It should be noted that the wild card rules allow the judges the opportunity to ADD (but never remove) one finalist to the list of top-scoring entries and it is designed as a way to ensure that a common sense, personal review of the entries can be conducted outside of the mathematical ‘scored’ approach. The judging process is available on the website for all entrants to consider before they make the decision to enter.

now wait a second outside the Mathematical equation- this means that if a judge has already witnessed the entertainment, they would have a stonger pull for wild card entry, where as an entertainer who had not been booked by the judge has a weaker chance thats not fair,

Also entertainers would get a mark out of 7. now how does this relate to the 70%/30% split in criteria? what is 30% of 7??????

Also in the FAQ page
The Awards recognise industry best practice and innovation wherever it may occur. Having entertainers who copy USA based entertainers and bring it over here to event organisers who are not aware of the USA originals does not mean it is innovative and stealing other peoples concepts should not be rewarded

these awards are an insult to the real innovative entertainers and services out there

The leading men for example while great singers are essentially a coverband- singing other peoples songs are they truly innovative?

Judges were allowed a wild card entry, which is obviously not based on the mathematical scoring- but on personal experience which is bias, this cannot be anything but bias, something that the organisers wish to avoid.

and finally
In most cases, the subject of entries in the Achievement Categories must relate to an achievement at a specific event. For example, the “Best Achievement in Catering” award is designed to reward a particular achievement at a particular event (or events) that took place during the entry period and is not simply an award for providing good catering generally. Exceptions to this rule are the Best Venue and Best Product or Service and Best Education or Training Program categories.

I am sorry that while The leading men are good- the rules state that they don’t become a finalist for being good- but rather for something special they did at a single event- they are a really really good coverband- but they are a coverband

the other acts
The quick change artists are not innovating http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p40L8amjjA there are many quick change artists out there

It’s been done before, are they good? yes are they entertaining? yes are they innovative- no sorry

so out of 4 finalists you have 2 real finalists

Brad blaze who has innovated something from the 1980″s by earning money for the events he works at, and mr perceival who learned how he does what he does from some US guy

however as far an innovation being 30% of the judging process I really don’t see anything in the acts themselves as innovative

I lost the bulk of my chocolate giveaways- my other giveaways and my expensive brochures were essentially stolen by non customers, the first day was an absolute waste of my time being at the expo with 1 lead only, the rest were students making up false events for an assignment.

my favorite memory is the 17 year old girl with an event coming up in September at luna park as the “launch” of her event management company I gave a fake quote (I essentially tippled the quote )to see what her reaction would be and she didn’t even blink she said great she will be in touch- of course her business cards were “Just being printed up” and she didn’t want to give info because she was in a hurry depsite the fact she spent 10 minutes asking 101 questions this kind of thing happened all day on day 1.I actually lost money due to my giveaways, brochures and lollies being taken to the point where I put them all away. There is alot of misinformation about the expo with companies simply repeating the PR statement given out without any real journalism- I really enjoyed reading this post it was spot on. a very disappointed exhibitor

In relation to TOD fees unfortunately as highlighted above some AV companies have worked in many of these venues for years without any problems and have an intimate knowledge of the venue and suddenly find they have to pay TOD fees and the in-house supplier is alo then having to supply a skilled technician at a low rate to the venue, so once again the venue can make a sizable profit on the recharge. For the inhouse supplier it just doesn’t make sense to have a skilled technician baby sitting a venue when they badly need that skilled technician on other events where they have their stock at least on hire.

Then you have the venues charging the non in-house AV Company to use the loading docks, lifts etc yet they don’t charge any other supplier such as bands, DJ’s, plant hire companies etc for use of the same – this is a charge they level directly at the non in-house AV supplier direct and not the venue hirer – bit rich when the contract for the venue hire is with the client and not the non in-house AV supplier.

AV Hire and Staging Companies have arguably one of the largest investments in stock and assets of any part of the Events Industry and are the ones who support and sponsor every major industry event but where are the industry associations on the subject of TOD’s and commissions.

I also never see a declaration in any AV or venue contracts advising of the commission arrangements in place between the two parties – which in itself I believe to be illegal.