One of the easiest mistakes a Gaming jury can make is assuming every execution required the same level of effort.
Not all gaming ideas are created equal.
Hiring streamers or KOLs to demonstrate a brand message? Running giveaways or community promotions? Buying in-game media placements? These are all perfectly legitimate marketing tactics—but they are relatively straightforward to execute. They shouldn’t automatically receive the same level of recognition as work that fundamentally changes or enhances the gaming experience.
The more challenging ideas usually happen inside the game itself.
Building new mechanics, collaborating directly with developers or publishers, creating custom game experiences, or integrating a brand into gameplay often requires months of planning, technical development, approvals, testing, and iteration.
These are genuine partnerships that demand far more than a media budget—they require trust, access, and deep knowledge of how games are built.
As jurors, it pays to look beyond the final case video and ask a few simple questions. Did the team work directly with the game developer or publisher? Was custom content actually built? How much technical work and collaboration were involved? If those answers aren’t clear, the case may be overstating its complexity.
Likewise, be cautious of vague claims. If a case never explains the development process, omits key partners, or presents an execution that could easily be transplanted into another game, it may not have been as difficult as it appears. Understanding the level of effort helps jurors judge innovation more fairly.
In Creative Gaming work, some of the biggest breakthroughs are the ones that required the hardest work behind the scenes to make players’ experiences better. Sometimes, the real innovation is what it took to build it.
