Increase Incentive Program Results by Putting a Face to It?

In all the years I’ve run incentive and reward programs, reviewed them for clients or just heard about them from friends and family I’ve never seen a program that was “owned” by an individual.  Almost every incentive program is run by the “company” or the “department.”

Other than an introductory letter from the titular head of the group whose budget is funding the program it is pretty much an “organizational” program.  No real person is associated with it.  

When programs are announced there are usually flashy emails or print “announcements” highlighting the rules, the awards, the fine print, but no real connection to a person.  

The only real exception to this is the “President’s Club” type program run by the organization for the top recognition honor in a company.  But other than the initial appeal or announcement by the real President – all communications comes from the “program.”

I’m thinking that your incentive program could be much more effective if you put a name and a face to the program.  

 

If a Face Increases Donations Could a Face Increase Performance?

Wikipedia is looking for money.  The free, crowd-sourced encyclopedia and the defacto standard source for all college term papers and blogs is on its annual funding drive - looking for money to keep the service going.  They really don’t want to go with advertising in order to avoid the problem (real or imaginary) of people thinking the site could be corrupted by advertisers putting pressure on the type, tone and content.  They are doing it in Public Television fashion – they’re asking for donations.

I saw a tweet or feed the other day asking if the banner ads at the top of Wikipedia entries with Jimmy Wales’ picture and a personal appeal were effective.  A quick bit of research (via Wikipedia of course) and the surprising (or not surprising) result is… immensely so.

In fact the banner ads with Jimmy Wales’ mug are by far more effective than any other banner format.  The results on their banner testing efforts are here but for those that want the quick answer - overall they state that the “Jimmy” appeals have a 3% click-through rate and a much higher donation level.  

I just checked the results of the October 26 test and the “Jimmy” appeal was almost 16 times more productive than the next highest donation total ($50K to $3K.) Because of those results Wikipedia may allow individual editors to create their own personal appeal banners in hopes that their face will also help with the money flow.  

The bottom line is this – adding a person (whether it is just Jimmy or if the other editors faces will have the same effect is yet to be seen) increases the amount of the behavior Wikipedia wants – clicks and donations.

 

Would this work for you and why would it?

It is rare that we ever do A/B testing with incentive programs – something that should be done somewhere, somehow – so we probably will never see a head-to-head comparison of different theories of performance incentives to really know what works better or worse.  But I think that including a person as an “owner” of any incentive program will increase the results of the program.

My logic runs this way…

Programs that have an “owner” add a social layer to the program.  Any program that is sponsored by a department or group or the company stays in the realm of “transactional.”  Participants who don’t perform aren't hurting “anyone” – just the “company.”  However, adding a person as an owner changes the relationship from the impersonal to the personal.  Now there is a real person who the participant is either helping, or, letting down.  This would be especially effective if the “owner” was well-known, popular, and an authority.  I’d also amp up the request a bit and have them ask for specific commitments and goals.  

By adding an owner – a face – to the program means the participant is now working to help achieve someone else’s and their own goals.  

They aren't working for “the man” as much as they are working for “that man” or “that woman” as the case may be.  

Adding a person to the mix allows you to take advantage of social psychology – and leverage those influence techniques.  I’ve not seen any research on it but I’d hazard a guess that the same social psychology levers that are so effective when used by individuals are not as productive when they are wielded by “companies” or “departments.”

Social psychology works because it is, well, social.

Influencing behavior has always been about more than the rewards.  Influencing behavior in a way that engages and drives a connection with participants needs to include something other than the points, credits, dollar signs. 

It needs a face.  

It needs to connect personally – not just financially.  

Thoughts, ideas?  Hit me in the comments.  Love to hear your point of view on this.
 

Related articles

• The 2 Biggest Mistakes in Sales Incentive Programs (i2i-align.com)
• Hurry Up - We NEED To Launch the Incentive Program January 1st! (i2i-align.com)
• Feedback Is Critical To Change Behavior - Just Not in Most Incentive Programs (i2i-align.com)

Comments

[David Ballard]

Relationships are powerful and employers use generic, impersonal programs all too often. In terms of personal vs. organizational ownership, I don't think it's an either/or proposition. The organization needs to communicate ownership and support of the program in order to demonstrate that it's really committed to it, but also having individual champions who are closely associated with the program may help put a face to it and drive the social aspects of motivation. This approach is often used with organizational wellness and health promotion efforts.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks for the comment David. I do agree that there needs to be an organizational component. But isn't the "funding" demonstrative of that? The fact that the face of the program can offer the program means the company is behind it.

Do we have to explicitly have an org component or can we make the assumption?

[fran melmed]

you got me with grilled cheesus. it's a really interesting idea, paul. i wonder at what level it needs to be personally owned. when would you want someone at the same level as jimmy wales vs. my manager, joe shmoe?

f

[Paul Hebert]

There you go again - asking good questions!

From my point of view I would linked the level of the person to the level of the program to keep it balanced. Having the Pres. of a company be the face of a local, small department incentive would seem a bit heavy handed and would - like big cash bonuses - create unintended consequences. I would keep the face and the objective in balance. But - since I don't have anyone who's done the research - it is pure speculation based on 25 years and over 10,000 hours of experience. :)

Thanks Fran for your comment and have a safe week!

[fran melmed]

yeah, sue me on the asking questions. it's cultural. i agree, by the way. i think, like with any good communication effort, you bring it down to the person who has the greatest influence on the person you're trying to reach.

happy turkey day, paul.

f

[Kevin]

Speaking of social psychology: when you think about it, 3 of Cialdini's prinicples of influence actually REQUIRE a face: Authority, Liking and Social Proof. By carefully selecting the right individual (a well-liked authority who is demonstrating the desired behavior) you can get three birds with one stone, so to speak.

[Paul Hebert]

What a great point. And it makes sense considering we are talking social influence. You could however make the point that social proof requires many faces.. Not just one no?

Thanks for commenting and have a safe holiday.

[Brian Ahearn]

Paul,
Interesting concept. I've personally seen the personalization of email (simply putting a person's first name and asking a question) drive response rate from 0 in 300, to 125 in 300 just a week later.

Kevin has a good point about authority and liking (hopefully the person you use is likable). Not sure if social proof applies because to leverage that you want to point people to others who exhibit the behavior.

When I first started reading I was thinking you were going to head down a path that personalize the program to each participant - have Paul Herbert's picture and name because it's your opportunity to win.

One other thought that comes to mind is to give something to start. For example, if you need 8 punches in your rewards card for a free coffee, going with 10 but punching 2 to start seems to compel more people to use the card even though in reality they still need 8 punches. Something in us likes to finish what we started. Could you do something similar for your program?

Brian

[Paul Hebert]

Good point about the "invested" in the program thing... I have long thought we should give people a "head start" to get them on the path. I believe it should be in almost every program.

The personalization thing is good too - and effective. Most programs now do this - in the past, not so much.

Thanks for commenting and have a great holiday week!