Hi everyone. Please I’m seeking guidance as I’m looking to apply for my stage 1 Exceptional Promise soon. I’ll share a summary of my career and evidence at the moment.
Career.
Senior Digital Analyst at a leading digital agency in Nigeria up til 2023
Currently Senior Digital Analyst and leading digital analytics at one of the largest charities in UK
Education:
First Degree in Computer Science
Master’s degree in Business Analytics and Big data
Evidence list
Mandatory Criteria
Nomination for Outstanding young digital award in 2023
Letter from CEO of current workplace alongside evidence of inhouse leadership
Featured article
OC2
Volunteered and co-led web analytics implementation for a large data community in 2024, continue to manage this
Invited by UK University in March 2024 to speak to Masters Students about career opportunities in Digital analytics
OC3
Letter from current head of Performance Marketing outlining technical contributions I’ve made that have changed how certain things are done, measured and used by the digital engagement/performance marketing team. Also, evidence of internal award for work done. All of this supported by screenshot evidence
Letter from Director of fundraising outlining when I led the end to end implementation of web analytics for a popular/national website launch, as well as leading multiple internal trainings on use of digital data across multiple fundraising teams.
Rec letters
CEO of digital agency in Nigeria
Former head of tech at digital agency in Nigeria, now CEO of his own tech co
Former deputy director of data at current workplace, now head of data at one of London’s leading univerisities.
I’d like any advice on how this can work, what i can look to improve on, and anything else in general. Thank you all.
Was this an award nomination or an actual win? If it’s only a nomination, it won’t be considered valid evidence.
Internal leadership recognition alone is not sufficient. MC requires industry-level recognition, so purely in-house acknowledgments are considered weak.
For the featured article — please clarify whether it was authored by you or if a major tech publication featured you and your work. Only the latter qualifies as valid industry recognition.
Optional Criterion 2 (OC2):
Be sure to demonstrate how your volunteer or community work has advanced the tech sector, not just describe your participation. Include third-party validation rather than self-claims.
Speaking engagements at universities or student events are typically seen as weak evidence for OC2, as per official guidelines.
Optional Criterion 3 (OC3):
In addition to outlining your role, ensure your letters clearly describe how your individual contributions directly impacted core company metrics such as revenue, user growth, sales, or volumes.
The key for OC3 is quantified impact backed by validation. Internal awards or initiatives alone do not qualify unless they are supported by measurable business outcomes.
The 2023 evidence is a nomination from a leading marketing magazine/publication. The featured article is also from same and was published earlier this year.
OC2
the community work is supported by a letter from one of the co-founders detailing how the work I did helps the community gain insight on their website users
Does this suggest that the university speaking event cannot be used, with letter confirming i was invited to speak based on my experience, career? Thank you again for your help
OC3
yes both letters will be backed by quanitifiable evidence
Unfortunately, a nomination alone is not considered very strong. You can still include it if you can demonstrate that the nomination criteria were highly selective or competitive, but even then, winning carries significantly more weight than just being nominated.
For OC2, the evidence must clearly show how your work has contributed to advancing the tech sector. You’ll need to explicitly connect how the insights from the website users or your related work drive broader progress or innovation within the industry.
Regarding the university speaking event, a single guest talk—especially one that’s not at a leading tech event with 100+ attendees—is not considered a strong standalone evidence. If possible, try to add another stronger piece for OC2, and include this one as a supporting evidence with photos, invite letters, or appreciation notes that validate the event and highlight how your session contributed to advancing the sector.
Looking at your application, I can see potential but there are several areas that need strengthening based on patterns I’ve observed in other applications. Your nomination and featured article from the marketing magazine are actually good starting points, but they need to be positioned better.
For your Mandatory Criteria, the nomination alone won’t be sufficient since Tech Nation typically looks for wins rather than just nominations. However, you can strengthen this by combining it with your published article from the same publication and demonstrating the magazine’s reach in the digital marketing/analytics space. Include metrics like readership numbers or Similar Web analytics to show the publication’s influence in your field.
Your community work has good potential for OC2, but you need to clearly demonstrate how it advances the broader tech sector, not just helps one organization. The university speaking engagement is considered weak evidence on its own since it’s to students rather than industry professionals. I’d recommend finding additional community contributions or enhancing the existing one with concrete metrics showing sector-wide impact from your analytics implementation.
For OC3, focus heavily on quantifiable business impact from your work at the charity and previous agency. The assessors want to see specific numbers - revenue increases, cost savings, user growth metrics that directly resulted from your technical contributions. Make sure your reference letters explicitly connect your individual work to measurable business outcomes rather than just describing your role.