All entries for the 2008 Channel Awards have now been received and in three weeks’ time the judges will meet to decide this year’s shortlists, which will be announced online on 10 September.

From that point, the race will really be on, but first the judges have to do their bit. The process of whittling down entries is always a challenge. The number and standard rises each year and with the Channel Awards now in their 14th year, most companies that enter have good experience of putting together an entry. This makes the job of choosing a winner even more difficult, but it is a challenge that this year’s panel, headed by CRN editor Sara Yirrell, is more than up to.

The 10 judges are drawn principally from the analyst and channel community. Some have specific expertise or experience in one area of the market, but the breadth of the panel means that no one area dominates the competition.

Areas of expertise
Some analysts for example, focus mainly on vendor and distributor channel strategies. Others are more concerned with product marketing and innovation. There are also judges with expertise in skills development and financial management.

Having such a varied panel also means that individual views cannot influence the outcome. Nor does it matter how large a company is or how much money it spends on marketing, notes Yirrell.

“The panel is a very broad church and that means we are able to take a wide perspective on the market. Every entry is given careful consideration and looked at on its merits alone. Clearly, there are going to be some companies with which we are more familiar ­ but every entry is taken seriously,” she says.

Many of the judges have sat on the panel for some time and have developed a clear idea of what they are looking for in the entries. Bob Tarzey, service director at Quocirca, says that one of the key elements of entry is evidence that the company is delivering real value.

“For vendors and resellers proof points, in terms of customer stories and testimonials, are vital. For resellers, we need to see evidence of value added to customer projects over and above that delivered by the vendors ­ and how they are creating market for the vendors,” he said. “It is also important that vendors show their channel commitment ­ so reseller references are useful, but they should also be tied to customer wins ­ in other words, not just back scratching, but something tangible that demonstrates real value.”

Unique selling point
Nitin Joshi, founder of advisory firm ChannelMoney is another long-serving judge who, as a partner in a company advising channel firms that run into difficulties, has a different perspective on the market. He is looking for entries to demonstrate how a company sets itself apart from the competition. “I am particularly interested in uniqueness among distributors and VARs. I also think that showing good quality of management is vital ­ that is the single most important asset a business can have.

Testimonials, Joshi points out, are useful as supporting evidence, but they need to be genuine. “Self-certified testimonials do not add value ­ in fact they can lessen the credibility of an entry. Someone who has actually bought something from you tends not add their name unless they mean it.”

One of three new judges on the panel this year is Anthony Norman, business group director of IT, office and imaging at GfK Marketing Services. He will be looking for something innovative that really produces a solution or a product that is quite revolutionary.

“I think the most important thing is that a product or solution is well respected and either creates efficiencies or improves the way we do something,” he said.

Similarly, the other new panel members ­ Matthew Poyiadgi of accreditation experts CompTIA, and Jon Collins, from analyst firm Freeform Dynamics ­ will add further depth to the panel.

While all the judges will be looking for entries that stand out from the crowd and provide evidence that the company is delivering real value, they can also be put off by efforts that are overblown or poorly constructed.

While many contenders struggle to stay within the 1,500 word limit, it helps if entries are well written and points are expressed clearly. Ideally, they should be “short, clear and concise, saying this is what we do, this is why we are good at it, this is why we deserve an award”, says Tarzey.

Keith Humphreys, managing consultant at EuroLAN and another experienced judge agrees. “Submissions should be to the point and without waffle”, he says. “If the writer can imagine that their entry is one of 40 being read on the evening before judging it will allow them to appreciate how important clarity and brevity are.”

Some entries are supplied with additional files that contain extra material, but sending more content does not mean that the judges will view entries more favourably.

Taken for granted
The judges are also likely to reject any entries that take qualification for granted, and any that do not appear to take the awards seriously.

“Arrogance, big corporate bullying and assumptions will rule you out,” commented one judge.

Fortunately, few entries fall into this category and while that makes the judges’ job more difficult, it is also inspiring and encouraging, says Yirrell. “The quality of entries has improved every year and we are expecting the bar to be raised again this year. That is good news for everyone because it means that vendors, distributors and resellers are trying harder than ever, not only to win an award, but to genuinely deliver and articulate the value that they deliver to their customers.”