A nomination campaign may attract vague praise because employees do not understand what evidence the organisers need. A film can show a suitable nomination without choosing the winner.
Demonstrate how to connect an observed contribution to the approved award criteria.
Teach evidence selection rather than enthusiastic language
Start with the award criteria and ask what a reviewer needs to understand from a nomination. The film should show how an observed action connects to a criterion, not suggest that stronger adjectives produce a stronger nomination. A small, specific contribution can be easier to assess than an unsupported claim of exceptional impact.
Use an invented example that is plainly fictional. Avoid adapting a real nomination so closely that viewers can identify the person or assume the film is promoting a preferred candidate. The example should explain the submission process without influencing an actual selection.
Show what belongs outside the nomination
Employees may include private performance information, client details or personal circumstances in an attempt to make a nomination compelling. Ask the programme owner for the appropriate content boundaries and demonstrate them where useful. The film should not encourage broad disclosure through a general form.
Walk through the required fields only where the interface contributes to understanding. If the form changes often, a structured example of the information may be more durable than a detailed screen recording. Keep current dates, eligibility and submission links in a maintained source.
Distinguish an example of a suitable nomination from a promise of winning. Explain who reviews nominations only to the extent authorised, and do not invent scoring rules or imply that copying the example improves a person’s chances.
Test the draft by asking a colleague to describe a different contribution in the same evidence-led way. If they merely reproduce the example’s wording, the film may be too prescriptive. The goal is to help nominators provide relevant, respectful information under the actual criteria. It is not to create a formula that flattens different contributions or turns recognition into a competition in promotional writing.
Commissioning checks
| Input | Why it changes production |
|---|---|
| Current criteria | Use an invented contribution |
| Permitted nomination information | Show relevant evidence rather than superlatives |
| Submission and review process | Explain the process without implying selection |
An illustrative application
Suppose an award recognises useful collaboration. A fictional nomination describes a specific handoff improvement and the colleagues involved, rather than calling someone inspirational. The film shows how to submit it but makes no promise about the outcome. This example is hypothetical, not a Live Images project.
Check that the example does not become an unofficial new criterion or a template everyone must copy. Avoid publishing real nominations, sensitive personnel information or unverified claims about the nominee’s impact.
Discuss the production brief
For a production conversation, contact Live Images with the audience, central question and proposed evidence. The services overview is a starting point, not confirmation that every specialist element described here is available.
Source and scope
Australian Government Style Manual video and audio is relevant background, checked 30 October 2026. This is original commissioning guidance, not legal, employment, safety or regulated professional advice. Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images.