Are Drinks Awards Still Fit for Purpose? 

The core issue is simple: too many awards are built around the needs of the organiser, not the needs of the industry. 

Take judging criteria. In far too many competitions, the standards are defined internally, without meaningful consultation with the people who make or buy the products. The result? Category structures that don’t reflect reality, scoring systems that lack nuance, and outcomes that feel disconnected from the market. 

Then, there’s transparency - or the lack of it. Entrants pay significant fees, yet many competitions still provide little more than an image of a medal and a generic tasting note. In an era when data drives decisions, this approach is becoming increasingly indefensible. Producers want to understand why their product performed as it did, and buyers want to know how a medal was earned. 

Without transparency, awards become little more than decorative stickers. 

Judging diversity is another area where the industry has been far too forgiving. Panels dominated by a narrow demographic - often older, often male, often drawn from the same professional circles - cannot credibly claim to represent the breadth of today’s drinks world. Diversity isn’t a PR exercise; it’s a quality control mechanism. A panel that all thinks the same will inevitably judge the same. 

And then, there’s the elephant in the room; commercial influence. The industry knows which competitions rely heavily on brand sponsorships. It knows which ones blur the line between partnership and ‘paytoplay’. It even knows which ones quietly prioritise revenue over rigour. The fact that this is still tolerated is remarkable. 

But perhaps the most telling shift is the growing expectation that awards should contribute something meaningful to the wider industry, and not just extract value from it. Charitable initiatives, education programmes and community support are no longer optional extras. They are part of how the trade assesses whether an award platform deserves its attention. 

Put bluntly: the industry is outgrowing awards that haven’t evolved. 

The good news is that a new model is emerging, one built on collaboration with guilds and associations, featuring transparent scoring, a diverse judging panel, independence from brand money and a commitment to giving back. These aren’t ‘nicetohaves’. They are the minimum standards the industry now expects. 

The era of unexamined medals is ending. The industry is demanding more and awards that fail to adapt may soon find themselves irrelevant. 

As the drinks world gathers at BCB London, it’s worth asking a simple question: If an award can’t explain how it judges, who it represents, or why its results matter, why should anyone take it seriously?