Compare
Probative vs hiring a consultant
A good award consultant is genuinely good, and for some firms they remain the right answer. It is worth being clear about when.
What a consultant does better
- The interview. A skilled consultant sitting with your project team will get things out of them that no written question will.
- Judgement on ambiguity. When your material is thin, a person can decide what to do about it in a way software cannot yet.
- They do it for you. The submission arrives finished. For a single flagship entry, that is worth paying for.
Where it stops working
| Consultant | Probative | |
|---|---|---|
| One entry | $2,000–12,500 | $1,200 |
| Four entries a year | $8,000–50,000 | $4,500 |
| Available in the month everything closes | Often booked out | Yes |
| Knowledge kept after the engagement | Leaves with them | Held and reused |
| Turnaround on a rebuild | Days to a week | Same day |
The honest recommendation
If you enter one award a year and it matters enormously, hire a good consultant. The economics are fine and the result will be excellent.
If you enter four to fifteen, the arithmetic stops working, the availability stops working and every year you start again from nothing because the person who learned your projects has moved on to another client.
Boost Awards, a UK consultancy, published research finding that 71% of judges believe they can spot AI copy and 42% consciously mark it down. Their argument is that a bot cannot do an intelligent interview, find the best angle and push back against inadequate content. On the first of those three they are right. On the other two, pushing back against inadequate content is precisely what we built.
Start with two answers.
Send an award you are actually entering and whatever project material you already have. You get two complete answers, the case we would make, the questions we would send your team and the claims that one more fact would unlock.
Credited in full if you go ahead. If you read it and walk away, you owe nothing further.