There are a lot various industry awards out there. Just about every publication has their own version. Some are voted on by panels (like the Higher Ed AV Awards and AV Mag’s AV Awards), some are public vote (like AV Nation and rAVe), and some are offered editorially (like SCN Hall of Fame and Commercial Integrator’s 40-under-40). I’ll admit that when it comes to AV-industry awards, I love them. That’s why I started the Higher Ed AV Awards now four years ago as the official awards recognition for the higher ed vertical in the audiovisual industry. I love celebrating accomplishments, whether it be my own, or the accomplishments of others. (And to be honest, in higher ed, we are often silo’d in our own schools. Those we work around don’t always see the impact we make to the entire industry through the work we do everyday. So, showing external recognitions to our leadership is a great way to advocate for ourselves.)
I’ve also had the honor of serving on many judging committees. What I have learned about being on all sides of it as a nominee, a winner, a judge, and an organizer, is that there’s actually an art to it. Just being good enough, well-known, or the best in the category isn’t actually always enough to win. While, indeed, those do help, the fact is, there are always a ton of worthy contenders in every category, yet there can only be one winner. So, what’s the differentiator? I have come to learn that more than anything, it’s all in the quality of nomination itself.
Many people actually question whether awards actually matter. They matter. They celebrate excellence, elevate deserving people and programs, and tell the stories that might otherwise go unnoticed. But strong work alone does not guarantee recognition. The quality of the nomination often determines whether a reviewer truly understands the impact, leadership, and significance of the nominee. That is why submitting an awards nomination should never be treated like a formality. It is an act of advocacy.
The first best practice is to start with the award criteria and treat them like your roadmap. Too many nominations fail because they are written as general praise instead of a direct response to what judges are actually being asked to evaluate. Before writing a single sentence, study the language of the award. What qualities are being recognized? Leadership, innovation, service, mentorship, measurable outcomes, community impact, career achievement? A great nomination does not simply say someone is excellent (or worse, just uses marketing jargon), it proves they are excellent in the exact ways the award defines excellence. For example, if the award is for the Higher Ed AV Awards “Best Engineer/Programmer,” it needs to express what’s special about what they did that year and how that impacted higher education. Those are the two qualifiers in this example: “Higher Ed AV” and “Engineer/Programmer.”
The second best practice is to make the nomination specific. Broad statements such as “she is a great leader” or “he has transformed the organization” sound nice, but they do not help judges make distinctions between candidates. Specificity is what creates credibility. If the nominee improved a process, explain what changed. What was it like before, and what was it like after. State the impact. If they led a team, describe the challenge, the action they took, and the result. If they mentored others, share what that mentorship produced. Judges are persuaded by details, not by adjectives. The more concrete the example, the more memorable the nomination becomes. That also goes for project and product entries. Why was the life of someone improved because that “thing” exists or that room was refurbished?
Another critical practice is to focus on impact, not activity. Many nominators spend too much time listing responsibilities, projects, committees, and accomplishments without explaining why any of it matters. A nominee should not be recognized just because they were busy; everyone is busy. They should be recognized because their work produced meaningful results. Because it changed lives. Strong nominations answer questions like: What problem did this person solve? Who benefited? What changed because of their effort? Why did their contribution stand out from normal expectations? Impact is what separates a résumé from a compelling case for recognition. Judges want to champion for the ones the vote for. Make them “feel” the impact, not just read through pages of verbiage.
It is also important to tell a story. Even in highly structured forms, the best nominations have a narrative arc. They help the reader understand the context, the challenge, the nominee’s unique contribution, and the result. A nomination should feel cohesive, not like a pile of unrelated compliments. Think of it as building a case. Lead the reviewer through the nominee’s significance in a way that is easy to follow and impossible to ignore. When judges read dozens of submissions, the nominations that stay with them are the ones that tell a clear and compelling story. This means you need to advocate. Only you know the story, only you can tell it the best way. Don’t make judges fill in pieces that only those who have as the lived experience can.
Clear evidence strengthens every claim. Whenever possible, include measurable results, testimonials, examples of lasting change, and specific outcomes. Numbers can be powerful when they are relevant. Perhaps the nominee increased user satisfaction, saved resources, improved performance, launched a new initiative, expanded access, or mentored future leaders who went on to succeed themselves. Likewise, qualitative evidence matters too. A strong quote or a concise example of personal influence that aligns with the measurable can bring the nomination to life. The key is balance. Evidence should support the story, not overwhelm it. Don’t go to the other extreme of just listing facts and data. The data is the proof behind the story. For example, for a product entry, don’t just say “we’re the best selling new XYZ on the market,” but rather something like, “while only released 12 months ago, we have placed over 1000 units within higher ed institutions and have seen a 50% referral rate from school to school, with increasing user adoption month-over-month. Here are the references and HETMA Approved documents to demonstrate this.”
One of the most overlooked best practices is choosing the right nominator and supporting voices. The strongest nominations often come from people who know the nominee’s work firsthand and can speak with authority. If letters of support are allowed or areas were references were asked for, they should not all say the same thing. Each one should add a new dimension to the story. One may speak to leadership. Another may highlight mentorship. Another may demonstrate long-term influence or external reputation. Redundant praise weakens a nomination. Complementary perspectives strengthen it. Think about who was involved up and down the channel and get those perspectives. And if you are self-nominating, get quotes from others who can vouch for you and be your advocate. List your qualifications, but let them build the story. (P.s., self nomination is OK! And you should advocate for your accomplishments. Just ensure that there are additional strong supporting references to back up your self-nom.)
Tone matters as well. A nomination should be enthusiastic, but it should also be professional and credible. Overstating claims or relying on exaggerated language can actually hurt the submission. Judges are skilled at distinguishing between real impact and inflated praise. Confidence, clarity, and evidence are far more persuasive than hype. Let the strength of the nominee’s work carry the weight. There is a fine line between confidence and cockiness, and humility and meekness. Find the balance.
Another best practice is to tailor the nomination to the audience reviewing it. Not every judge will have the same background or familiarity with the nominee’s field. Avoid insider jargon, acronyms, or assumptions that only a small circle would understand. Write for an informed but broad audience. Make the significance of the work clear even to someone outside the nominee’s immediate environment. A nomination should be accessible without being oversimplified. It should also speak to the publication that is giving away the award. Each one has a specific audience they cater too, which is the same audience they pull their judges from. Sell it to their worldview.
Finally, review the submission carefully before sending it. A strong nomination can lose momentum because of preventable mistakes such as weak organization, unclear wording, missing attachments, misspellings, or failure to answer the prompt completely. Review it against the criteria one last time. Ask whether every paragraph advances the case. Remove repetition. Tighten sentences. Check names, titles, dates, and facts. And never wait until the last minute. Strong nominations need time to gather examples, confirm details, and refine the message.
At its core, a great awards nomination is more than a recommendation. It is a carefully built argument that honors the nominee by helping others fully see their value. The best nominations are intentional, evidence-based, and story-driven. They align with the criteria, demonstrate impact, and make it easy for judges to say yes. And judges really really do want to say yes. They want to really like your submission. When done well, a nomination does not just submit a name, product SKU, or finished project. It brings a deserving person’s excellence into focus.
For additional information and pro-tips, check out the accompanying Higher Ed AV Podcast, Episode 350: Awards Nominations Pro-Tips.
Enter the Higher Ed AV Awards: https://www.HigherEdAVAwards.com.
