Have you ever had a complete “WTF?!” moment when judges announce the winner of a competition? Doesn’t matter whether it’s a beauty pageant, a talent competition or a startup pitch competition, at some point, you will be sitting there thinking that something just went very wrong. That the obvious winner was someone other than the one the judges picked.
So let me take you behind the curtain, into the inner sanctum, where judges assemble and make their judgements. Unfortunately, I don’t get asked to judge beauty pageants or talent competitions – or fortunately, depending on how well you know me. But I do get invited to judge a lot of startup competitions.
And what I have seen is pretty shocking. Don’t get your hopes up too high, nobody is sleeping with the judges and there is no bribery involved. Yet there is something intrinsically flawed at the heart of most of the ones I’ve seen. And it goes like this…
Judges are given score sheets to fill out for each of the startups that pitch. At the end, it is obvious from the judges’ sheets that there is a clear winner, or two close candidates. If you were in the audience, your opinion or impression would probably match that of the judges.
But then this happens: Someone says, “Wait a minute, who really needs this?” Or, “What message are we sending to entrepreneurs?” At this point, the scoresheets are thrown away and it becomes a discussion, no longer based on merits (or the judges’ efforts or opinions), but a search for the one who is most “in need” of the prize. It sounds like good intentions, but it is really a perversion of the judging process and insulting to the startups that are participating. And the message it sends to the wider entrepreneurship audience? Negative.
At RiseUp Summit in the GrEEK Campus last year, I was a judge in a pitch competition (Startup MENA) and this is exactly what happened. The best pitchers (and possibly best businesses) were thrown off the table because “they didn’t need the small cash prize nor the exposure” – even though the judges had marked them as the best (according to the criteria on the scoresheet).
The same thing happened at a more recent event (AddVentures). I excused myself from judging because one of the finalists was a company I co-founded and two others were companies in which I had invested. But I spoke to the judges after the surprise win and they told me a similar story. The clear winners either did not need the prize, or could not use the prize, and neither of the top two needed the exposure, according to whoever was leading the backroom conversation.
Both of the examples I just mentioned were very small prizes, so maybe it doesn’t matter who won. Maybe the experience of pitching to potential investors is enough reward in itself. But then that should be clear from the beginning. Maybe “needs exposure” should be on the scoresheet – with triple points – so judges know what they are judging for and startups know what they are pitching for. Or, for transparency, entrepreneurs are told in advance that the judging is weighted that way.
Now let’s go back in time. The stakes were very high: a $200,000 single cash prize for the winner in Google’s Ebda2 competition. This is definitely the most controversial decision in any competition to date (and it occurred three years ago)! I was there when, after the longest deliberations ever, the winner was announced. I was standing towards the back so I had a clear view of most of the people on the crowded rooftop terrace. And I can tell you that all the people in that place turned to the person next to them with a WTF expression on their faces.
A complete hush descended on that terrace when Bey2ollak was chosen as the winner. Social media went bananas and the comments ranged from “fixing” to “kosa” to much worse.
So what happened on that day? What was going on in the backroom? I recently got a chance to ask that question to one of the judges, and the answer looks familiar. There was a clear winner (as chosen by the sum of the individual judges’ scoresheets), but then the process went out of the window because someone objected that the winner was a social entrepreneur.
This was further complicated, according to the judge I spoke to, by the make-up of the final judging panel, which had more academics and politicians than VCs, angels or entrepreneurs, and the dynamics in the room were seniority based (meaning the big shots from the establishment were dominating).
So it makes perfect sense, as this article alludes, that they would pick an already established business rather than an innovative but untested opportunity. In effect, due to the make-up of the judging panel, it was probably a foregone conclusion.
So what can we do about this? How can we ensure a fair and transparent process in competitions like these? Keep in mind that the first two examples I cited as symptomatic of this problem were organizations from Denmark and the U.S. The Google competition was run entirely from Egypt, but the parent company is, of course, not Egyptian.
We have to ensure that these competitions are much more rigorous and transparent in their screening criteria (of entrepreneurs and judges) and in their judging criteria and process.
So, competition organizers, I am talking to you! It is entirely counter-productive to have judging criteria that gets tossed out in the judging deliberations. You need to develop better criteria (scoresheets) and stick to the judges’ actual scores. If you get the criteria right, there will be no need for any post-judging discussions, unless there is an absolute tie. And get qualified judges, not just “names”. Basically, get professional and be transparent.
And entrepreneurs: Ask the tough questions when any organization is trying to get you to pitch. Who are the judges? What is the competition criteria? Who am I competing with (and check they meet the criteria)?
Who are the investors you’re being “exposed” to? Validate. Does the investor fit with where you are in terms of your business and stage? Has the investor invested in any market outside of their own or any sector relevant to you? What is the value to you of participation (this is your time and you shouldn’t waste it on pointless competitions)?
It’s time to clean up this shit. It’s time to challenge organizers of competitions to ensure transparency and rigor. Competitions are not a bad thing, but bad competitions are.
WE SAID THIS: Don’t miss “How Our ‘Etsy of the Middle East’ Failed”.