View article

So, if you’re not willing to pay the prize upfront, the next best choice is to engage with participants throughout the contest. Usually, these contests last for a period of time, eg, a week, a month, or even several months. As the submissions come in, it’s a good opportunity for the contest host to provide some feedback, such as numerical ratings that indicate how much the contest host likes it, or some textual comments. It turns out that such feedback itself is highly useful in reassuring the (existing or potential) participants that the contest host is there. He or she did not disappear and still cares about the outcome of the contest. Psychologically, it makes the participants more trusting that the contest host does intend to pay (although objectively such beliefs could be unfounded). Indeed, experienced participants of the platform have repeatedly expressed that when a contest host does not engage with the participants during the contest and has not prepaid the winning amount, it’s usually a telling sign of payment denial.

Furthermore, what ratings you give to the participants matter. This has something to do with how potential participants gauge the competition level in an existing contest. Not surprisingly, no one wants to enter a contest that already has a high-scoring solution. Given that hundreds of contests are posted on the platform every day, contest participants have plenty of other options. So, it’s not a good idea to give very high ratings to contest entries, at least not too early. Interestingly, though, if a contest does have a prize guarantee, the contest host appears to be able to somewhat get away with giving high ratings. In such cases, participation doesn’t …