Judging at Spikes Asia
Each year, much interest is focused on the winners of Spikes Asia. The campaigns, agencies, clients, networks and countries that have been successful are given a platform across the region.
But before there are winners, there’s judging.
Enormous consideration is given to who will judge the work and how. The high calibre our juries is matched by the high standards we hold them to and the rigorous processes they undertake.
This is what sets Spikes Asia apart and ensures it continues to be APAC's most respected creative accolade.
How the judging works
Judging consists of viewing, voting, discussion and awarding of trophies.
Judges consider and score each entry on a scale of one to nine based on whether they consider it a shortlist candidate. The jury will then review and finalise this proposed shortlist. Typically about twenty per cent of entries will make it to this stage.
Guided by the Jury President, judges review and debate entries in the shortlist before voting on whether they consider each a Gold, Silver or Bronze winner, or Shortlist only. It takes a two-thirds majority vote to claim a trophy.
After voting, results are read out and juries confirm the decisions. Candidates for Grand Prix, selected from among Gold winners, are also identified and further discussion follows before a last vote to determine the Grand Prix winner.
Entries for non-profit organisations and charities aren’t eligible in their award, but will be considered for the Grand Prix for Good.
Spikes Asia, organised and managed by Ascential plc, is a proud member of the Unstereotype Alliance.
We continue our mission to celebrate creativity that changes the world for the better and as such, in 2017 we introduced guidelines for judging around representation. The criteria urges the jury members reviewing entries submitted into the Awards, to consider whether the work perpetuates negative stereotypes and inequalities and whether the work represents deep-rooted stereotypical portrayals of gender, ethnicity, age, race, sexual orientation, disability, body type or other biases.
These guidelines build upon the objectification criteria we developed in collaboration with Madonna Badger, which challenge jury members to use empathy when analysing a piece of work and encourage the jury to reflect upon how they might feel if the person portrayed was someone they know and care about.