As the GPMA entry deadline nears, Neguin Farhangmehr, ND Agency's Founder and Managing Director and GPMA judge, walks through how to stand out, submission mistakes to avoid, and the award entry she remembers to this day.
Madaline Dunn: As a judge, what immediately jumps out at you in a winning submission?
Neguin Farhangmehr: A winning submission immediately makes me understand the significance of the challenge. I'm less interested in how elegantly entrants describe the work than in what they can actually demonstrate through compelling storytelling backed with data, commercial reasoning, and tangible outcomes.
The strongest entries clearly explain what the business was trying to achieve, the obstacles it needed to overcome, the thinking behind the approach, and the measurable impact that followed. They make it easy for judges to understand the value without having to fill in the gaps.
MD: What should entrants pay closer attention to?
NF: The judging criteria. It sounds obvious, but many entries spend too much time setting the scene and not enough time answering the actual questions. Every section should contribute towards the criteria and make it easy for judges to award marks.
I'd also encourage entrants to explain the context behind their results.
A 20% increase in revenue might be impressive—or it might be expected. Help us understand the environment you were operating in, whether there were budget constraints, technical limitations or broader market conditions.
Context is often what transforms a good result into an exceptional achievement.
MD: What are the biggest mistakes an entrant can make?
NF: The biggest mistake is assuming judges already know your client, your business or your campaign.
Judges review submissions across different industries and categories, so every entry needs to stand on its own. Avoid relying on internal terminology or assuming we'll understand why something is significant without explaining it.
Another common mistake is focusing on activity rather than outcomes. It's not about how many initiatives you launched—it's about the difference they made.
Finally, don't overlook the fundamentals. If the category asks for ROI, commercial metrics or supporting evidence, make sure they're included. Even an exceptional campaign can miss valuable marks simply because required information wasn't provided.
MD: What sets a gold entry apart from a bronze entry?
NF: A bronze entry demonstrates good work and strong results.
A gold entry showcases breakthrough thinking that completely elevates the category.
It combines strategic insight, smart execution and measurable commercial impact in a way that feels both original and obvious in hindsight. Every decision has a clear purpose, and every result is backed by evidence.
By the time you've finished reading, the case for why it deserves to win feels completely clear.
MD: Looking back at the awards you've judged, what would you like to see more of from entrants?
NF: I'd love to see more transparency. Some of the strongest submissions acknowledge that not everything went to plan. They explain the challenges they faced, what they learned and how they adapted along the way. That level of honesty often demonstrates far greater strategic capability than a submission where everything appears effortless.
I'd also love to see more entrants talk about the broader commercial impact of partnerships.
Revenue is important, but great partnership programs also influence customer acquisition, operational efficiencies, innovation and long-term business growth. Those are the stories that really showcase the maturity of our industry.
MD: What's an entry that you still remember to this day?
NF: Interestingly, the campaign with the biggest budget rarely leaves the longest-lasting impression.
Two or three years ago, I reviewed an entry for a travel organisation running a complex, multi-market campaign. They were up against deeply entrenched historical challenges and executed a phenomenal piece of problem-solving.
I honestly don’t even remember the specific brand name anymore, but I remember exactly how the submission made me react. It was so well-crafted that it read almost like a thriller; I was hooked from the very first sentence. I actually remember gasping and just genuinely enjoying the read because the strategic pivoting was so clever.
It was a perfect reminder that the best submissions don't just present data; they tell a compelling story. Whether they are from global brands or smaller businesses, what the most memorable entries all have in common is that they challenge conventional thinking. They introduce a fresh perspective or solve a problem in a way I hadn't considered before, and those are the entries I still remember years later.
People often think judging is about deciding who wins. For me, it's also about learning. Every year, there's a submission that makes me stop and think, "That is just an absolutely brilliant way to solve this problem." Those are the entries that stay with you. Months later, I probably won't remember every percentage increase or ROI figure, but I'll remember the idea that challenged my thinking. To me, that's the highest compliment I can give an entry.
