A Prospect Requests an Award Nomination: Verify Before You Endorse

A prospect may ask for an award nomination through LinkedIn because you know their work or share a market with them, including as a buyer. That does not establish the award's existence or their eligibility, or your ability to endorse them on behalf of your company.

Pause before writing praise or opening a submission link. CISA notes that phishing messages can arrive through social-media direct messages and recommends using an independently found contact route when a message could be suspicious.

Start by treating the request as a small due-diligence file. Your goal is to establish what is being nominated, who runs the award, what claim you are making, and who approved you to make it.

What should you verify about the award itself?

Find the award organizer through its own website or a known event page, or through a contact route you locate independently. Read the current category rules, closing date, selection process, required disclosures, and submission method.

Keep a copy or link to the rules you relied on. If the request names an organization or brand that matters to the nomination, the USPTO provides a public trademark search system. That search is a check on names, not proof that an award is legitimate or that a prospect is eligible.

Stop if you cannot independently identify the organizer and independently verify its rules and submission route. An urgent request is a reason to verify more carefully, not a reason to submit faster.

• Record the award name, category, organizer, and deadline.
• Confirm the rules describe who may nominate and who may be nominated.
• Use an independently found organizer contact to resolve unclear rules.
• Save the current rules page with the nomination record.

How do you check whether the prospect is eligible?

Match each rule to evidence from the prospect, not to a flattering summary in the request. Check the qualifying period, geography, company size, role, product, membership, customer status, and any exclusion in the category rules.

Ask the prospect to supply the underlying proof and identify which statement supports each eligibility requirement. If the nomination asks you to attest to a claim that you cannot verify, remove the claim or decline the nomination.

Use the prospect's legal entity and current public identity consistently. If a name creates a clearance question, the USPTO explains that a comprehensive trademark clearance search can extend beyond its federal database to state databases and the internet. That guidance concerns trademark applications, so keep this check separate from the award organizer's eligibility decision.

What evidence can you safely put in an endorsement?

Use evidence you can identify, review, and explain. It may include a dated customer record, a published announcement, a project document, or a statement the prospect has approved in writing.

Separate facts you observed directly from claims supplied by the prospect. Write the source beside every material claim, then ask whether the award form requires a declaration or other required confirmation from the nominee.

Do not turn an introduction, a LinkedIn connection, or a past conversation into proof of performance. If the award asks for a claim you cannot support, say that you cannot attest to it.

• Use the award category's exact criteria as the evidence headings.
• Identify the source and date for each material claim.
• Get the prospect's approval for facts they supplied.
• Keep subjective praise clearly labeled as your opinion.

How should you check affiliation and endorsement authority?

State your relationship to the prospect plainly. You may be a customer, partner, former colleague, vendor, advisor, or someone with no commercial relationship. The award rules may require that relationship to be disclosed.

Then identify the authority boundary. A personal recommendation is different from a statement on company letterhead or other use of a company name, including an endorsement that refers to client work. Get written approval from the person authorized to approve the relevant kind of statement.

Authority also includes authority to use material. Do not upload logos, testimonials, customer names, confidential project details, or personal information just because the prospect asked for a nomination.

How do you prevent duplicate or conflicting nominations?

Ask the prospect whether anyone has already submitted them for the same award and category. Check the award rules for limits on categories, nominators, self-nominations, resubmissions, and edits after submission.

Compare the proposed nomination with any prior text you can access. Duplicate submissions can create conflicting claims even where the rules allow more than one nomination.

If a conflict remains, contact the organizer through the independently verified route and ask a narrow question: whether another submission by the proposed nominee in that category is eligible from that nominator. Keep the response with the file.

What should you do when the request looks suspicious?

Do not click a link or otherwise respond with documents or sensitive information until you have verified the organization through a route outside the message. CISA says suspicious messages can use urgency or other deceptive tactics, including requests for information and misleading links to prompt a response.

Use the organizer's verified website to find its contact details, or contact the prospect through an established channel. Ask for the award name, official rules URL, category, and the exact endorsement they want before doing anything else.

A legitimate nomination can survive verification. A request that collapses when you ask for the organizer, rules, proof, and authority does not need your endorsement.