What does it mean for a blog contest crash and burn? In our case: a total lack of entries. By the first official deadline, we had not received any submissions. So we quietly extended the timeframe by another week and solicited more responses. Again, not a single person offered a blog post. Today, we were supposed to announce the top five finalists. That’s obviously not going to happen!

On a phone call yesterday, Ashley and I were scratching our heads trying to figure what had happened and what to do next. Certainly we had made a lot of mistakes in the process. Our most crucial failure was the assumption that we would receive several entries. Since we both expected this to be the case, we did not touch base throughout the contest on the status of the number of entries. We figured the submissions would be rolling in, so why waste time confirming this every day? By the time we determined that we weren’t actually getting responses, it was too late. A faulty assumption sunk our contest!

There might have been other structural problems as well. Certainly, these kinds of programs require deadlines, and we’ve talked before about how deadlines create problems. Furthermore, the last time we ran a contest, we openly discussed the nature of extrinsic motivators like prizes. We know that we should be careful about giving rewards at work.

One more theory might apply: the so-called homecoming queen paradox.

Courtesy DeviantArt user TheYellowGhost

The story goes that since everyone assumes that the homecoming queen has a date to the prom, no one actually asks the her to go to the dance! Maybe our blog contest had a similar problem. Perhaps many readers thought that our contest would be quite popular, and thus decided their chances of winning would be too slim. This is an optimistic hypothesis, but perhaps it has some merit.

Despite a big push, lots of personal requests over email, in-person and on Twitter, our contest was a failure. That’s okay. Failure is the secret to success! If you have thoughts about what went wrong, please share them in the comments below.

Thanks to everyone who hoped to enter! Maybe next time we’ll find a way to make this program work.

Recently, I was rifling through my mail seeking out anything significant. Per usual, out of the stack of letters I was holding, I found only one piece that had importance. Everything else was heading straight for the trash. Yet, as I was tossing the useless catalogs and marketing pieces away, one caused me to stop in my tracks. Below is what the postcard read: (details slightly altered for privacy reasons)

Sold In Your Neighborhood

555 State Street

   Considering a move in the future or thought about listing your home?

Now is the time!

I’m never too busy to help you with all your Real Estate Needs!

CALL ME TODAY!

Tom Smith 317-123-4567

 If  your property is currently listed with another broker, please excuse my aggressive marketing.

To clarify, this flyer has nothing to offer me. I’m not moving nor am I planning to. So why then did I find this direct marketing mailer so intriguing? Truth be told, after scanning the information I stopped because of one sentiment on the very bottom of the postcard:

. . . please excuse my aggressive marketing.

To say the very least, I was struck by the disclaimer for several reasons. First, the use of aggressive felt a bit abrasive to me. Now, let me preface by saying, I know this word is not always negative in fashion. But, speaking as a representative of Tom Smith’s target audience, I felt the word choice could have been more strategic and upbeat in nature. By utilizing a descriptive adjective such as proactive or ambitious, my receptiveness to actually saving the mailer for future reference would have increased greatly.

Second, I was quite bothered by Smith’s blatant display of inefficient research. For instance, the catalog of properties that are currently assigned to real estate brokers is a matter of public record. This means that prior to conducting his mailing, Smith could have easily conjured a marketing list excluding properties already under alternate representation. Understanding this, I am left to formulate one of two conclusions: either he is deficient in the knowledge of the resource or he simply lacks effort in its regard. I’m not sure which aspect is more off-putting. There is good reason why professionals take advantage of industry resources. After all, doing so creates the opportunity to boost efficient and effective workflow and positive customer service.

Lastly, I was surprised by Smith’s carelessness. Here’s the deal: direct mail marketing can bring great opportunity, but it’s also a tough and expensive process; particularly since results and success vary greatly no matter how much money is spent. For real estate brokers, I can only assume it’s essential to utilize this marketing technique in a thoughtful, financially cognizant manner—not just because they front the cost of the venture, but because it reinforces the value in worthwhile spending. Unfortunately, it is clear that Smith got caught up in his own productivity paradox. Despite how reasonable and productive it seemed to send out postcards to every resident within a designated area, Smith’s attempt at mass marketing not only demonstrated the price of fruitless spending, but probably turned away a substantial amount of potential clients.

In the end, we may never know how much business Smith’s postcards generated, but I have to wonder whether or not others agree with my thoughts. Is Smith’s message effective? Take a moment to decipher your point of view on the matter and enlighten us with your opinion by posting a comment today!

Michael recently decided to sell his home. After consulting a realtor, he had a routine inspection to make sure everything in the house was in working condition. Unfortunately, it was discovered that the home’s septic tank system was not draining properly. It was severely backed up and posed serious health code violations. 

Concerned, Michael had his entire system replaced. It was an expensive fix, but nonetheless necessary. As the repairs concluded, he sought approval from the Health Department. After a detailed inspection, the health inspector deemed the property in great condition. So, Michael moved forward with the sale of his home.

Almost immediately he received an offer. It was accepted and contracts were in the making. All that was left to do was perform one last home inspection for the buyers’ benefit. Confident in the recent work done on his septic tank, Michael had no cause for concern. That is until he received word that the home inspector found a serious issue: the septic system was not installed properly. In less than two minutes, the inspector was able to discover that the tank was draining directly into the creek behind the home. Upon hearing the news, Michael was no doubt upset. He took action.

Immediately he contacted the Health Department with one question: how could the work have passed inspection? No doubt, his question was quite valid; his disturbance understandable. Yet, the report was given little consideration since the only response given was a follow-up letter one week later:

Dear Michael,

It has been brought to our attention that your house contains health code violations that pose a threat to the health and well-being of both you and your neighbors. We urge you to rectify this problem within thirty days of this letter. Otherwise, you will be fined two-thousand dollars. 

Sincerely,

The Health Department

There’s no doubt that it can be frustrating to find ourselves in a dilemma such as Michael’s—where solving a problem and conjuring a fair and proper remedy is ultimately out of our hands. But in a sense, it’s all the more reason to be proactive in our efforts for quality.

Tell us: What should the health department do to avoid this situation in the future?

Stay tuned for Slaughter Development’s reflections on Michael’s situation.

Over a dozen people chimed in on the post last week in the comments. So what’s the answer? Should you give a prize away when you’re running a survey? The answer is a firm “maybe.”

To understand the relationship between surveys and incentives, we have to once again delve in to the science of motivation. This topic comes up all the time in business productivity and process design, because the reason why people conduct work impacts how they do the work.

In this case, the incentive for completing the evaluation is at least, in part, the value provided through the prizes. We explained that everyone who completed the survey would receive two complimentary passes to 2011 Productivity Series events (a $70 value—check your email) and that one person would win a $50 gift card. These are called extrinsic motivators, because they come from the outside world.

There’s also the sense of intrinsic motivation of helping to improve our program by giving feedback. Hopefully some people are inspired to help others, or at least to help themselves by getting concerns off their chest! As commenter Rhett C noted, “the ones that are MOST likely to give feedback are the ones that typically have a bad experience.”

In an ideal world, you want everyone to be intrinsically motivated. We know that extrinsic rewards are the worst way to motivate people. And indeed, if you look at the data from our survey, almost nobody left any comments. Most people checked a few boxes, perhaps hoping to win the prize. In fact, there’s every incentive to race through the survey, since the quality of your responses don’t impact your chances of winning the prize.

Several individuals, including Daniel Herndon, Michelle Morris, John Cannon, Sara McGuyer and John Uhri, pointed out these potential biases in the survey. It’s true that adding a prize does impact the quality of the result. However, it’s also likely to increase the number of participants. The size of the incentive is the major factor at work here. We only reached out to those who attended one of the events in 2010, and received a 30% response rate. Had we offered more cash prizes, we would probably have gotten more responses. Had we opened the survey to a wider audience, we would have certainly received more submissions. This leads to another pair of questions: Is more, in fact, better? Are these kinds of surveys really advertising in disguise?

Ultimately, the fundamental issue here is the degree to which this effort constitutes marketing. Like all small businesses, we want potential customers to know who we are and have a chance to find out more about our services. At the same time, we want to be careful about how we motivate those individuals. Clients should be people who believe in our value and want to pay for our expertise, not people who have been motivated mostly through gifts, prizes and discounts. The best customers, like the best employees, are those that are driven by a sense of purpose. Prizes should be used sparingly. Motivation is what gives work meaning.

Congratulations LaTonya Keaton, winner of Slaughter Development’s 2010 Productivity Series Survey Contest. As promised LaTonya, for completing and submitting your survey within the allotted time frame you will receive a $50 Visa giftcard. Enjoy! To all who participated, thank you! We appreciate your efforts and hope to see you once again at future sessions.  To view and read about the 2011 Productivity Series, check out the 2011 session calendar.

As many of us know and have experienced, the existence of surveys with prize incentives in business are commonplace. From restaurants to product reviews to presentations, we’ve seen them all. But are these bonuses a good idea? We want to know what you think. We encourage you to share your thoughts, whatever they may be, to get the conversation going.

Stay tuned to find out how Slaughter Development views these programs.

Here’s the full audio:

Finch and Dalverny run The Credit and Finance Show each week. Tune in from your home or office computer, or dial the call-in number to join the conversation!

Special thanks to Jeff and Victoria for the opportunity to be on their program.