries for eligibility typically requires a member of your team to commit 2-3 full days (not just an afternoon).

Week 1-2: Judge Assignment

Distributing entries across judges should take about 20 minutes if your system is set up well, and you’re happy to let the system automate assignment (if you’re more hands on it could take days). If your process is more manual, exporting spreadsheets, creating panels manually, sending individual passwords – that’s days of admin work.

If you have time you might want to have all judges score the exact same 10-20 entries to help you calibrate scores later on. If one judge’s 7 equals another’s 9, this will allow give you a baseline to calibrate scores. This is only necessary if your entries only get scored by different judges.

Weeks 2-6: Active Judging

For 500 entries with 5 judges at realistic review pace: 4-6 weeks minimum. Compress this and you’re rushing quality or burning out judges.

Clear, numbered criteria help. Not “Innovation: 1-10” but “Innovation (1-10): Does this push boundaries? 1-3 = Conventional. 4-6 = Competent with original elements. 7-8 = Notably fresh. 9-10 = Groundbreaking.”

Specificity eliminates confusion and those “what did we mean by this?” emails that derail momentum. Our guide to planning selection criteria covers detailed frameworks.

Visual work – photography, design portfolios, architectural plans – needs gallery-style interfaces. Viewing portfolios at thumbnail size or clicking through tabbed layouts adds time waste and degrades assessment quality. Judges need to see work properly and shouldn’t have to worry about the process, only the content.

Phase 4: Winner Selection & Celebration (Results to Ceremony)

Allow 2-3 weeks minimum between judging close and announcement.

Days 1-3: Score validation. Look for outliers – did one judge score everything 2-3 points lower than others? This might require some adjustment before finalising.

Days 3-4: Conflict of interest checks. Run every finalist name through your judge list. Note or exclude conflicted scores. Make sure if candidates submitted multiple different projects, that you only pick the one with the highest score (unless your terms specify otherwise).

Days 4-6: Internal review and approval. Sometimes top performers are obvious. Sometimes places 15-25 are tightly bunched and you’re making judgment calls. Document reasoning.

Day 7+: Winner notification 48-72 hours before public announcement. Winners might need to clear calendars, prepare remarks, notify their networks. If you want to maximise the impact of the announcement, don’t surprise candidates with a cold announcement.

Announcement Strategy

Coordinate timing: winner celebration posts and your announcement hitting simultaneously creates amplification. Scattered across three weeks dilutes impact.

Prepare assets beforehand: certificates, badges, press materials. Rushing these after announcement produces poor-quality recognition that diminishes your brand.

The Overlooked Phase: Post-Season Learning

This phase gets skipped when everyone’s exhausted. It’s also where next year’s success begins.

Within 2 Weeks: Team Debrief

Gather everyone while memories are fresh. What worked? What took twice as long as expected?

Use the stop/keep/improve framework if you need structure: three things to stop (friction without value), three to keep (worked well), three to improve (necessary but could be better). Or just have an honest conversation about what was painful.

Collect quantitative data too: completion rates (started applications ÷ submitted entries), judge satisfaction if you tracked it, time spent on tasks, marketing efficiency.

Within 1 Month: Stakeholder Feedback

Survey candidates, focusing on dropouts and non-finishers. Winners will say everything was great. Non-winners might feel a little hard done for not winning. But people who started and didn’t finish abandoned because something went wrong.

Judge feedback: What made their job harder or easier? Would they return next year?

Financial reconciliation: actual costs versus budget. First-year programmes typically run 10-20% over because hidden costs accumulate.

Within 2 Months: Documentation

Process updates based on reality, not aspirations. Not “improve marketing” but “Instagram got 50 clicks per 1000 followers while partner newsletter got 200 clicks per 1000 readers – shift budget accordingly.”

Timeline adjustments using the data collected. If judging took 6 weeks when you planned 3, don’t plan 3 again (or shrink your programme).

Platform evaluation: If you spent more than 2 hours weekly on admin during entry period – chasing payments, manually matching submissions, exporting data for basic reports – that’s friction worth addressing. Our guide to measuring what matters covers metrics beyond vanity numbers.

How Everything Connects

Understanding how decisions cascade across your process prevents late-year scrambling (trust me on this one! I have the scars to show for it).

Category decisions → Marketing → Judge expertise: Change categories in Phase 1 after marketing starts? Your messaging is wrong and you’re recruiting judges for outdated structure.

Judge recruitment → Judging timeline → Announcement date: Delay judge confirmation by a month? Timeline compresses or announcement shifts, potentially conflicting with venue bookings or sponsor commitments.

Entry volume → Judge capacity → Ceremony scale: Double your expected entries? Judges are overwhelmed, timeline slips, you’re scrambling for bigger venues, per-winner budget just halved. Judges are stressed (and that’s a very very bad thing)

Testing category structures before launch helps reduce risk- preview links, small test groups for feedback. But the real protection is building contingency into your timelines.

When Plans Fail: Rescue Strategies

The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Sometimes you need to pivot mid-flight – and that’s perfectly fine as long as you think very carefully on the impacts of your decisions across the life-cycle of your programme.

Phase 1 Problems: Late start? Hard to find sponsors. Reduce the scope of your programme. Focus on one category to test, expand next year. Budget cuts? Reduce prize amounts but increase exposure value. Judge recruitment fails? Internal panel for Year 1 while building relationships for Year 2.

Phase 2 Problems: Low entries at midpoint? Extend deadline by 2-3 weeks (communicate early, not desperately at Week 10) or create urgency campaign to warmest audiences. Technical issues? Always have backup email collection ready.

Phase 3 Problems: Judge drops out? Redistribute entries proportionally across remaining judges (check with them first!), not just to your most reliable person. Timeline slipping? Communicate delays transparently. Scoring inconsistencies? Mid-round calibration meeting.

Phase 4 Problems: Winner can’t attend? Virtual acceptance or pre-recorded message. Announcement timing conflict? Smaller soft launch now, bigger celebration later.

If you’re spending hours making these adjustments manually, that’s signal to revisit your processes.

Quality Benchmarks for Growth

As you scale, different inflection points require different approaches.

You don’t scale spreadsheets by adding more sheets – you abandon spreadsheets. You don’t scale overwhelmed judges by begging them to work faster – you recruit more judges or restructure rounds.

Planning Forward

You can’t predict the future perfectly, but it’s best not to leave everything to fate. Thinking ahead allows you to build processes that bend without breaking when reality diverges from plan.

Start with your post-season debrief (yes, for this year’s programme, before planning next year). Calculate actual time costs, entry patterns, judge capacity used. Build Phase 1 foundation using real numbers rather than assumptions.

Every minute invested in mapping dependencies is a Phase 3 crisis prevented. Every realistic timeline set is a weekend you keep rather than emergency firefighting.

Our complete guide to managing submissions offers detailed frameworks for every phase covered here. Each section links to deeper resources on planning, marketing, judging, and measurement.

The gap between programmes that scale and those that scramble isn’t luck or budget. It’s methodical preparation combined with systems designed to reduce friction rather than create it.