★★★★★
“Sessionboard has been one of our most successful investments this year, making our team more efficient and allowing us to focus on the most critical components of our events.”
The hard part of an awards program is never collecting the nominations.
A call for nominations is an open invitation to put forward candidates for an award. Running one takes five stages: define categories and eligibility, publish the call with a submission form, screen entries for eligibility, score them against a rubric in one or more judging rounds, then notify winners and finalists. Self-nomination and third-party nomination need different form logic, which is the most common design mistake.
The failure mode differs by who owns the program, and it is usually predictable from the outset.
Categories overlap, so the same nomination arrives in three of them and judges score inconsistently across a set that was never comparable.
Eligibility depends on membership status or tenure, and verifying it means a manual cross-check against the member system for every entry.
Winners are announced and then nothing happens — no shareable assets, no attribution, and the program produces no visible proof it ran.
Winners have to appear at the annual meeting, but the awards tool and the speaker system share no records, so bios and headshots get collected twice.
“Sessionboard has been one of our most successful investments this year, making our team more efficient and allowing us to focus on the most critical components of our events.”
“Sessionboard saves significant planning time and makes it easier than ever for speakers and sponsors to participate in our clients' events.”
“We used Sessionboard daily. It served as our source of truth for tracking speakers, sending emails, and accessing reports. The ability to set a weekly digest email was a huge time saver.”
“Honestly, I loved it! Getting everything out of the spreadsheet. It collects all the information and gives you a visual of who you might want to invite.”
Ordered by how much of the cycle each one covers, which matters more than per-entry pricing once a program runs annually.
| Vendor | Best when | Tradeoffs | Pricing note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form builders (Google Forms, Jotform, Typeform) | A single category, under about thirty nominations, one judge or an informal panel, and no eligibility rules to enforce. | Judging happens in a spreadsheet, scores are averaged by hand, nominators cannot save and return, and nothing carries to next year. | Free to roughly $30/month. |
| Awards specialists (Award Force, Evalato, Judgify) | A judging season is the whole scope — multiple categories, panels, scoring rounds, and a winners announcement, run well and self-service. | Built around the season rather than the record, so nominees, judges and winners generally do not persist as identities you can query next cycle or reuse elsewhere. | Per program, on entry volume. |
| Submission platforms (Submittable, OpenWater, ZoomGrants) | Awards sit beside grants, scholarships or fellowships and one review engine should serve all of them. | Generalised review workflow, so awards-specific needs like public voting, finalist promotion or a ceremony tie-in usually need working around. | Annual platform licence. |
| Sessionboard | The awards program shares people with something else — an annual meeting, a speaker program, a member base — so nominees, judges, finalists and winners should be the same records as your faculty and persist across cycles, with winner promotion and attribution built in rather than exported. | Overkill for a one-category internal award; the value comes from identity persisting and from the conference or speaker tie-in. | Licensed by program and entry volume. |
An open invitation for people to put forward candidates for an award, either themselves or someone else. It differs from a call for entries, which usually asks for submitted work such as a project or campaign, whereas a nomination puts forward a person or organisation.
Nominator name, email and relationship to the nominee; nominee name, organisation, role and contact details; the award category; an eligibility confirmation; a statement of why they qualify against the published criteria, with a stated word limit; supporting evidence such as links, metrics or references; and a consent checkbox permitting you to contact and publicly name the nominee. Collect the category and eligibility first, because those two determine whether the rest is worth reading.
Four to six weeks is typical, and the pattern of arrivals is heavily weighted to the final few days. Plan two reminders, one at the halfway point and one in the last forty-eight hours, and expect the majority of entries after the second.
That is your decision, but state it explicitly in the call, because ambiguity here produces entries you have to reject on a technicality. If you allow both, the form should branch, as a self-nomination and a third-party nomination need different required fields.
Few enough that a judge can tell them apart and each attracts a competitive field. Too many categories produce winners nobody competed against, which quietly devalues the whole program. Merging thin categories is almost always the right call.
Assign judges by category with conflicts excluded, score against a published rubric rather than an overall impression, and use a shortlist round when volume is high — an eligibility and quality screen first, then a deeper pass on the finalists. Recording scores against named criteria is also what lets you answer a challenge.
A free form builder handles collection well enough for a small single-category award. The limits appear at judge assignment, blind or conflict-free scoring, eligibility enforcement, multiple rounds, and having any of it still exist next cycle.
A call for nominations recognises past achievement and is judged against criteria; a call for abstracts solicits content to present at an event and is reviewed for program fit. Many organisations run both, often with overlapping reviewer pools, which is an argument for keeping them on the same system.
Talk through your event workflow — abstracts, speakers, content, and marketing on one program graph.
Ready to talk through your workflow?
Request a demo