Chetan Shah, micebook founder and CEO, recently took part in The Industry Great Debate, organised by the Alliance of Independent Event Agencies (AIEA) in collaboration with the Cambridge Union Society.
In the famous Cambridge Union Chamber, he argued against the motion: ‘This house believes industry awards have lost their value.’ Here he reflects on the experience and shares his further thoughts on this important topic…
The opportunity to debate the value of industry awards at Cambridge University was an unforgettable experience—a moment I will cherish forever. When Emma from Vinetree Connections approached me to participate, I eagerly accepted, confident in my ability to champion our industry’s awards. After all, I genuinely value the recognition they provide and the way they celebrate excellence in our field. However, as I delved into the preparation process, I realised just how complex and nuanced the issue truly is.
The Challenge of the Debate Format
Unlike the welcome speeches I’m accustomed to delivering, this debate required a tightly structured 10-minute argument. Ten minutes may sound like ample time, but it demands substance, precision, and the ability to convey your points with clarity and impact. This was no casual address to a friendly audience; it required focus and discipline. Crafting a speech that stayed within the time limit while addressing the critical aspects of the motion was a challenge in itself, but it forced me to distill my thoughts into their most compelling form….I hope.
The Core Argument: Credibility of the Awards Process
The motion I opposed argued that industry awards have value. My stance wasn’t to dispute the existence of value in recognition—far from it. Instead, my argument focused on the robustness and credibility of the awards processes, which I believe are essential to ensuring their value. While the proposition raised the issue of the sheer number of industry awards, I consider this less relevant; many of these awards serve specific niches and communities effectively. However, one issue stood out as undeniably problematic: awards based on voting.
The Problem with Voting-Based Awards
The proposition’s critique of voting-based awards resonated deeply with me, and it’s a concern I’ve shared for some time. These awards, which rely on popularity rather than merit, risk devaluing our entire industry.
As an industry striving for greater professionalism—with clear career paths, competitive salaries, and strategic impact—we cannot afford to have our accolades undermined by dubious processes. When awards are determined by votes, they often fail to reflect true excellence. Instead, they become contests of popularity or recognition within insular circles. The result? Outcomes that are questionable to say the least.
Year after year companies claim top prizes, not because they consistently outperform in their category but because they mobilise votes. That said, some that do win are deserving, but just not recognised so by many given the process.
The Stakes for Our Industry
Imagine the head of brand or marketing at a global powerhouse like Nike or Apple attending one of these awards ceremonies. They might enjoy the evening—the glitz, the glamour, the networking—but what happens when they scrutinise the awards themselves? If they see a lack of rigour in how we recognise excellence in our own sector Awards, what conclusions might they draw about our industry’s seriousness? Would they trust us with their multi-million-pound budgets, or would they redirect those funds to advertising, PR, or other sectors with more established credibility?
This is where the danger lies. Internally, many of us already view these voting-based awards as a bit of a joke. Externally, we’ve been fortunate that our credibility hasn’t yet been called into question—but how long can we rely on luck?
The Path Forward
In my humble opinion, as an industry, we must address this issue head-on. Awards need to evolve. Formats must change. Voting-based systems, in particular, need to be replaced with processes that emphasise merit, expertise, and objective evaluation. Independent panels, rigorous criteria, and transparent judging are non-negotiables if we want our awards to truly represent the best our industry has to offer.
By taking these steps, we can not only preserve but enhance the value of industry awards. We can ensure they serve as credible benchmarks of excellence—symbols of an industry that is professional, strategic, and worthy of the trust and investment of the world’s leading brands.
Final Reflection
Standing in Cambridge’s hallowed halls to argue this case was a privilege, and it left me with a renewed sense of purpose. Industry awards can have immense value, but only if we ensure their processes are robust, fair, and credible. The time for change is now, and it’s up to all of us to lead the way.
Check out some photo highlights from the event