When "deadline" doesn't mean "deadline". Boo to the ISC!

So I got an e-mail advertising the International Songwriting Competition and thought, eh, I guess I'll submit a few things this year. But wait, wasn't that the contest I entered last year where I scrambled to get my entries in just before the deadline, only to find out that they later extended the deadline by a few weeks?? Yup, that was the one... So my manager called up the contest to ask about that. Turns out that this is their seventh year, and whaddya know, they've extended the deadline every year and plan to do it again this year.

So, how is that ethical? How can they advertise "deadline" when it clearly isn't a deadline and they have absolutely no intention of honoring it? It's an insult and is quite disrespectful to the people who followed the rules to get their submissions in on time, and it's also giving those people less value for their entry fee... By getting it in by what was supposed to be the deadline, their entries would be judged against the pool of entries that made it in by then. But with the contest being extended, now their entry is judged against the pool of entries that made it in on time, plus the pool of entries that came in late. Not fair at all. There's also a question of quality... You scramble to get something in before the deadline that wasn't quite finished to your satisfaction... and then realize that you could have finished it better if you had more time (but you should have no reason to think you'll have more time when it says "deadline"). There's also the potential for the "cult of the new" to have an effect, whereby something that came in earlier (as in, before the supposed deadline) is really better than something that came in later, but the thing that came in later is fresher in the minds of the judges and ends up getting more votes.

Apparently, the ISC guy said that every year they have many people asking if the deadline can be extended, and many people gratefully thanking them for extending it. The answer of the ISC to those requests should be to please submit something next year, and not, "sure, we'll take your money and make the contest unfair for everyone else." The desire of people who can't meet the deadlines to appeal for the contest to break the rules for their sakes and the desire of the contest company to make more entry fee money from those people is completely contrary to running an honest and ethical contest. It's a perfect example of two wrongs not making a right. If you're an artist and you can't make the deadline, submit something next year and get it in ON TIME. I understand the contest itself is a business entity and should be able to make money from the enterprise, but not at the expense of ethics and not by using blatantly false advertising. If it's not a deadline, don't call it a deadline. Period. Obviously, they're looking for two pay days, one for the first "deadline" and one for all the slackers who submit after that. Actually, three pay days, as they also have an early entry lower price date.

The guy said, well gee, every contest extends their deadlines. And even if that were true, that would make it okay?? Justification/rationalization 101 here, folks... But it's simply not true from my experience; many other contests hold to their actual deadlines. They may have an early entry discount if submitting by a certain date, and that's fine, but they don't extend their deadlines every single time as part of their standard practice.

So anyway, if you've already submitted an entry for this contest, when you get the notice in your e-mail on or around October 15 that the ISC deadline has been extended, I would urge you to call and complain (I would also call Broadjam and the other entities that sponsor the contest). And if you didn't get an entry in before the deadline, don't be a jerk and pay into the scam of the extended deadline. Submit something next year, and get it in on time. Or just avoid this contest altogether until they can learn what the term "deadline" really means.