Talk:Vanity award

Wine Spectator Award of Excellence
Is the Wine Spectator Award of Excellence something worth including on this page? It is discussed extensively at Robin Goldstein, where numerous references to quality independent sources are available. -   t  u coxn \ talk 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Readers Favorite Awards
In response to User:Sassycatt who deleted their own comment, and removed Readers Favorite Awards from the article. I'm not convinced because look they offer "Four award levels plus a finalist level in each of our 100 categories." In other words each year they hand out over 600 awards and honors (For each category there is Gold/Silver/Bronze/Honorable/1 to 4 Finalists. In 100 categories.) It has the hallmarks of a vanity award. Not to say they are crooks, or awards are guaranteed, but they say on their homepage: "Become an Award-Winning Author!", because that is what they do, they make people award-winners. Not guaranteed but the bar is very low and the interests of the author and Readers Favorite Awards are aligned with money passing hands. The money may pay for the prize, but the point is the author can use that award to market their book, the prize money is a side show. -- Green  C  04:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vanity award. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forewordreviews.com/Press.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

AI Global Media controversy
A number of users with no other Wikipedia contributions are removing content in the "List of vanity business awards controversy" section, content that only relates to AI Global Media, which tells me that some of the company's stakeholders are bothered by the content written there. I invite them here to discuss any issues they may have before removing content that they don't agree with.

One should take into consideration the following when assessing the validity of the sources:
 * they are individual user reports which contain excerpts or printouts from the messages received (not speculation),
 * some of the users appear to use their real names (I won't link to any online data for privacy, but you can research it yourselves) and real company names,
 * Ai Global Media has used Google Takedown requests to remove forum discussions (questions and answers) and user complaints from Google search results, claiming those are "Defamatory, False Information, Libel",
 * the burden of proof to demonstrate whether the awards are legitimate and not a Vanity Award scheme falls on AI Global Media, not the users who we cannot assume in good faith to have reasons to speculate randomly about awarding entities and make unsubstantiated claims.Plinuxs (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am far from an expert on the award business, but it seems plausible there is a continuum of practices, ranging from awards like the Nobel prize at one end of the scale and some truly scammy "pay and you get an award" organizations at the other end of the scale. I note that this article is not talking about the range of such practices but apparently is just talking about those at the end of the scale, and pointedly uses the word "scam". I looked at the first relevant reference and that raised some eyebrows, but I'm not fully convinced that it qualifies as "scam". I haven't looked at the other references, but I hope people do and remember that we cannot use terms like "scam" in Wikipedia's voice without being darn sure that the entities listed in the article all qualify. (In full disclosure I am reaction to an OTRS email 2017072610009372)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assertion that the burden of the proof is on AI Global Media to show that these awards are legitimate. They are being listed in an article talking about scam awards, so we'd better ensure that we have published reliable sources supporting that assertion. If this were an article about legitimate awards and we had omitted that company, in that case I would agree that the burden of proof goes the other way to justify inclusion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * These types of awards make it their business to appear legit and honorable. We as editors don't decide rather base it on reliable third party sourcing. I don't think any specific award is called a "scam" in the Wikipedia voice, however reliable third party sources call AI Global Media a scam -- it sounds like the OTRS ticket might be complaining about the sources not Wikipedia?  --  Green  C  13:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You may be correct, that the burden of proof doesn't fall with the company in question in this particular context. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore how the Better Business Bureau (or the BBC), an organization that Wikipedia has (correctly) quoted as an independent third party on numerous occasions, defined the business-recognition-as-a-business that we call vanity award ([| article 1], | article 2, article 3) and the fact that AI Global Media closely fits the profile (since no set of rules is necessary).


 * Moreover, the arguments used in the other quoted sources in the article (i.e. the National "Best Books" Awards, Why Most Business 'Awards' Are a Scam, Preying on Pride and others) are particularly similar with the ones quoted for AI Global Media. Should we take those pertaining to AI Global Media out, we would find ourselves in the position where it's almost impossible to defend the assertion that the others can be considered vanity awards while the practice followed by AI Global Media is not.


 * In one of the quoted sources substantial evidence is produced (the actual emails with headers) to support the assertion made: example 1, example 2 etc. The fact that search engines like Google haven't removed that website and others from their search results supports the argument that they didn't found the take-down requests issued by Ai Global to be warranted and the complaints were, therefore, legitimate.


 * To conclude, I believe that the sources quoted are reliable in this case and the definition used in the article doesn't specifically claim that the practice is a scam (nor it implies that Ai Global Media in particular is scamming anyone), but an unethical - though insofar legal - practice. If there is a problem with the article is perhaps with the language used, particularly the expression "scam award", which needs better sources and should be given more thought, legalese speaking. Plinuxs (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * One more thing, please: pages such as Vanity press, Vanity gallery, Vanity label and Accreditation mill do a better job at explaining the phenomenon without sounding too edgy, like Vanity award does in its current form. Removing or changing the wording that can be considered troubling could help this article adopt a more impartial tone and take Wikipedia out of muddy waters. However, while I understand why Ai Global Media is upset, I see little point in giving in to its pressure to have their name removed just because it's bad for business, since there are no ill-intended claims towards them. The article is about a business model employed by some companies, them included, which is considered unethical, in line with the articles aforementioned. Plinuxs (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Plinuxs, you may be right about AI Global Media being the source of the deletions. There is concurrently something going on over at Talk:Europe_Business_Assembly which is among the same list of companies. Someone representing EBA has been engaged in heavy editing of that article over the past 24hrs. -- Green  C  13:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Green C, it's understandable that companies make efforts to remove their names from articles that don't put them in a positive light. But, as you correctly pointed above, it's not up to us to decide whether the business model employed by those companies is ethical or not, rather to correctly illustrate the concept and support it with reliable citations; which is what the contributors to the article have done, in my opinion.
 * Though I agree with S Philbrick  that we need to be careful with the claims made in an article, even more so when such claims can bring potential prejudice to an entity, I stand by my contribution(s) in this case, in the sense that publicly available independent information has been used to help the reader discern the subject. Like suggested above, a more appropriate wording should be considered for the article, as to not suggest there's a scam involved without proper sources to support that statement. Plinuxs (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ai Global Media response
Hi all,

I work for Ai global media and I would like to ask you to please remove us and all our magazines from the listing as a vanity award scheme.

I understand that from your comments you believe from sources that we are vanity award scheme and a ‘to pay to win’ company. This is completely not true and I would like to put our evidence forward to show you an insight into our company so we are hopefully able to solve this matter.

Ai Global media is a publishing group and whilst this means we are dedicated to creating interesting and meaningful content for readers it also means we are a way for businesses and companies alike to reach out to those readers, in essence, an advertising platform. Offering these services isn't an unusual practice within the publishing industry. The magazine is digitally produced and is available on our websites and on ISSUU the digital platform we use to publish our magazines. These are available for the general public to read and are sent to our circulation.

While a vanity award is a pay to win service, this is not what we are at Ai global media. As stated on your page ‘Vanity award’ “A vanity award is an award in which the recipient purchases the award to give the false appearance of a legitimate honour”. All of our awards are free there is no fee at all to receive the award and this is mentioned throughout the process.

Throughout out time open we have worked with many reputable companies that happily accept our awards, many of whom work with us year after year. Recently we have worked with Puma, BT and Ernst & Young a company that on your Wikipedia page is named as ‘one of the largest professional services firm in the world and is one of the "Big Four" accounting firms.’ If all our awards are illegitimate why would these companies even bother with us? As previously said, all our awards come with a free option which allows winners to use their accolade to help promote themselves and the work that they do. All winners are determined prior to any commercial opportunities are discussed. Those companies who win our awards do so on an entirely free of charge basis. This is not a ‘pay to play’ opportunity, all winners win their award entirely on a free of charge basis, there is merely an option available to them to purchase trophies, logos, advertorial etc., this is not obligatory.

Our award programs are run though nomination forms, where a company or peer can nominate someone for an awards programme which is being ran at the time, AI Global Media will also put forward some companies found by our in-house research team. Our research team then considers all the nominations and will then award the nominees who are deemed to have excelled in the field that they work within.

Though like any company, bad press does occur. We have had criticism from people relating us to the vanity award scheme, I understand that this is a scheme with a lot attention recently but it is not what we are. We have had to have articles removed in the past by google as they are falsely accusing us and damaging our company brand. We are trying to solve these issues as they arise though obliviously this takes time. I have turned my attention to Wikipedia as now clients and some colleagues have presented me with this page and also the Ai global page which both listed us a ‘scam’ which is now beginning to damage our reputation and name.

I look forward to your reponses and apologies for only just replying. If you have any questions please let me know hopefully this can be resolved.

Regards,

Aiglobalmedia (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What your describing isn't a legitimate honor rather it's an "advertising product", as you say. You're presenting an advertising product as an honor. This is not illegal but it is clearly vanity in nature - misrepresenting an advertising product as an honor. I suppose the advertising world isn't too concerned with ethics, but likewise there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia reporting what reliable third party sources have to say about it. In the end your problem is not with Wikipedia as we simply report or mirror what other people say. Also regarding the definition of vanity award, that can and should be expanded to include the sort of practice your describing since it's supported by reliable third-party sources as a vanity award. -- Green  C  00:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please allow me to respond to your comment, anonym user representing Ai Global Media, by addressing your assertions individually.


 * What the article that you asked to be modified says is that some entities offer awards, having an appearance of authenticity as a form of quality reconition, without merit or legitimacy; like with the case of the Accreditation mill, the 'accreditation' supplied has no verifiable value or recognition from mainstream bodies in the sectors the awards are pertaining to.


 * Using one of the sources quoted in the article, your company states that awards are “provided exclusively on merit” and are “focussed on rewarding the efforts of the individuals and firms who have helped shape the world of Eco-friendly and Sustainable buildings across the globe”. Yet the cited source, along with many uncited others, clearly state that the awards do not or cannot apply to them, directly contradicting therefore the assertion made (e.g. that the awards are provided exclusively on merit) and confirming that those awards were entirely without merit.


 * So far it appears to be a business model which fits the definition of a vanity award.




 * This doesn't contradict at all the assertion that AI Global Media is offering awards without merit. Wether the practice is unusual is beyond this discussion.




 * This doesn't contradict at all the assertion that AI Global Media is offering awards without merit. And a vanity award does not necessarily requires the condition you stated - payment - in order to be considered a vanity award.




 * This doesn't contradict at all the assertion that AI Global Media is offering awards without merit. The fact that various entities accepted such awards doesn't give legitimacy to the awards, it merely says that some companies have accepted the awards, full-stop (please see the bandwagon fallacy and Argumentum ad populum). The reasons why they have accepted the awards are beyond this discussion.




 * This doesn't contradict at all the assertion that AI Global Media is offering awards without merit. As stated before, you claim that, since no payment is in fact required, the awards are now valid and, thus, strictly on merit. But that's not true since a vanity award is a form of recognition without merit, regardless of whether payment is involved or not.




 * This doesn't contradict at all the assertion that AI Global Media is offering awards without merit. On the contrary, it appears that even companies that couldn't have been deemed "to have excelled in the field that they work within" are receiving the awards.




 * Again, you claim that the company you work for is not running a vanity award scheme but you fail to prove why awarding other companies without merit cannot be considered vanity award scheme. The fact that you tried to remove articles from search results is beyond this discussion really, though it's relevant to some degree because you again make some unwarranted claims (such as the fact that third parties are "falsely accusing" your company despite providing evidence for their claims). To quote the source you tried to remove - but wasn't - from search results, "a statement must be false in order for it to be considered defamation" and it looks like their statement is not false, if we are to consider the evidence provided.


 * Regarding the claim that Ai Global Media is scamming anyone, it looks like the wording has been changed in the article and that the implication has been removed. I thought as well that it was unwarranted without proper citations. Plinuxs (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Scam: 'A dishonest scheme; a fraud.'


 * Fraud: 'Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.'


 * Humm. Based only on these word definitions, AI Global Media is a scam because it sells worthless "Awards" under the pretense of "advertising." But "wrongful" is for victims / "clients" to cite, not anonymous testimonials; ethically and legally speaking, a Wikipedia article needs to make a criminal case against AI Global Media, or cite such cases, to state the "business" (I suspect "him" is more accurate) is a scam.


 * I looked over the website, and it sure AF looks scammy to me. The "Awards" are fake, and ignorant writers pay money in exchange for images they may place on their books' covers to deceive potential readers into buying their books. AI Global Media sells to ignorant writers images. Writers might just as well save themselves some money and make their own fake award images.


 * I presume writers who paid AI Global Media to help deceive readers into buying a book will not say they were scammed, ergo it is not a scam.


 * This makes me wonder if perhaps I can put some of these "businesses" out of business by giving away free fake book award imagines. Hummm. I like the idea. Desertphile (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

Our awards are completely complimentary; the advertising which is offered to the winners of our award, and is in no way compulsory, is a way for the company to promote their business and reach a range of potential clients they wouldn’t have necessarily reached before, using our brand and website as a platform. We are not classing this as a ‘honour’, more as an opportunity to promote through our publication; the honour is the award, which is free. Every client is offered the complementary free packages in which they receive a digital certificate and use of the award title. Though as a business we create our revenue through the use of advertising, this isn’t a scam nor a poor ethical choice of a way to run a business. We offer a service in which people will pay to be part of, we write articles and conduct interviews creating a magazine and featuring businesses alike. No one is forced into this nor is anyone forced into paying for the advertisement for the award, As I stated before the awards are all free, and this does not form the entirety of our revenue; we have to charge for the marketing materials simply because of the cost involved in producing these items. You use articles from the Better Business Bureau, a reliable source which you have quoted before. As stated on the website on https://www.bbb.org/pittsburgh/news-events/news-releases/2017/07/vanity-award-scheme-targets-local-businesses/
 * "The sole intent of a vanity award scheme is to capitalize on a company's excitement for an award that essentially holds no value with the purpose of selling them this honour at an inflated price," says Warren King, president of the Better Business Bureau of Western PA. "Businesses should always be cautious if an award company is not being transparent about its identity and is requiring a fee be paid in order to win."

As stated previously, we charge no fee for the award, any one of our winners is able to walk away after winning the award without spending any money and will receive proof of winning the award which they are able to use in any way they like. Our company is growing and expanding with our awards gaining more recognition, and we have testimonials showing people pleased with the service they have received. In addition, we also receive sponsorship on some of our awards which shows companies beginning to recognise us. All of our nominees receive votes through an online submission form which companies are encouraged to enter, these are then thoroughly researched before being passed to our judging panel, who select only the very best winners to receive an award. Therefore, I feel the description of the vanity award stated by the better business bureau, does not fit our company and thus does not define us as a vanity award scheme.

Aiglobalmedia (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No that's not true. You can do what every other legitimate award does: give the award for free, give the trophy and diploma for free, give the ceremony for free, and give the winner a remuneration. Otherwise you are selling an honor - in practice anyone who accepts your award is also going to pay for the marketing because they understand it is an advertising product. You are selling advertising as your primary business. Of course you can also give awards for free to big-name companies to make your award look more legitimate but that doesn't change the for-profit nature of your advertising business. As such I think it does fit into what the BBB says (IMO). Anyway it's not Wikipedia saying these things it's 7 different sources and we report on the sources. Those sources BTW call you a "scam", which is not repeated on Wikipedia. -- Green  C  13:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another source: complaintsboard.com/complaints/ai-global-media-unethical-behavior-and-illegitimate-award-process-c818709.html -- Green  C  13:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"List of" concern
There has been a concern expressed at that the "List of..." section is potentially biased because the main list is sourced to only one entity (OCCRP). Should we provide secondary/other references to corroborate the statements made, or do we simply assume that OCCRP has enough of a reputation to validate their information? Primefac (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say OCCRP is rather authoritative, considering its reputation, field of activity and history. If an investigative journalism organization was ever focused on doing its job, OCCRP must be that one. To quote its Wikipedia page (which could itself do with some more references), OCCRP is "the only full-time investigative reporting organization that specializes in organized crime and corruption". But we need not rely entirely on one source alone, as others exist as well pertaining to that list; for the The Europe Business Assembly (EBA), Oxford, United Kingdom line I found an article from The Sunday Times (paywalled but one can read enough to be able to reference it) on a quick look on its own Wikipedia page. Not sure whether Archive.org hosted images can referenced - it's a screenshot of the article behind the paywall -, but here it is. Plinuxs (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project is a reliable source often mentioned by news media. They are highly regarded, "OCCRP is one of the most-decorated media organizations in the non-profit media world." We are reporting what OCCRP said, "[They] report the following list.." just as the same report has been reported in other reliable sources. Notice at the top of The Sunday Times article it says "This article is the subject of a legal complaint by Europe Business Assembly" -- they have probably issued similar legal action against OCCRP and the OTRS ticket might even contain wording about legal action. Until or if there is a retraction by OCCRP and Sunday Times, I see no reason to withdraw the sources. I have no problem starting an RfC for wider community involvement should that be needed. --  Green  C  17:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting sources for entries

 * Hi Wikipedia editors. My name is Kieran. I have been hired as a web developer for AI Global Media and have asked to update our online presence as a whole to better reflect the business as it stands in 2018. I have read the conversations above and am aware that previous employees have removed and edited content without using the talk page first, which has garnered a lot of bad feelings. Hence I am posting here to ask for information and assistance.


 * The page states 'The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and other news organizations have reported the following as trophy-for-sale organizations:[20]' then lists below it two of our publications, EU Business News and Global Energy News. The cited source for this ([20]) appears to be https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/2662-what-price-honor, which does not mention either our publications or our company. Nor can I find any mention of our company or our publications on the OCCRP site at all. I realise the sentence also says 'and other news organizations', but no source seems to have been cited for this inclusion? Is there a source for these entries? AI Global Kieran (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There are many sources saying AI Global Media is a vanity or scam who give awards without merit for the purpose of garnering fees as a business model. A few examples on Google:. There is also an ASA Ruling on AI Global Media saying the company was engaged in advertising and not award-giving that it has not been entirely truthful/ethical about it and was sanctioned as a result. -- Green  C  14:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Green  C . Thank you for responding and apologies for my delayed reply.


 * All I am asking is if there are sources for the entries on the page for EU Business News and Global Energy News? The two entries were added by a new user User:OliverGibson who has made no other contributions and provided no justification for their addition to the page.


 * As it stands there are no sources on the page which mention EU Business News or Global Energy News, but they are listed alongside businesses reported on by the OCCRP?


 * As I stated before I am aware that previous employees have tried to remove content themselves. As such I am trying to follow the rules provided by Wikipedia as closely as I can. The Wikipedia:Verifiability page states that ‘All content must be verifiable’ and that ‘The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution’. These entries have no sources, so I would like to submit a request that sources be provided or the entries be removed? -- AI Global Kieran (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you for understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I listed some sources above. They or something similar could be included in the page. I'll take a closer look at it. -- Green  C  14:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Unable to find sources specific to those awards, which shouldn't be in the OCCRP list anyway. They are removed, pending input from other editors. New sources added for AI Global Media in the section following. -- Green  C  17:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Green  C .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AI Global Kieran (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Foreword Reviews
Foreword Reviews is a paid review service. For $499 they will review your book. The word "Foreword Reviews" occurs in over 6,000 Wikipedia articles. The disclosed paid editor SPA User:0b10011 has been adding some, though I'm sure there are many other accounts involved given the volume of links on Wikipedia. Likely the paid review gets marketing services included, such as through social media ie. Wikipedia. Not sure how to approach this looking for initial feedback. -- Green  C  21:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , maybe posting something on WP:COIN would be a good idea. Links to the company in 6000 articles sounds like we have a major problem here! Edwardx (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am User:0b10011 and I have worked for Foreword Reviews for nearly 10 years (apologies if I am not using the talk page correctly, first time doing so that I remember; I haven't been active on here in awhile). Just for clarification, Foreword Reviews is primarily a magazine, which reviews ~150 books per issue for free and is sold in Books-A-Million, select Barnes & Nobles, and independent bookstores across the country. It is recognized by the likes of Publishers Weekly, IBPA and Patagonia, and universities like the University of Minnesota.
 * But, the page you linked to mentions a lot of this already. It also mentions our paid review service, which we offer for $499 per review. However, it should be noted that we post a disclosure on all paid reviews (and "free" reviews, which we get a free book in the process, just like other review services), our reviewers are paid the same regardless of what we're paid, so there's no more or less incentive to give a "good" review than otherwise. We also do not guarantee a good review, although we allow reviews to be killed at the discretion of the purchaser. We often give out low rated reviews for our paid service, much to the dissatisfaction of our customers. While the numbers aren't necessarily public, more than half of our reviews are free reviews that appear in our magazine and on our website. You can verify posted review counts by using our search for Clarion (paid) and Foreword (free, magazine).
 * As far as I'm aware, I am the only person at our company that even knows how to edit a wikipedia article, let alone actually doing it. And I'm trying to do it as honestly as possible. I've added the disclosure and I haven't added any references to us that didn't already exist; I simply added missing links and citations, and correcting information as I come across it (eg, the wrong year or category for an award or wrong rating for a review), which, to my understanding, is allowed an encouraged. Our marketing services absolutely do not include any sort of article editing/creation on Wikipedia. We include books in our magazine, post them to our website, share them on social media, talk about them with customers, and occasionally work with other companies to market them in other ways. But we care deeply about editorial integrity and would never stoop to doing inappropriate things such as what you're accusing us of. Our contact information can be found on our website (I am the web developer, Brandon Frohs) if you want external verification. As you'll see, we're a rather small team, due to most of our reviewers being independent contractors (as other review companies do; we use many of the same I believe). Additionally, I am not being specifically told to do any of this editing. I am doing it of my own will, simply because I want the information about us on Wikipedia to be up-to-date and accurate.
 * I did look into an old company IP (24.231.239.6) and found that some edits were done meliciously anonymously. I'm not sure who made these changes, but most of the people capable are long gone from the company, although it looks like a change made in January 2018 may have been someone currently on staff. I'm going to talk to everyone and figure out who it is and make sure it stops. Apologies for this! (Our new primary office IP is 68.188.136.34 for full disclosure.)
 * As for our awards program, we do charge for entry, to cover two $1,500 grand prizes for "Editor's Choice" winners, trophies for them, shipping costs to send the finalists to a librarian and bookseller judge, and other marketing/overhead costs. Our awards program was listed on this page previously, but the reference was removed because the citation used to "prove" we were a "vanity award program" was someone complaining that they had lost; that is, the citation proved we didn't select everyone as a winner. Additionally, as the number of entrants grew over the years, so did the finalists/winners. We've recognized this, and have been working to lower the percentage of entrants that become finalists or winners year over year. 2016 had 877 finalists from over 2,000 entries in 66 categories, while 2017 only had 656 finalists from over 2,000 entries in 68 categories. It's not perfect, but it is improving. Recently, we've also discounted additional categories, for those that wish to enter more than one. And we offer discounted rates for those that register early.
 * We also offer other services, including taking books to trade shows all over the world to sell books and rights to those books, advertising in our magazine, on our website, and in our email newsletters, and sell/tip sheet creation.
 * So, with over a thousand reviews posted and hundred of finalists/winners announced each year, as well as an active blog with author interviews and industry news, 6,000 articles linking to us actually seems fairly low.
 * 0b10011 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting sources for entries (again)
Hi Wikipedia editors. My name is Hoary, and I don't work for any of these outfits. Really. Check my contributions list.

I'm well aware of the existence and number of vanity awards. I'm sure that there are a lot that still aren't listed here, and that make a significant amount of money for the people who run them (and that are solemnly cited in various Wikipedia articles on non-notable people).

But I can't list an award as "vanity" just because it looks or smells like one, and neither can you. We need reliable sources that say this. So where are these sources? -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Some of those were already sourced in the preceding paragraph. The block of magazines looks dubious. The term "vanity award" is a placeholder for this phenomenon, it might also be "trophy award", "pay-for-play scheme" or other names, there is no official terminology. But any named company needs to have a source indicating that someone reliable considered the award fraudulent or misleading. -- Green  C  16:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the entries without a source. Diff showing the names, in case sources can be found. -- Green  C  00:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

List of Business Vanity Awards Please Correct and Remove
Better Business Bureau A+ rating is listed as a "vanity award" and we are asking that it be removed. BBB Accreditation and ratings are not vanity awards. Companies have to apply for and earn it. Also, businesses need not be BBB Accredited to earn an A+ rating.

The source is a 13 year old news article.

Correct Source: https://www.bbb.org/all/faq 71.186.146.63 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You know, the whole purpose of BBB is to provide confidence in consumers about the reliability of a business. The BBB did this 13+ years ago is such an egregious loss of public trust in the purported core mission and principals of the BBB, it's hard to see why we would remove this entry, short of significant new information from a reliable source. Maybe BBB has reformed it's processes, and this sort of thing no longer goes on. I don't know how to verify that. Any suggestions? -- Green  C  19:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)