How to Run Art Competitions Artists Want to Enter

Why run an art competition in the first place?

Start with purpose, not prizes. What are you actually trying to achieve?

Some organisations run art competitions to discover new talent. Others want to engage their community around a specific theme or cause. Museums and galleries use them to identify work for exhibitions. Brands leverage them for authentic creative content and audience engagement.

The worst competitions happen when organisers skip this step. They throw together entry fees, vague guidelines, and a cash prize – then wonder why submissions are disappointing or why artists complain publicly about the experience.

Defining your purpose from the start shapes everything else: who should enter, how you’ll judge, what prizes make sense, and how you’ll measure success. Without it, you’re just hoping things work out.

The entry fee conversation (yes, that conversation)

Let’s talk money. Entry fees are controversial in the art world, and for good reason.

Artists have been burned by competitions that charge £25 per entry, offer “exposure” as the main prize, and never provide feedback or even confirmation their work was seen. These vanity competitions exploit creative labour and damage trust across the sector.

If you’re charging an entry fee, it needs to fund real value. Cash prizes, exhibition opportunities, mentorship, professional development, or substantial exposure to genuine collectors and curators. (exposure is nice, but it doesn’t put food on the table).

Our pricing guide explores the balance between accessibility and sustainability.

Some competitions use early bird pricing (lower fees for those who submit early). Others offer tiered entry fees with additional services at higher tiers. Payment plans can help artists spread costs.

The entry fee decision matters. Price too high and you exclude emerging artists who need opportunities most. Price too low and you can’t deliver meaningful prizes or professional judging. Get it right and you create sustainable opportunities that actually help artists’ careers.

Building guidelines artists read

Your competition guidelines determine everything. What gets submitted, how long judging takes (spoiler: it’s likely to take longer than you think), and whether artists trust you enough to enter again next year.

Start with eligibility. Be specific: age ranges, geographic restrictions, career stage requirements, any limitations on previously exhibited work. Vague eligibility wastes everyone’s time when you reject entries during judging because they don’t fit what you actually wanted.

Technical requirements need obsessive detail. File formats, maximum file sizes, resolution requirements, colour profiles for print work, video specifications.

Modern platforms should handle multiple file types seamlessly – images, video, audio, PDFs, 3D files (if a platform restricts you to 5MB file limits or specific formats only, that’s a red flag about their infrastructure).

Content specifications matter too. How many pieces can artists submit? Can they submit series or must each entry be standalone? Are there thematic restrictions? Subject matter you won’t accept? Be explicit upfront.

Rights and licensing deserve crystal clarity. Who owns the work after submission? Can you use submitted work in marketing? Will you credit artists properly? Will works be returned if physical?

Writing guidelines that work means testing them with someone who doesn’t already know what you want. If they’re confused, your guidelines need work.

Setting up judging that won’t implode mid-process

Judging is where most competitions either shine or completely fall apart.

First decision: blind judging or open submissions? Blind judging (where judges can’t see artist names or biographical information) reduces bias. It means work gets judged on merit, not reputation or connections. Most serious competitions use blind judging for exactly this reason.

Anonymous judging also protects judges from pressure. When artists don’t know who’s judging until results are announced, judges can evaluate freely without worrying about personal relationships or professional consequences.

How many judging rounds do you actually need? One round works for smaller competitions (under 100 entries). Two rounds – a screening round followed by final judging – suits most competitions. Three or more rounds are for large-scale programmes with multiple categories or complex selection criteria.

Judging criteria must be specific and weighted. “Originality,” “technical skill,” “conceptual strength,” and “relevance to theme” are common criteria. But if you don’t tell judges how to weight these (30% originality, 25% technical skill, etc.), you’ll get inconsistent scoring that makes final selection nearly impossible.

Modern platforms should offer customisable scoring systems. Simple yes/no voting works for some situations. Numerical scales (1-5, 1-7, 1-10) suit others. Weighted criteria scoring provides the most nuanced evaluation. The platform should calculate aggregate scores automatically – manual tallying in spreadsheets is where errors creep in.

Structuring your judging process properly prevents the disaster of having three judges, 500 entries, and no clear way to reach consensus.

The prizes that matter to artists

Cash prizes get attention. But money isn’t the only currency artists value.

Exhibition opportunities matter enormously, especially at respected venues. A group show at an established gallery or museum can launch an early-career artist. Make sure you have the venue confirmed and can deliver what you promise.

Mentorship and professional development have lasting impact. An hour with a respected curator, portfolio review with a gallery director, or studio visit from an established artist provides value that compounds over years.

Residencies and resources open doors. Time, space, materials, equipment access – these remove barriers that prevent artists from making their best work.

Meaningful exposure requires specificity.

Don’t promise exposure to “thousands of followers”.

Do promise specific press coverage you’ve actually arranged, features on platforms artists actually want to be seen on, or introductions to collectors and curators who genuinely buy and show work.

Some competitions combine multiple prize types: £5,000 + solo exhibition + catalogue. Others focus entirely on non-monetary prizes. Both approaches work if they’re honest and are perceived as valuable to the communities you serve.

Understanding what artists actually value helps you structure prizes within your budget that still create real opportunities.

Why public voting can work (and when it really doesn’t)

Public voting divides opinion in the art world. Done badly, it rewards whoever has the largest social media following. Done well, it engages communities and creates genuine excitement.

The key is how you structure it. Never give the public vote complete control over major prizes. Large cash prizes attract vote buying from click farms. Instead, use public voting for a separate People’s Choice Award with a modest prize that creates participation without incentivising fraud.

Public voting works brilliantly for community engagement. It gets families, friends, schools, and local communities invested in your competition. It drives social media activity organically. It creates stories and connections beyond the work itself.

But public voting shouldn’t replace expert judging. Artists spend years developing their practice. Work deserves evaluation from people who understand the medium, context, and craft.

Some competitions use hybrid models: expert judges select finalists, then public voting determines winners from that shortlist. This combines curatorial rigour with community participation.

Modern platforms should make public voting simple and secure. Clear voting periods. Real-time results tracking. Built-in fraud detection.

Spreadsheets vs. Platforms

Let’s be honest about spreadsheets. They work fine for 20 entries. At 50 entries, they’re annoying. At 100+ entries, they’re actively dangerous.

The hidden costs of spreadsheets pile up fast: manual data entry errors, duplicated work, lost files, version control chaos, hours spent copying and pasting, judges emailing asking “where’s entry #247?”, artists emailing asking “did you receive my submission?”, and the coordinator working until 2am on a Bank Holiday Sunday because everything takes longer than expected.

Entry collection should be simple for artists. They should be able to save drafts, edit before deadlines, and clearly see what’s required. If half your entries come in incomplete or wrong, your submission process is broken.

Processing payments securely is vital. Modern platforms integrate payment processing directly (Stripe is standard). Artists pay as they submit. You receive funds automatically. Handling card details manually or through separate payment links adds friction that costs you submissions.

Judging interfaces should be built for viewing art, not reading grant applications. Full-screen image viewing, zoom capabilities, video playback and clean navigation between entries. If judges are squinting at thumbnails or downloading files manually, your platform isn’t fit for purpose.

Evaluating what you actually need helps you make informed decisions about when to upgrade from spreadsheets.

Marketing your competition to the right artists

You can build a perfect competition, but if nobody knows about it, you’re hosting an empty party.

Start early. Six to nine months before your deadline isn’t excessive for larger competitions. Smaller programmes can launch three to four months out. Marketing strategies vary significantly based on your budget and existing audience.

Email marketing to your existing audience costs nothing and often drives the highest conversion rates. If you’ve run competitions before, previous participants are your best prospects. But segment your lists – don’t spam landscape photographers with sculpture competitions.

Social media requires consistency, not perfection. Pick platforms where your target artists actually spend time. Instagram works for visual artists. LinkedIn for corporate competitions. Twitter for certain art communities. Post regularly with clear calls to action and proper hashtags. Some submissions platforms like Zealous already have active networks you can tap into for that additional boost.

Partnerships with art schools, galleries, creative organisations, and industry bodies multiply your reach. They lend credibility and access audiences you can’t reach alone. Offer them something valuable: opportunities for their members, shared press coverage, or association with your programme.

Listing sites and directories matter. Key platforms where artists look for opportunities should feature your competition. Many listings are free; some charge modest fees but reach highly targeted audiences.

Paid advertising has its place. Google Ads targeting relevant searches (“art competitions UK,” “painting prizes 2025”) reaches artists actively looking for opportunities. Social media ads with good targeting can be cost-effective. But paid advertising without strong organic presence rarely works alone.

The message matters as much as the medium. What makes your competition worth an artist’s time and money? Don’t list features (“submission deadline: March 15”). Highlight benefits (“first 50 artists receive feedback from our expert panel”).

Managing incoming submissions without losing your mind

Submission deadlines approach faster than you expect. Suddenly you’re answering the same questions 40 times, processing late payments, troubleshooting technical issues, and wondering why you didn’t prepare better.

Automated communications save your sanity. Submission confirmations should go automatically. Payment receipts immediately. Deadline reminders one week and one day before close. Missing information requests automatically flagged.

Questions will come. Artists will email asking about eligibility, file formats, whether their work fits your theme, if they can submit late, and dozens of other things. Create an FAQ before launch and update it as common questions emerge. Managing submissions effectively means reducing unnecessary back-and-forth.

Technical support is pivotal. When artists have problems uploading files or completing payment, they often just abandon the submission. Lost revenue and frustrated artists aren’t worth saving money on poor platform support.

Incomplete submissions happen. Some platforms allow artists to save drafts and return later. This flexibility increases completion rates significantly. Forcing artists to finish everything in one session loses submissions.

Track your numbers. How many people visit your page? How many start submissions? How many complete payment? Where are people dropping off? These metrics tell you what’s working and what needs fixing for next year.

Continuing engagement after the results

Most competitions end with an announcement and everyone moves on. The best competitions use results as the beginning of deeper engagement.

How you communicate with unsuccessful artists affects your reputation. Generic rejection emails feel dismissive. Thoughtful communications that acknowledge the artist’s effort and suggest other opportunities maintain goodwill.

Offering feedback (even brief feedback) distinguishes exceptional competitions. “Not selected” tells artists nothing. “Strong technical execution but thematic fit was unclear” gives them something to work with. Feedback takes judging time, but artists value it enormously.

Winner announcements deserve proper celebration. Press releases to relevant media, social media features highlighting each artist’s work, virtual or physical exhibitions showcasing winning entries. The prize announcement isn’t the end; it’s the launch of the winners’ increased visibility.

Documentation matters for your next competition. Save judge notes, track timelines, note what worked and what didn’t. Future organisers (possibly you next year) will thank you.

Building ongoing relationships with participants creates community. Artists who submit once should hear about future opportunities (in a GDPR compliant way!). They’re already familiar with your organisation and have shown interest. Past participants become ambassadors if you treat them well.

Public galleries of all entries (with artist permission) extend the competition’s impact beyond prize winners. Not everyone can win, but everyone submitted work they’re proud of. Giving artists visibility beyond the top 3 shows you value their participation.

Timing is everything (aka getting your schedule right)

Competition timelines are like public transport: everything takes longer than you expect and often costs more than you budgeted.

Working backward from your announcement date:

• Each judging round requires 2-4 weeks depending on entry volume
• Submission period typically runs 2-3 months
• Pre-launch marketing needs 2-6 months
• Planning and setup takes 1-2 months minimum

That’s 6-12 months total from “let’s run a competition” to announcing winners. First-time organisers often compress this timeline drastically and regret it.

Be mindful of deadlines. Avoid major holidays, competing deadlines for similar competitions, and anything that conflicts with your target artists’ schedules. Strategic scheduling affects how many quality submissions you receive.

Last-minute submissions are normal. Expect 40-60% of entries in the final week. Your platform and payment processing need to handle the surge without breaking.

Building trust in a sceptical (art) world

Artists have learned to be sceptical, and rightfully so. Historically, too many competitions have exploited them, wasted their time, or simply failed to deliver promises.

Transparency builds trust. Be upfront about costs, judging criteria, prize details, rights and usage, organisers’ background, and past competition results.

Delivering on promises sounds obvious but distinguishes you instantly. If you say winners get a solo exhibition in October, that exhibition must happen in October. If you promise feedback, deliver feedback. Overpromising and underdelivering destroys reputation fast (and if something changes, communicate it quickly! Maybe October isn’t possible anymore but you’ve secured a better venue in November).

Previous winners’ testimonials provide social proof. What opportunities opened for them? What was their experience like? Real quotes from real artists matter more than any marketing copy you write.

Established judges and partners signal legitimacy. When recognised curators, gallery directors, or respected artists join your panel, it validates your competition’s credibility.

Communication throughout the process reassures participants. Updates about judging progress, timeline confirmations, behind-the-scenes insights – these small touches show you’re organised and committed.

Making your competition matter

Art competitions can be cynical cash grabs or genuine opportunities. The difference is purpose, respect, and execution.

You’re asking artists to invest time and money. Respect that by making the experience worth their investment. Clear guidelines, fair judging, substantial prizes, honest communication, professional presentation, and meaningful outcomes.

Most competitions could improve dramatically with better technology. Manual processes introduce errors, waste time, and create frustration. Modern submissions platforms eliminate most of these problems – if they’re built properly.

The art competition market is crowded. What makes yours different? Maybe it’s your focus on underrepresented artists. Your commitment to feedback. Your exhibition opportunities. Your transparent process. Your community engagement. Find the thing that matters to your target artists and deliver it exceptionally well.

Build something sustainable. One-off competitions rarely achieve lasting impact. Annual or biennial competitions build reputation, create anticipation, and compound their value over time. But only if you do them well.