Tips for writing a winning entry by Lorenzo Solís, judge for the Global Search Awards, UK Search Awards and MENA Search Awards
What judges actually score and how to reverse-engineer your entry
Great work doesn’t automatically translate into great entries. Judges score what’s on the page, not what’s in your head. When you sit down to write, reverse-engineer the submission from the judging criteria. Across leading programs (Global, European, UK, US Search Awards), the pillars are remarkably consistent: clear objectives, sound strategy, smart implementation, measurable results, supporting evidence, and overall presentation (structure, clarity, and compliance). Your job is to make it effortless for a busy panel to award top marks in each pillar.
Use this matrix as your blueprint:
| Scoring Pillar | What “Great” Looks Like | What Gets Marked Down |
|---|---|---|
| Objectives & Context | SMART goals tied to business outcomes; baseline defined; constraints stated (budget, time, market) | Vague goals (“increase traffic”), no baselines, missing timing or audience |
| Strategy | Clear problem diagnosis → coherent plan; why this approach vs. alternatives; risks considered | Buzzwords; a list of tactics labeled “strategy”; no rationale |
| Implementation | Sequenced actions with ownership, tooling, and QA; integration across SEO/PPC/PR/Content | Random activities; no timeline; unclear who did what |
| Results | Absolute numbers + % change; ROI/ROAS; causality explained; impact beyond channel metrics | Percentages without scale; vanity metrics; results that don’t map to objectives |
| Evidence | Verifiable screenshots, dated graphs, before/after captures; budget transparency | Unsubstantiated claims; blurry images; hidden budgets |
| Presentation & Compliance | Every question answered, within word limits; category-fit; readable layout with headings | Missing sections, copy-paste across categories, exceeding word count |
The R.A.T.E.R.™ method: a judge-friendly structure for any category
To make your entry “scoreable” at speed, structure it with R.A.T.E.R.™ a simple method I recommend and personally use when assessing high-performing submissions:
- R: Relevance: Who is the audience, what market dynamics matter, and what business problem did you target? Include constraints (budget band, seasonality, regulations, technical debt).
- A: Ambition: Quantify your SMART objectives with baselines. “Grow organic revenue from €240k to €300k (+25%) in Q1” beats “increase revenue.”
- T: Tactics & Trade-offs: Distinguish strategy (your chosen path) from tactics (how you walked it). Call out what you didn’t do and why.
- E: Evidence: Show dated screenshots (GSC/GA4/ad platforms), change logs, code diffs, and creative before/after. Add budget breakdowns or bands.
- R: Results & Reflection: Close the loop: objectives → outcomes → business impact. Include learning, iteration, and how you’d scale it.
Write each section with a bolded mini-heading and keep one idea per paragraph. Use bullet points for steps and outcomes so judges can scan and score quickly.
Crafting objectives that win: before/after examples and formulas
Strong objectives are specific, measurable, and time-bound, with a baseline and a line of sight to commercial value. Use these templates to upgrade your copy:
- Weak: “Increase organic traffic.” → Strong: “Increase non-brand organic sessions from 120k to 156k/month (+30%) by 31 Dec, driven by Topical Cluster A (8 new guides) and Tech Fix B (Core Web Vitals), to lift assisted revenue +€60k.”
- Weak: “Get more links.” → Strong: “Earn 40–60 referring domains (DR 40+) from Tier-A media in DE/ES/FR via two digital PR story angles by 30 June; target landing pages: /category-x and /guide-y.”
- Weak: “Improve ROAS.” → Strong: “Raise Shopping ROAS from 3.2→4.0 in 90 days by feed cleanup, query sculpting, and creative testing; maintain volume within −5%.”
Formula to copy: From [baseline] to [target] by [date] for [audience/segment] via [levers], measured by [metric+source] with [constraints]. Always pair % and absolute values; judges need scale to assess ROI and fairness within a budget.
Strategy vs. tactics (and why mixing them costs you points)
Judges consistently mark down entries that blur strategy and tactics. A strategy is your chosen path to win, based on diagnosis and trade-offs (e.g., “defend branded SERPs and capture mid-funnel with topic clusters because paid CPCs spiked 38% and margin is thin”). Tactics are the actions (e.g., “built 12 cluster pages, schema markup, updated internal links, launched 2 PR angles”).
To score highly, write one short paragraph that states your diagnosis and strategic choice, then bullet the 5–9 critical tactics, each with owner, tool, and KPI. Example:
- Diagnosis: Category dominated by marketplaces; brand has faster shipping and unique bundles but weak informational presence.
- Strategy: Win the mid-funnel with useful “how to choose” content + product structured data, then amplify via PR to earn authority.
- Tactics: (1) SERP gap analysis (Sistrix + GSC), (2) 8 long-form guides, (3) PDP schema & reviews ingestion, (4) internal link rules, (5) comparison tables, (6) PR data drop with 2 exclusives, (7) CRO for guide → PDP handoff, (8) lighthouse fixes.
Evidence that convinces: data hygiene, screenshots, budgets, and verification
Winning entries don’t ask for trust, they show proof. Think like a forensic accountant:
- Baselines: Always state a pre-campaign period and explain anomalies (tracking change, stockouts, price rises). If you can’t give exact budget, use a clear band (€25–50k) and split by media/fees/production.
- Screenshots: Use GA4, Search Console, ad platform exports, and analytics dashboards with visible date ranges and annotations. Avoid tiny, compressed images. Label each asset (e.g., “R3_GA4_rev_by_channel_Q3.png”).
- Attribution & causality: Tie results to actions with a timeline. “On 12 Mar, we shipped FAQ schema → featured snippet win on 27 Mar → uplift in CTR +2.1pp.”
- Absolute & % values: Pair them: “Revenue €312k (+28%).” Percentages alone hide scale; absolute values alone hide efficiency.
- Third-party corroboration: Where relevant, reference rankings footprints, link audits, server logs, or marketplace share. If under NDA, anonymize but keep the logic intact.
Category fit and tailored submissions (don’t copy-paste)
Each category has subtle differences in weighting. “Best Use of Data” wants rigorous methodology; “Best Low Budget” demands efficiency and ingenuity; “Best Integrated” expects orchestration across SEO/PPC/PR/social with a single business outcome. Re-write the opening and close for each category: refresh the headline metrics and the “why we should win” argument so they map to the specific criteria. Reusing the same boilerplate across categories is easy to spot and usually underperforms.
For team and individual awards (Agency, In-House Team, Rising Star), emphasize culture, processes, knowledge sharing, training, client outcomes over time, and community impact. For product or tool categories, prove market need, roadmap, user adoption, and measurable outcomes (e.g., time saved, accuracy gains), not just feature lists.
Supporting materials: the lean, judge-friendly pack
Supplementary files should illuminate, not overwhelm. Curate a concise pack (10–20 pages is typical) that mirrors your narrative:
- Executive summary slide: 3–5 “why this wins” bullets; hero metrics; category-specific angle.
- Timeline: Milestones by week/month; who did what; key releases.
- Proof deck: Dated screenshots (GSC/GA4/ad accounts), version diffs, PR clippings, creative before/after, code snippets for technical changes.
- Budget view: Band or breakdown with media/fees/production; headcount context.
- Appendix: Methodology notes (sampling, exclusions), glossary if non-standard metrics are used.
Keep videos short (≤90s) and optional; judges rarely have time for long playbacks. Use clear file names and a contents page with links so we can jump straight to the proof we need.
Writing style, layout, and compliance (fast points you can’t afford to lose)
Judges read dozens of entries. Make yours a frictionless read:
- Answer the question asked. Mirror the wording of each form section and tick off every element.
- Use structure. H3 sub-headings, bullets for tactics/results, tables for comparisons. One idea per paragraph.
- Stick to limits. Word counts are part of the rules; exceeding them signals poor editing and may trigger penalties.
- Tone. Confident and specific beats hype. Avoid jargon; define any specialist nomenclature once.
- Proof. Run a spellcheck and a final compliance check (see checklist below). Typos won’t kill a great entry, but they do erode trust.
Ethics, confidentiality, and fairness
Search awards protect your data, but the integrity standard is high. Never fabricate or manipulate results. If you must anonymize, do it transparently (e.g., “Category leader in DE appliances; revenue band €5–10M”). Be consistent: if you hide revenue, don’t then reveal exact order counts. Note any data caveats (tracking migrations, attribution changes) up front. If your work leveraged AI, vendor support, or external partners, credit them. And remember: judges will sanity-check rankings, links, and landing pages.
Your production timeline: a proven 4-week sprint plan
| Week | Focus | Deliverables |
|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Discovery & Data | Kickoff, category selection, objectives/baselines, evidence inventory, stakeholder interviews |
| Week 2 | Narrative & Strategy | Draft R.A.T.E.R. sections, timeline, tactics list, budget band, initial proof deck |
| Week 3 | Validation & Visuals | QA numbers, annotate screenshots, fill gaps, legal/NDA review, design tables/figures |
| Week 4 | Polish & Compliance | Final edits, category tailoring, checklist sign-off, submission on platform |
Common pitfalls (and how to flip them into quick wins)
- Pitfall: Objectives and results don’t match. Flip: Add a “Results vs Objectives” table showing each objective, target, outcome, and variance.
- Pitfall: All percentages, no scale. Flip: Add absolute figures and context (market share, margin impact, LTV).
- Pitfall: Strategy = tactics. Flip: One paragraph of strategic choice with trade-offs, then a bulleted tactics list.
- Pitfall: Overstuffed appendices. Flip: Curate a short proof deck with a linked contents page; move non-critical artifacts to a separate archive.
- Pitfall: Weak category fit. Flip: Re-write the opener and “why we should win” for the category; change the hero metric if needed.
- Pitfall: No budget context. Flip: Provide bands and split by media/fees/production; state team size.
Mini templates you can paste into your form today
Results vs. Objectives Table
| Objective | Baseline | Target | Outcome | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic revenue | €240k (Q1) | €300k (+25%) | €312k (+30%) | +CRO uplift after PDP changes |
| Referring domains | 210 (DR40+) | 250 | 268 | 2 story angles; 6 Tier-A links |
| Shopping ROAS | 3.2 | 4.0 | 4.1 | Feed cleanup; query sculpting |
Category-specific opener (example: Best Use of Data)
“In a price-volatile vertical, we centralized messy product, pricing, and inventory data to power forecasting, bid strategies, and content prioritization. Within 90 days we improved stock-aware bidding, reduced wasted spend by 18%, and lifted margin per order by €6.20, while maintaining volume. Here’s how our data strategy turned complexity into profit.”
“Why we should win” (closing paragraph)
“This entry shows a clear line from diagnosis to business impact: ambitious objectives with baselines, a strategy built on customer and market insight, rigorous execution across channels, and results that compound beyond vanity metrics (revenue, margin, and share). The approach is replicable, ethical, and resilient. That’s why it deserves to win.”
Pre-submission checklist (15 quick yes/no checks)
- Every question on the form is answered (no blanks).
- Objectives are SMART and business-linked; baselines stated.
- Strategy and tactics are distinct and defensible.
- Results map line-by-line to objectives with absolute + % values.
- Evidence pack includes dated screenshots and before/after visuals.
- Budget given (exact or band) + media/fees/production split.
- Category-fit edits completed; opener and closer tailored.
- All acronyms defined once; minimal jargon.
- Screenshots are legible; filenames are descriptive.
- Confidential data reviewed; redactions consistent.
- Word counts within limits; formatting readable.
- Client testimonials (optional) are specific and attributable.
- All figures QA’d by a second person.
- Submission platform quirks tested (file types, size limits).
- Final read-through on desktop and mobile.
FAQs
Do I need to disclose exact budgets?
Exact figures help, but if confidentiality blocks you, share a budget band and a transparent split across media, fees, and production, plus team size and seniority. Judges need context to assess efficiency and fairness.
How much do attachments matter versus the form?
The form is primary. Use attachments to validate claims (screenshots, timelines, creatives). Don’t depend on a long video or a sprawling appendix to carry your case, judges may not have time to hunt for key details.
What if tracking changed mid-campaign?
Disclose it. Provide a reconciliation note (e.g., UA→GA4 migration), show overlapping periods, and call out any exclusions. Transparency earns trust and prevents avoidable questions.
How do I handle NDAs and sensitive data?
Use anonymization and ranges. Keep methodology intact so results are still judgeable. Be consistent: if revenue is redacted, don’t reveal exact order counts that let someone back-calculate it.
What’s the biggest reason great work loses?
Misalignment. Either objectives don’t match results, or the entry doesn’t answer the judging criteria for the chosen category. Tailoring and clear mapping fix both.
How long should I spend on an entry?
Plan a 4-week sprint (see the timeline above). Rushed entries tend to skip baselines, muddle strategy with tactics, and forget category tailoring, all easy points lost.
Can I reuse the same entry in multiple categories?
You can adapt the same project, but don’t copy-paste. Reframe the narrative, swap the hero metrics, and update the “why we should win” to match each category’s scoring emphasis.
Final thoughts
Award-winning entries don’t just showcase great marketing, they make it effortless for judges to see, verify, and score that greatness. If you align to the criteria, write with R.A.T.E.R.™, prove causality with clean evidence, and tailor for category fit, you’ll turn strong work into standout submissions.
Good luck and make it easy for us to give you those top marks! 🚀