Despite the different nature of co-creation compared to crowdsourcing, tangible rewards are almost always linked to participation. From an ethical perspective, this also makes sense: you are asking your client to do something for which you would have to pay your own employees or an agency. However, rewarding is less logical in practice, because research shows that rewards can sometimes be counterproductive. Dan Ariely , one of my favorite researchers, says the following about this in his book 'Predictably Irrational':
“Bringing money into the relationship takes the giver's work out of 'gift' market, and brings it into the 'pay-for-effort' market. When it was done for nothing, the protagonist was a 'donor'. When small money was on the table, he or she became an underpaid employee. ”
Remarkable? Imagine this: your colleague asks you to help her paint her living room for a whole day japan telegram data She invites you to stay afterwards for a delicious meal as a thank you or (situation 2:) she asks you how much money she will give you in return for your time and effort. How would you react in both situations and how would you feel?
The same principle also applies to co-creation processes, in which consumers use their creativity and energy to jointly develop or improve a product. The best individual performances are delivered by the most involved persons (fans), who are intrinsically motivated to participate. And they deliver the best performances in the absence of rewards, as Maria Borst's dissertation shows .