PRESS RELEASE – Oct 28 – The first iDate Awards ceremony will be held the night of January 28, 2010 in Miami. The iDate Awards will highlight the people and companies who exemplify the best and most innovative aspects of the Internet dating and matchmaking industry. Nominations are now open to the public at iDateAwards.com. Both industry professionals and the general public are encouraged to nominate or vote for the best candidates in each of the award categories.
- Best Dating Site
- Best Dating Site Design
- Best Software Provider
- Best Mobile Dating Site
- Best Matchmaker
- Most Innovative Company
- Best New Technology
- Best Payment System
- Best Affiliate Program
- Best Marketing Campaign
- Best Up and Coming Dating Site
The awards will have the following schedule:
- Now to Nov. 15 — Nominations Accepted
- Nov. 23 to Jan. 7 — Voting
- Jan. 28, 2010 — Awards ceremony and winners announced
The awards are organized by the Internet Dating Conference and Online Personals Watch.
The full article was originally published at Marketwire, but is no longer available.
With respect Mark, is this the best way to do such awards?
iDate has sponsors, you have sponsors and anybody can suggest a company for an awards. There’s no verification of ID and appears to be little objectivity.
Generally awards are entered by the company itself with supporting documentation to justify why it should win. There is a clear judging panel (usually at least a dozen people) without bias.
I’m all for industry awards, but only if they’re credible.
With respect Mark, is this the best way to do such awards?
iDate has sponsors, you have sponsors and anybody can suggest a company for an awards. There’s no verification of ID and appears to be little objectivity.
Generally awards are entered by the company itself with supporting documentation to justify why it should win. There is a clear judging panel (usually at least a dozen people) without bias.
I’m all for industry awards, but only if they’re credible.
A dozen people worked many hours on the planning of these awards. Alot of thought went into this.
Here is the basic version of the Award Rules:
We opted for the public involvement, knowing that more interest and excitement would be generated. To keep the election process honest, we weighted IDEA members to represent 90% of the vote. This includes nominations as well. These individuals are confirmed and verified. For security, each was provided with a unique nomination link, that can be used just once.
However, the remainder of the public (non-IDEA members) was allowed to represent 10% of the nominations and votes. A moderate to strong public nomination and/or vote could carry them to the top. We have seen such excitement among several in the industry. Quite a few have already voted.
We originally considered having a committee / judging panel, but ultimately rejected it as it would appear too stodgy. The hint of impropriety would be ever-present. And lastly, because the majority of the industry would have zero say over the matter, little excitement or interest would most likely have been generated. Committee / Judgment Panel was an idea that was quickly killed (unanimously, too).
In the detailed rules, the site has to actually DO what the category says. ex: eBay can not be nominated for best Dating site, etc. Votes like that will be dismissed.
Clients/customers of OPW or iDate are irrelevant in the process. Neither OPW employees or iDate employees are allowed to nominate or vote. Social connections with any of us have zero bearing on the outcome of the elections.
Marc Lesnick
Conference Organizer
iDate2010 Miami
Co-Organizer
iDate Awards
A dozen people worked many hours on the planning of these awards. Alot of thought went into this.
Here is the basic version of the Award Rules:
We opted for the public involvement, knowing that more interest and excitement would be generated. To keep the election process honest, we weighted IDEA members to represent 90% of the vote. This includes nominations as well. These individuals are confirmed and verified. For security, each was provided with a unique nomination link, that can be used just once.
However, the remainder of the public (non-IDEA members) was allowed to represent 10% of the nominations and votes. A moderate to strong public nomination and/or vote could carry them to the top. We have seen such excitement among several in the industry. Quite a few have already voted.
We originally considered having a committee / judging panel, but ultimately rejected it as it would appear too stodgy. The hint of impropriety would be ever-present. And lastly, because the majority of the industry would have zero say over the matter, little excitement or interest would most likely have been generated. Committee / Judgment Panel was an idea that was quickly killed (unanimously, too).
In the detailed rules, the site has to actually DO what the category says. ex: eBay can not be nominated for best Dating site, etc. Votes like that will be dismissed.
Clients/customers of OPW or iDate are irrelevant in the process. Neither OPW employees or iDate employees are allowed to nominate or vote. Social connections with any of us have zero bearing on the outcome of the elections.
Marc Lesnick
Conference Organizer
iDate2010 Miami
Co-Organizer
iDate Awards
So the people who stand to benefit from the awards get 90% of the weighting of the votes?
“For security, each was provided with a unique nomination link, that can be used just once.”
Well I think I’m a member of IDEA, but I’ve received no unique nomination link?
I understand that some awards rely on votes from those that can benefit from the awards – I just think it’s better all round if companies have to enter themselves for an award and justify in the entry form WHY they should deserve to win.
I’ve won a few awards myself (a few personal ones are listed at http://rosswilliams.com/about-2/) and all of these require a formal entry (usually by the company or their PR agency) justifying why they should win.
These entries could then be shown to people to vote on. Otherwise by offering free-form nominations like you are you’ll simply encounter blind nepotism.
So the people who stand to benefit from the awards get 90% of the weighting of the votes?
“For security, each was provided with a unique nomination link, that can be used just once.”
Well I think I’m a member of IDEA, but I’ve received no unique nomination link?
I understand that some awards rely on votes from those that can benefit from the awards – I just think it’s better all round if companies have to enter themselves for an award and justify in the entry form WHY they should deserve to win.
I’ve won a few awards myself (a few personal ones are listed at http://rosswilliams.com/about-2/) and all of these require a formal entry (usually by the company or their PR agency) justifying why they should win.
These entries could then be shown to people to vote on. Otherwise by offering free-form nominations like you are you’ll simply encounter blind nepotism.
Thanks for your comments. Fortunately, blind nepotism or narcissistic behaviour is not what we are seeing. We are seeing people taking responsibility of recommending other sites and companies as well as their own for each of the categories.
A dozen people worked on this for many hours to come up with the structure we believed best to get everyone involved.
We’re always open to new ideas. If you have a better method, please email us a complete structure for the awards, including submission, voting, policies, procedures, etc. Please make it as complete as possible. We wouldn’t want others to poke at it.
As for your link, please provide Mark Brooks with your correct email address. The email he had on file is the one sent. It may have also ended up in your spam filter.
Thanks for your comments. Fortunately, blind nepotism or narcissistic behaviour is not what we are seeing. We are seeing people taking responsibility of recommending other sites and companies as well as their own for each of the categories.
A dozen people worked on this for many hours to come up with the structure we believed best to get everyone involved.
We’re always open to new ideas. If you have a better method, please email us a complete structure for the awards, including submission, voting, policies, procedures, etc. Please make it as complete as possible. We wouldn’t want others to poke at it.
As for your link, please provide Mark Brooks with your correct email address. The email he had on file is the one sent. It may have also ended up in your spam filter.
Sounds good Marc, will look forward to the results.
Sounds good Marc, will look forward to the results.