This isn’t a shot at the Crunchies (well, maybe just a little) but some of the negative coverage (Uncov, CenterNetworks) illustrates that awards are a useless exercise.
Think about it, who do awards really benefit? Sure, the award winners get to bask in the glory for a few moments before the applause quickly fades, and everyone heads back to work. But does it really matter? Does winning an award or even being nominated count for anything other than perhaps a few minutes of fame?
Truth be told, awards are counter-productive. Since there can only be one winner, everyone else feels miserable, disappointed, envious, pissed, jealous, etc. – none of them positive, productive emotions. And this reality is a fact no manner how you determine a winner – be it by an esteemed panel or voting by the public. No matter the result, the winners are scrutinized for their faults and shortcomings rather than being celebrated.
If you want to do awards right, then do it by the numbers. Award #1 to the company who raised the most venture capital. Award #2 to the company that attracted the highest valuation/acquisition offer. Award #3 to the start-up with the fastest growth in terms of users. No arguments, no subjective decision making, no politics – just numbers. (Note: I think Facebook would have won every award.)
So why create and give awards? Do the companies really need the recognition? So why do them?
Technorati Tags: Crunchies
4 Comments
I’ve got to disagree with you Merk. I think awards are a great thing – when done right. People work so hard, it’s great for the community to recognize it.
I would just say that the voting process seems a bit off on some of these awards programs.
The issue with your rationale is not fair either – certainly a startup with a webulebrity will grow quicker faster than say one started by an average joe or jane.
You also have to remember, with any awards – many times the party running the awards wants to make sure butts are in seats.
(note incorrect name spelling to get you back lol)
Allen,
I guess the challenge is doing it right. So, what’s the right approach? How awards be positive things that the community can embrace as good for everyone? The problem with the Crunchies is there were as much, if not more, benefits for the organizers than the winners.
I’ve resisted posting more about it honestly. I’ve written about what’s a startup and what’s not and I agree with your statement.
The key is making it fair — then no one leaves unhappy. When it’s not fair, those who don’t win will be mad.
Maybe some perspective from a person in a company that was nominated (and lost). I can’t speak for my partners, but personally I wasn’t pissed off or disappointed. Of course I was always expecting TechMeme to win the category. Now am I pissed that TechMeme was even in the category at all? Of course not, since I was honored to have PW nominated as well! Better to have strong competition than none at all.
And Mark, if TC went with a system that you recommended you can be damn well sure that the number of Canadian companies nominated would have gone from 2 to 0.
Actually, maybe I was a little disappointed in not winning. The monkey statue would’ve been sweet to have in the office. And at the ceremony itself if you were seen carrying around one of those things you WOULD get attention. Considering the caliber of the audience in attendance having that few minutes of fame at that time is as good of an opportunity you’re going to get to strike some hot deals.
Still, this is all comparing things to what COULD HAVE been. And what IS, is still good. So can’t really complain