The Glass Lions were created to honor work that moves culture on gender and equality. That mission matters. But the way we celebrate it can drift. I believe we’re inching away from purpose and toward pageantry.
The cue came in a simple line that stuck with me:
“These are the campaigns up for Glass Lions, including three that made the shortlist twice.”
At first, it sounds like a win. More visibility for the same pieces. Yet it raises a harder question. Are we rewarding change, or rewarding the machine that markets it?
The Case for Recalibrating Praise
Award shows are tilting toward format over effect. Double shortlisting can read like proof of excellence. It can also reveal a system hooked on the same names and the same case films.
Real progress is measured in outcomes, not edits. If the same campaign gets counted twice, that inflates buzz, not impact. It skews attention away from smaller markets and quieter wins.
I’ve judged shows and worked on entries. I know how a narrative can be polished until it feels inevitable. That polish is not the same as proof.
What Double Shortlisting Signals
Some will say: a campaign can fit multiple criteria. Fair. But a repeat nod often points to something else: a feedback loop that favors scale, not change.
- Big agencies have the teams to tailor entries to every corner of a show.
- Powerful brands get the benefit of name recall.
- Juries, under time pressure, lean on familiar work and clean storytelling.
This pattern doesn’t make the work bad. It makes the scoreboard noisy. The people who need these ideas most can get lost in the echo.
Impact Should Be the Headline
If a prize is about equity, proof of change should outweigh fame. Show me laws updated, budgets shifted, hiring fixed, schools funded. Show me the receipts, not just the reach.
A realignment is not hard. It starts with stricter proof, even if that means fewer trophies. The work will adjust. So will the case films.
Answering the Pushback
Critics will argue that awards spark attention, and attention sparks action. Sometimes. But attention without follow-through leaves only applause. That can even excuse brands from deeper work.
Others say you can’t demand long-term results on short timelines. True for policy shifts. Not true for internal changes like pay audits or safer reporting paths. Those can be verified.
What I Want to See Next
We do not need to punish great craft. We need to anchor it to change that stands up outside a sizzle reel. Here’s a simple shift list.
- Cap duplicate shortlists for the same entry in mission-led categories.
- Weight outcomes higher than production value and case film polish.
- Require third-party validation for key claims and metrics.
- Prioritize work led by communities most affected, not just featuring them.
- Create a follow-up check one year later to confirm lasting impact.
These steps won’t drain the magic. They’ll protect it. They’ll also open space for work that lacks flash but delivers change.
Why This Matters Now
Gender and equity efforts face headwinds. Funding shifts. Laws swing. In that setting, awards can guide budgets and talent. They can signal what counts as success.
If the signal drifts, so do the dollars. Repeat shortlists for the same entry may look like momentum. They can also look like a hall of mirrors.
I want shows to be brave. Reward the messy pilots, the stubborn policy fights, the campaigns that moved the needle with less shine and more grit.
A Better Measure of Glory
Let’s treat trophies as receipts for change, not trailers for it. Let’s make the headline the result, not the credit roll. The work will rise to meet that bar.
My call to action is simple: ask your teams, your juries, and your clients for proof. Push for rules that value outcomes. Cheer loudest for entries that can show lives made safer, pay made fair, and systems reworked.
If prizes shape what we chase, then we should set prizes to chase what matters. Not the echo. The effect.
