Caption Contest Examples from Published Organisers
Caption contest examples from real organisers include captionless cartoons, pet photographs, wildlife images and archive pictures, each with a stated prompt, an entry route and a judging method. The New Yorker, WQAD, the National Wildlife Federation and several college libraries have all published formats of this kind, from comment entries to like-based picks.
Prepared by ContestsOnline editorial desk — Revised
Four published formats and their prompts
Published caption contest examples fall into a small number of shapes, and each shape changes what entrants write. The New Yorker invites readers to submit captions for captionless cartoons, so the prompt is a drawn scene with one deliberate gap. WQAD ran a newsroom version for pictures of pets, which turned the audience's own animals into the material.
The National Wildlife Federation works on a monthly rhythm: a funny wildlife photo from past National Wildlife Photo Contest entries, published with an open invitation to caption it. Cincinnati State asked for funny captions for a portrait of its new mascot, The Wolf, and framed the event as a stress buster. Peirone Produce tied its prompt to a fruits-and-vegetables theme, showing that a grocery brand can carry the format as easily as a magazine.
A monthly theme can also carry the format without any photograph at all. The University at Buffalo School of Nursing used self-care as an August theme in a year-long photo-and-caption series, letting entrants supply both halves of the pairing.
- A cartoon with the caption removed, as The New Yorker publishes weekly, asking readers to complete a drawn scene in one line.
- A pet photograph, as WQAD requested, with owners supplying the funniest line for their own animal.
- A monthly wildlife image, as the National Wildlife Federation runs, drawn from its past photo contest entries.
- A brand mascot or product shot, as Cincinnati State used for its wolf mascot and Peirone Produce used for a fruits-and-vegetables theme.
Where organisers publish contests and how students enter
Libraries and universities are among the most active organisers of caption contests, and they use material nobody else has. Indiana University Indianapolis gives entrants a chance to attach silly captions to favourite silly photos from its huge archive collection. UNC Libraries asked readers to imagine what a child in a historical reunion photograph was thinking, collecting ideas in comments under the post.
The clearest student example comes from Madison Area Technical College. Its library hosted a contest for National Library Week built on historical photos from the college's archive collection, and students were encouraged to create clever captions with speech and thought bubbles added to each. The contest received 114 entries, and eligibility was stated plainly: entrants had to be current students, and each entry had to include the student's name, email address and primary campus location.
For anyone compiling a list of photo caption contest examples, these campus cases are the ones worth copying, because they show the whole machine: a dated occasion, a defined audience, a stated entry route and a named award.
- College libraries reach students through archive photographs, which cost nothing to license and carry built-in curiosity.
- University special collections use the same material to bring visitors to catalogues most people never open.
- A library week calendar gives a campus a natural deadline and a reason to announce the winner publicly.
Hashtag captions and comment entries
Entry mechanics decide how many people take part. RafflePress defines the basic social version as an interactive giveaway where an organiser posts an image and asks the audience to submit a creative caption in the comments. ShortStack describes the same structure as low-effort entry with high engagement and lots of comments, and its own caption-contest template asks participants to submit creative captions for a brand-provided image.
A hashtag variant moves entries out of the comments and onto the entrants' own feeds, which is why hashtag contest examples usually pair the tag with a repost or a gallery. The trade is visibility against friction: a comment takes two seconds, a tagged post takes a little more.
Gleam's recommendation of a fill-in-the-blank prompt or sentence starter solves the blank-page problem that stops casual entrants. The New Yorker's cartoon works the opposite way, trusting its audience to invent a whole line, and its longevity shows both routes can hold an audience.
- A comment-thread entry: the caption goes in the comments, and the platform counts reactions as the vote.
- A hashtag entry: entrants post their own image or line under one tag, which makes every entry publicly visible.
- A fill-in-the-blank prompt: Gleam recommends a sentence starter to make the contest more accessible and fun for a wide audience.
Judging: a public vote, a panel, or both
Every published example settles one question early: who picks the winner. A public vote makes the audience do the work and rewards entrants who rally their own networks. A panel rewards the funniest line on its merits and is harder to steer. The two-stage models Award Force documents borrow a little of each, and the order matters, because a shortlist chosen by vote changes what judges see.
For a caption contest, Woobox's like-based method is the lightest to operate, since a comment thread already carries the count. Gleam's manual option suits small audiences where the organiser reads every entry anyway. Whichever method an organiser states in the rules, entrants judge the contest by whether the stated method is the one actually applied.
- Likes as the vote: Woobox states the winner can be selected based on total likes for a caption.
- A judging panel: the same Woobox guide allows an organiser to invite a panel of people to choose the best caption.
- Two-stage judging: Award Force describes the public voting for a shortlist with VIP judges scoring the finalists and winner.
- Reversed order: Award Force also allows judging and public voting to run in the opposite sequence.
- Manual pick: Gleam's template lets the organiser choose the best caption by hand, or pick randomly if the format is casual.
What the rules must settle before launch
Legality sits with the organiser, not with the format. A caption contest with a prize is a promotion, and the rules page must state eligibility, the judging method, the deadline and how the winner is notified. Where the prize has tax consequences or the audience crosses jurisdictions, a lawyer should read the rules before publication, because a missing clause costs more than the prize.
Disqualification rules protect the result. A contest decided by likes is exposed to organised voting, and organisers who publish rules normally reserve the right to remove entries that break the platform's terms or the contest's own conditions. Moderation of the comment thread before the winner is announced is the check that keeps a like count honest.
The New Yorker's weekly cycle shows what a fixed schedule does for trust: a cartoon appears, entries close, a winner is named, and the next one begins. Nothing about the format requires a weekly rhythm, but a stated deadline is what separates a contest from an open comment thread.
- Who may enter: the Madison College rules required current students and collected a name, email address and campus location from every entry.
- How the winner is chosen: stated in the rules, not decided after entries close.
- What disqualifies a caption: offensive content, copied lines, and entries that break the platform's own terms.
- When it ends: a deadline that gives the judging or voting stage a fixed window.
Why the format earns engagement and where it fails
ShortStack's own framing explains the appeal: post an image and ask for captions, and the low entry effort converts attention into comments at a rate few other formats match. The National Wildlife Federation and The New Yorker both sustain recurring versions, which suggests the format holds an audience rather than producing one spike.
The honest limit is that a caption contest produces comments, not deep interaction. It will not carry a campaign alone, and it works best alongside material the entrants already care about: a mascot, a pet, a photograph with an unexplained moment. RafflePress's advice to choose a funny, surprising, or brand-related photo is the single decision that most changes the quality of what comes back.
- It fails when the image has nothing to react to: a stock photo with an obvious description produces obvious captions.
- It fails when the judging method is unstated, because entrants will not write for a result they cannot predict.
- It fails when nobody moderates, since one bad entry can set the tone of the whole thread.
| Format and organiser | Prompt or image | Entry and judging |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly cartoon | The New Yorker's captionless cartoon, a drawn scene with the line removed | Readers submit a caption; a winner is named each week |
| Pets, newsroom | WQAD asked for pictures of viewers' pets | Photos paired with the best caption an owner could think of |
| Wildlife, monthly | The National Wildlife Federation's funny wildlife photo from past photo contest entries | Monthly feature with an open invitation to caption it |
| Archive photos, campus | Indiana University Indianapolis: silly photos from the special collections archive | Captions attached to favourite archive images |
| Historical reunion | UNC Libraries used a child in a historical reunion photograph | Ideas collected in comments under the post |
| Mascot portrait | Cincinnati State's photo of its new mascot, The Wolf | Funny captions invited as a stress buster |
| Library Week, students | Madison Area Technical College Library: historical archive photos with speech bubbles | 114 entries; current students only; a named award |
| Themed monthly series | University at Buffalo School of Nursing used self-care as an August theme | Photo-and-caption pairing by entrants in a year-long series |
Procedure
-
Choose the image and write the prompt
Pick a funny, surprising, or brand-related photo, as RafflePress advises, or a captionless cartoon if a designer can draw one. Add a fill-in-the-blank starter if the audience is broad, since Gleam recommends that route for accessibility.
-
Set the entry route
Decide between comments, a hashtag post, or a submission form. The comment route matches the RafflePress and ShortStack examples; a form suits a campus contest like Madison College's, which collected a name, email address and campus location with each entry.
-
Decide who picks the winner
State the method before entries open: total likes, a panel of judges, or the two-stage public shortlist and judge scoring that Award Force documents. A casual format may be picked manually or at random, per Gleam's template.
-
Publish the rules and the deadline
State eligibility, the closing time, the judging method and how the winner is notified. Reserve the right to remove entries that break the platform's terms, and have a lawyer review anything with a valuable prize.
Readers ask
What is the difference between a photo caption contest and a cartoon caption contest?
A photo caption contest gives entrants a real photograph, while a cartoon caption contest gives them a drawing with the caption removed. The New Yorker's weekly cartoon format asks for one line that completes a drawn scene, whereas WQAD and the National Wildlife Federation used photographs. The judging logic stays the same; only the image changes.
Do you have to pick the winner, or can people vote?
No, an organiser does not have to pick the winner alone. Woobox supports public voting, private judge scoring, or both for user-generated-content contests, and Award Force lets a public vote choose a shortlist before judges score the finalists. Gleam's template also allows a purely manual pick for a casual format.
Are caption contests good for engagement?
Yes. ShortStack describes asking for captions as a low-effort entry method that produces lots of comments, and notes that followers competing to write the cleverest or most amusing line can generate high levels of interaction. The entry barrier is one short sentence, which is why comment counts climb quickly.
What makes a good caption contest image?
RafflePress advises choosing a funny, surprising, or brand-related photo. The published examples back that up: a mascot portrait, silly archive photographs, wildlife animals caught mid-action. An image with an unexplained expression or an odd detail gives entrants something specific to react to, which lifts the quality of the lines submitted.
How do you pick a winner in a caption contest?
Three published methods exist: total likes, a judging panel, or a combination. Woobox states that an organiser can select the winner based on total likes for a caption or invite a panel to choose the best one. Award Force's combined model has the public narrow a shortlist and judges score the finalists, or the reverse order.
Can you run a caption contest on Facebook or Instagram?
Yes. Wishpond's caption contest tool supports running a photo caption contest on Facebook and a website, and RafflePress describes the common social version: post an image and ask the audience to submit a creative caption in the comments. On Instagram, a hashtag or a comment thread both serve as the entry route.
Notes and sources
- newyorker.com. newyorker.com/cartoons/contest.
- wqad.com. wqad.com/article/news/local/contests/pet-photo-caption-contest/526-d5d4f5ae-563e-4507-9d0c-b8dca0634c98.
- nwf.org. nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2017/Dec-Jan/PhotoZone/Caption-Contest-Enter-Jan.
- programminglibrarian.org. programminglibrarian.org/programs/national-library-week-caption-contest.
ContestsOnline cannot guarantee any contest outcome and does not run caption contests itself. Nothing on this page is legal advice; a lawyer should review prize and eligibility rules where local law requires it. The site never sells votes, never promises undetectable entries, and does not teach any method for evading a platform's checks.
Woobox's user terms require entrants to agree to the organiser's official rules, so any limit on bought or incentivised votes depends on the particular contest. Walmart's Associate Talent Search rules prohibit paying for votes and let Walmart void fraudulent votes or disqualify the entrant. The platform's terms and the organiser's rules are two documents, and a disqualification is decided under the second.
Woobox lists three warning signs of bought votes: many votes from one IP address, votes from people in different countries and regular voting intervals. Award Force says its platform detects and blocks automated or scripted voting and rate-limits rapid voting. Ordinary participation is uneven in time and independent in origin, so it shows none of those patterns; this describes how checks read a count and is not a method for passing one.
In the United States, the FTC says a sweepstakes cannot require a purchase to enter, and California says a sweepstakes must offer a way to enter without cost. Those rules concern sweepstakes entry, not votes: whether a contest allows paid votes is written in its own rules, and ViralSweep even lets organisers configure Pay to Vote. Contests whose rules bar outside votes are refused, and so are political ballots.
Once voting closes, a refund applies where votes ordered for a contest never appear in the count the contest itself displays. ViralSweep says its protections may silently flag and block a vote, and Woobox says votes from IP addresses it has flagged as fraudulent do not count even when the voter appears to have succeeded, so the displayed count is the test. An organiser's ruling or a disqualification is never refunded, and neither is an account ban such as the permanent one Gleam says a breach of its terms may bring.