The succes of a cocreation project depends on a wide variety of factors, the incentivation of your community members not being the least important one. We’ve seen many different approaches worldwide, ranging from rewards in hard cash to the more implicit remuneration in the form of awards and public honor.
Motivations of audiences may differ per project or purpose. We found in our projects that community members are delighted by us adressing what interests them most: an in-depth discussion and follow-up on the ideas and experiences they shared. Merely sending out gifts did not do the trick, it once even backfired. The gifts were seen as a business transaction, a cold reward that did not do justice to the personal and intimate dialogue people experienced during the course of the project. The disregard for the relationship that had grown was felt as a profound disappointment.
Many participants put lots of time and effort into a project, devoting their best ideas and experiences to the better cause. The best cause is never a prize or a gift. It is about being able to really contribute to a solution that is relevant to you. About discussing and experimenting with peers and experts.
It really is about Maslow’s pyramid and its highest hierarchical tier, the drive for self-actualisation and the aknowledgement of your talents. About seeing your views and beliefs result in meaningful new products, services or experiences.
The many organisations that still believe consumers to be exclusively motivated by monetary incentives are guilty of a Pavlov reaction that’s hard to exterminate. Consumers will not line up to participate in your project simply because you shake your purse.
Cocreation is about Maslow, providing an exciting, relevant experience while nurturing true dialogue. By rewarding your audience with honest attention and a clear path to results.
Pavlov was about dogs, Maslow is about people.
uberVU - social comments
December 15th, 2009 at 18:24
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sander Dullaart @FF: Pavlov of Maslow. Waarom het betalen van je community niet werkt. En hoe het wel moet: http://bit.ly/7gxKO4 #co-creatie…
dJoris
December 23rd, 2009 at 00:05
The comparison to Pavlov’s research might be a bit off, but the bigger idea in this post hits the nail. Sure you can attract people by giving prices, but clearly that’s not the point. Having people go into constructive dialogue does ask a lot more of any organisation. In HRM, we learned a long time ago: giving more money to your employees is not the answer to more productivity, especially with knowledge workers. Sharing your knowledge and even listening to others to improve the common knowledge requires a more profound conviction to that hard to measure end-goal. Simplified objectives and financial incentives have often created, indeed, perverse effects. If on the work floor you try to motivate people and create a productive ambiance, why would you go back to Taylorism in your online community?