I've witnessed the contest judging several years, so I'll start by saying I believe most competition judges do their best to select the best.

I also believe that the extensive deliberations to identify the "best of the best" (e.g., medalists, judges' special recognition, best of show) usually succeed in doing just that.

But the initial culling to select Award of Excellence winners happens so quickly -- because of the crushing ratio of entries to judges -- that I don't know how a judge can possibly consider all the factors that make up a truly excellent design for every page he or she sees that weekend.

Is the answer more judging teams? SND has done that, but must maintain a ratio that allows the competition to bring in funds.

So is it higher fees for entries? Maybe, but then the cries will go up that SND is "elitist" and shuts out designers working for smaller papers or in non-Western nations where money is tight.

Is there a feeling that SND competition organizers don't wrestle with these issues every year? If so, it's not true. I know they do.

All that said, I think many of Alan's suggestions for recategorization make a lot of sense. Understand that any categorization by design *type* (as opposed to design *mission*) tends to mold designers' work to fit competition categories.

As long as there is an "information graphics" category, designers will work extra hard on those double-truck explainers. "Illustration"? More feature-page posters.

But if the categories are more about successful visual interpretation of news and information -- a mission -- it's harder to become a "specialist" that works to roll up the awards in a category.

Alan you have to learn polish, because the newspaper (Rzeczpospolita) look beautiful, and very clear to read, you know that word mean so, you have to recognize this award.
Don't be arrogant, is not good...
Think! before talk
JFD
Note: The las redesign the Bakerfield Californian is not easy to read and toooo busy.

Tony,

I didn't say the award wasn't deserved. I said any award granted for an entry that could not be read is suspect.

You may not like the Bakersfield redesign, but readers and advertisers do - and aren't those the people that really matter?

For years, SND has been granting some of its highest awards to papers that eventually go out of business because they don't meet the needs of readers - that's arrogance.

Alan, I recognize your talent and experience, we have a lot of experience, but we know and I agree with you, we work for the readers and advertisers (they support) that is the point, so but you have to recognize that polish paper look classic, elegant and fun, and the readers knew that.
But I agree the SND are too busy for change the rules, and I agree with you to many awards.
JTFD

** Alan Jacobson is President and CEO of Brass Tacks Design, responsible for The Bakersfield Californian's new look, referenced above **

SND contest it is fair-play?
No.
Not a member? not a winner.
The real monopoly winners? The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times is favourite always. Tones of awards for them...
SND it is a dominant american competition... Tones of award for american newspapers but the european is the best!
SND it is a business?
Yes.
Every entries mean money. Per total? Millions maybe... Do you have more entries? Good. More entries, more money for them and you go to be a winner! Your name is ...Times? OK. You go to won a hundred awards!
By!

Was that a haiku?

Chris,

I ought to put this on a save string or something:

Anonymous bombs thrown are complete crap. If you want to have any credibility, sign your name to it.

Steve

I agree that it's time to take a fresh look at the contest. Jay makes excellent points, and I love the idea of aligning categories better with mission. Alan's list is intriguing. I'd throw in a couple more:

* Most innovative - and successful - storytelling device (Alan, was that what you meant by "short form"?)

* Most helpful planning guide (e.g. weekend entertainment, dining, fairs & festivals)

To be more thoughtful in evaluating these things, judges would need more time with entries. What if we put a ceiling on the total number that any organization could submit? I say that knowing how hard it already is to make decisions about what to enter. But if the categories were more specific and mission-focused, it might be easier to choose and categorize our proudest work.

Reading how the topic has generated this intense discussion only goes to show that the issues involved are legitimate and need to be resolved.

Alan has a point but his work in the Bakersfield newspaper is muddling the discussion. That such is the case is inevitable as we cant separate the man's views from his work.

I dont like the Bakersfield design and i dont agree that simply because it appeals to readers and advertisers (if indeed it does) then it's good design. Choosing which is artistic is not a popularity contest decided by the market. There are standards and measures of what is an aesthetic work best judged by practicioners of the field. What is beautiful may not be commercially successful. This is not the Oscars!

Or maybe SND can have an award for the Best Commercialy Successful Design. That sounds like an oxymoron similar to Ang Lee directing a computer generated Incredible Hulk.

The language of design is a visual language and to a great extent one understands it even if you can't read the written word. Otherwise if we have to follow allan's drift, SND might as well change the award's name to World's Best Designed English Language Newspaper. You know how ridiculous that sounds, or should the judges learn first all the world's langauges to be able to judge?

i agree with Alan though that SND is elitist but not in its choice of winners but for what it admits to the competition. One can't join unless one pays a stiff fee which maybe prohibitve for designers from non-westen countries. The world's best designed newspaper maybe lurking in some third world country unable to afford SND'S joining fee. And it's not done by Mario Garcia. But there's no way you guys can see them.

Heidi, your comments are spot-on. I hope the SND officers read them, then I hope they re-read them.

Thanks for all your comments. All of you have been very helpful.

I'm hoping we can put aside the issue of the number of awards and focus on what I believe is more important: adding or changing the categories to promote the kind of design that matters to readers.

I believe design can enhace the readers' experience. For instance, better sports agate. I had 9 more suggestions in my original story posted online.

I would really like as many suggestions as possible in this regard.

Heidi - "short form" is an expression I got from Tim Harrower - it refers to digests and such that aren't typical headline-byline-text narrative.

why not just make it a design annual, sort of like communication arts and forget the awards imperative? just getting in the book should be a reward in itself.

and if we must have awards, yes ... less subjective categories!

and while we're at it, why not do a full and complete disclosure each year about how much money comes in for the competition, where it goes and to whom ... just like we as journalists demand from other non-profits. it does seem like a lot of money's being generated by those ever-increasing entry fees.

Thank you for posting what most smaller papers have known for a long time. It's not cost effective to enter SND.
The papers that seem to win awards year after year are large(r) papers that can afford to bomb the judges with the most entries. I’d love to see a readers panel of judges (yes they have to be able to read the actual papers) to vote on their favorites.
Finally there would be something I can use to evaluate how readers want their information delivered.