Do we need to incentivise participation in online communities?
There’s a debate to be had in the world of online communities, especially in the world of online research communities about how we incentivise people to take part. At FreshNetworks, in the online research communities that we build and manage for clients we tend not to incentivise, at least not in the traditional way that we see in market research. So for a community we ran earlier this year with C-level executives from across Europe we didn’t incentivise and got high levels of participation. If this had been a focus group or telephone survey, traditional market research would have included incentives (either to the individual or to a charity on their behalf) of over £150 per person. Some other agencies who build and manage online research communities always pay incentives, but as a norm we don’t.
I’m currently reading Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational (a great read for anybody who is interested in human behaviour!), and he discusses exactly the reason why not paying traditional incentives can be an effective strategy. We know that humans operate in both the social context and the market context and Ariely shows how the mere mention of money, quantifying an effort, is enough to place an experience firmly in the market context. Take the example of a lawyer who is asked to do some work to help a group of disadvantaged people - offer to pay them a reduced day rate and they will probably say no; ask them to do it pro bono (for free) and they will probably say yes. In the former case they think they are being devalued (a market context), in the latter they know they are doing it for free as a favour (a social context). The mere mention of money shifted the engagement to a market one.
Ariely describes an experiment that throws more light on how to encourage participation. They recruited a group of students to take part in an experiment - they were asked to spend five minutes doing a mundane task (moving a circle on the left of a computer screen into a box on the right) as many times as possible. One group were given five dollars to take part, another 50 cents and another nothing. The outcome was measurable - the more times the circle was put in the square the harder the participants worked. Whilst it was true that those paid five dollars worked harder than those paid 50 cents, it was those who were paid nothing who worked hardest of all.
A second iteration of the experiment strengthened the theory that mentioning money creates a market context. Rather than offering money they offered gifts - to one group a chocolate worth about 50 cents, to another a box of chocolates worth about five dollars and to a third group nothing. Money wasn’t mentioned, just the gift that they would received. This time all three groups performed equally.
The outcome from these experiments is clear. The mention of money as an incentive for doing something shifts the context from a social one to a market one. People make a decision of how much they will contribute based on the value they think they are receiving. Without the money (or even with a gift not described in monetary terms), people operate firmly in the social context.
When we are building and managing online communities we want people to take part in the social context. The communities are not market-based transactions, but social environments. Monetary incentives (or equivalents) will only go to create an environment at odds with this. That’s why we tend not to incentivise participation in our online communities, we find that we usually don’t need to. Where we do incentivise we tend to do so with gifts, information or access - non-monetary offerings which leave people firmly where we want them in the social context.
Some more reading
- How the market research industry should embrace communities
- Social media is not a focus group
- Online research community lessons from MomConnection
- Professor Dan Arieley author of “Predictably Irrational”
Subscribe to updates from this blog
Robin Carey:
This is great insight. What is your thought about rewards for social behavior, as opposed to incentives before people act?
31 October 2008, 12:28 amMatt Foley:
Hi Matt - thanks for another great post on online research communities (and thanks again for the comment on our blog). It’s great to keep up the conversation around incentives in online research communities, particularly as these ongoing posts acknowledge online research communities as being a distinct entity from other types of communities, requiring a slightly different strategy to establish a successful community.
Like you mentioned before, this debate will probably rage on for some time in the market research industry… First, I have to say that you were very lucky to have a C-level audience for your community. For that type of online research initiative, we wouldn’t have recommended a monetary incentive as well. The C-level background provides enough of the shared context that is necessary to create a successful online research community. Offering an honorarium to that audience would have “cheapened” the whole experience.
I agree that Dan Ariely’s thoughts in “Predictably Irrational” are right on (beyond the scope of incentives - I found his chapter on decision making in the “heat of passion” to be very amusing
If you found that to be a great read, I would also suggest checking out “Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior” by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman as another consumer behavior book that provides strong arguments against the use of monetary incentives in any setting. Anyways, I digress…
Like I mentioned in my response to your comment here - (http://www.pluggedinco.com/2008/09/05/to-pay-incentives-or-not-pay-incentives-that-is-the-question/), the use of incentives should really be situational. Incentives don’t always work and shouldn’t be prescribed in all online research communities.
Here’s an example… We have a online research community running right now with students of a university here in the States. The market research department of the university wanted to pay an honorarium for students who participated in the community as a means of thanking them for going above and beyond their duties as students.
In our early communications with students, we strongly emphasized the intrinsic benefits of participation (e.g., connect with fellow students, help shape the direction of your program, etc…), while de-emphasizing the extrinsic rewards (a $20/month stipend). I really believe that these students would have participated without an incentive, but the university wanted to show them that they truly valued their participation. The incentives served as a means of reinforcing and encouraging participation, rather than the driving force behind participation. In my (humble) opinion, that’s a great way of using incentives.
In my experience, monetary incentives aren’t necessarily bad and shouldn’t be painted in the light that some of these experiments in consumer behavior cast them to be. It’s all about prescribing them when they are necessary, in a way that doesn’t necessarily skew their intrinsic motives for participating in the first place.
I’d love to keep hearing your thoughts on this, so stop by our blog if you get a chance or shoot me an email. Maybe we could even do a little shared research into the subject to help advance the industry’s knowledge about online research communities???
Matt
31 October 2008, 12:42 amPluggedIN Co.
Links - 31st October 2008 « Curiously Persistent:
[...] Could price become a skeuomorph? This segues in with an interesting point Matt Rhodes made regarding incentives - it changes the transaction from market to social. Would people prefer to pay in order to avoid [...]
31 October 2008, 1:09 amOnline community competitions attract mercenaries | Online Communities | Build an Online Community:
[...] are more effective when they are unexpected. Furthermore, Matt Rhodes wrote a great article on incentivising participation in online communities. Here is an excerpt: When we are building and managing online communities we want people to take [...]
31 October 2008, 3:09 pmFreshNetworks Blog » Blog Archive » Paying people can be a bad way to motivate them:
[...] wrote last week about the role of incentives in online communities (and specifically how they can lead to behaviours that you might not want). In the post I give an [...]
3 November 2008, 8:48 pm