{"id":46759,"plugin_id":"plugin_asdk_app_6abed98cf9b08191b2c40cc2c305459b","kind":"skill","collection_source":"plugin_package","comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-10-24T13:31:01.848Z","digest":"1d5c7dd0d0263ea1189981f398b2116cab162a6bd20fb21ecaa924d1a414499f","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Use with the Great Question tools when setting or changing a participant incentive on a study. How we choose fair amounts by session type, length, and audience seniority.","included_files":[],"name":"adding-incentives","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: adding-incentives\ndescription: \"Use with the Great Question tools when setting or changing a participant incentive on a study. How we choose fair amounts by session type, length, and audience seniority.\"\n---\n\n# Adding Incentives\n\nIf your Great Question workspace has its own skill for this, follow that instead.\n\nUse this when setting or changing what participants are paid. Incentives are the single biggest lever on both recruitment speed and cost, and underpaying is the most common reason a study stalls.\n\n## Start from session length and type\n\n- Moderated interviews: scale to the booked duration, not the expected duration. A 60-minute slot is an hour of someone's day even if you finish early.\n- Unmoderated tests and surveys: scale to realistic completion time, which is usually longer than the estimate.\n- Anything requiring preparation, installation, or homework before the session: pay for that time too.\n\n## Adjust for the audience\n\n- General consumers sit at the base rate.\n- Professionals in specialist roles need meaningfully more, their time has a market price and they know it.\n- Senior and hard-to-reach audiences (executives, clinicians, developers at specific companies) need substantially more, and even then recruitment will be slower.\n- Existing customers of ours often participate for less, but never assume goodwill covers the whole amount.\n\n## Consistency matters more than precision\n\n- Two studies running at once for the same audience should pay the same. Participants talk, and inconsistency reads as arbitrary.\n- Don't raise an incentive partway through recruiting to rescue a stalled study without flagging it, people invited at the old rate will have been underpaid for the same work.\n- Round to clean numbers. Odd amounts look calculated rather than fair.\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- Never set an incentive to zero on a study recruiting outside our own customer base.\n- Currency has to be right at creation time and is awkward to change later. Confirm it rather than defaulting.\n- If a proposed amount is far below what the audience warrants, say so plainly instead of setting it quietly.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}