« The 2026 Best New Product winners (Brussels) » sounds objective. The judging process isn’t.
Controversial take: maybe it’s time we stop calling these the “Best New Product Awards.”
The 2026 SCA winners from Brussels highlight real industry trends—measurement tools, premium home equipment, RTD innovation, and traceability. Those trends matter.
But do these awards actually identify the best products? Or simply the products that paid to exhibit, chose to enter, and delivered the strongest trade-show pitch?
The methodology deserves scrutiny.
Only exhibitors can compete. Categories can be merged if there aren’t enough entries. This year’s “Commercial Equipment” winner—the TIMEMORE Millab M01—is widely recognized as a premium manual grinder for enthusiasts rather than commercial cafés. And several “new” products had already been on the market for months before receiving their award.
Most importantly, there is no standardized scientific validation behind the ranking. No reproducible performance testing. No independent laboratory measurements. No long-term field trials. Just a short presentation judged on innovation, quality and value.
So what exactly is being rewarded?
The best engineering?
The best user experience?
The best commercial potential?
Or simply the best marketing on the exhibition floor?
None of this diminishes the value of the companies or their innovations. But words matter. Calling something “Best New Product” suggests an objective benchmark that the evaluation process simply doesn’t support.
Perhaps these should be called what they really are: Trade Show Innovation Awards.
That would still be valuable—and arguably far more honest.
Curious to hear the industry’s perspective:
Should trade-show awards be presented as objective measures of excellence, or as marketing-driven indicators of emerging trends?