Update to Winner Selection Policy


Thanks @Chasity2ku…that makes it much clearer to me now. Gold Star C2K


Wow really…


I don’t think it was meant sarcastically


[quote=“rareworthy, post:44, topic:2284, full:true”]
I don’t think it was meant sarcastically[/quote]
Me either, Chasity - I know Jackie well, and she is not the type of person to be snarky and mean. :innocent:


I was being real…I didn’t think it came off any other way. Thanks @rareworthy and @AlwriteyThen for taking it as it was meant to be.


The updated policy is now published in our help article (along with examples):

We have made one additional change to ensure that the awards are meaningful in case there are no high ratings (or no ratings) in a contest:

If the contest has no shortlist and only has No thank you ratings and/or unrated entries, the contest award will be equally split between 4 Creatives who participated in the contest and have at least 5 Love It ratings in other contests in the previous month. These 4 creatives will be randomly selected from the pool of eligible creatives.

This change allows us to remove the “random selection” for majority of the contests, and still results in meaningful payouts in cases where there are no ratings in the contest.


I have read it and again will state that I agree with all save the last one. I do not agree with basing a winner/winners on who had 5 love it’s in the previous months contests. That should have absolutely nothing to do with the selection. Why? Because you could be overlooking a creative’s perfect name for that particular brief who read and followed requirements . I realize it would take time on the employee who has to sift through names but that is the only fair way to do this. It could be a great name for an Apple and someone who had 5 love it’s had a great name for a Tire , did not follow the brief well and yet they get the split. When someone else did the work right doesn’t see anything.
I personally think this should be re evaluated.


I’ve just received 6 ‘you have been awarded a contest’ emails. The combined total was about $71!

I’m liking this! The risk is… I could have received nothing.

AND I got 100 points of each contest (600 points). Very nice bonus.

And I am LOVING the CHA-CHING! email at the end of it (though please be advised I received that twice, the same email).


Way to go! I only got one BUT still :heart:IT!!!..CHA-CHING​:wink:


I have recently increased my contest participation, and so potentially this new method will be beneficial in time. However, my first impression after being awarded a contest that was split among 11 contestants is not a great feeling. If there are a lot of likes, it can be split up more ways than if there were only no thank yous. If the default split for only no thank yous is split between 4 randomly, I feel like that should be the cap. A four way split. Just my two cents. The ratings are subjective and vary by CH. It is a reflection of the CH, not necessarily of the quality of entries. So I feel splitting a reward down to so little is a little deflating. I love SH and will keep at it for now. I just hope it doesn’t start feeling lack luster.


Not to be the Eeyore in the group…but when I had two high ratings in a contest, and got a big whopping cha ching of $5…it did not thrill me.I got a split on another contest too…this time $10. So after tons of hard work to get $15 total for two contests(that I can’t even withdraw) it doesn’t seem like a win to me.I felt totally deflated,actually. Maybe if you got paid for each high rating. But the way it looks like now, whether you had only 1 high rating in a contest, or 10 you still only get one share.


Totally,totally agree, Lorin! I have won contests many times without generating love its.Especially since many times CH’s don’t even give love its. Or they will give a few high ratings and abandon the contest. I’ve won contests lots of times with no ratings on my name at all. Most of my “shortlisted” entries this last go around weren’t rated. So to base someones worthiness for a split based on love its doesn’t seem fair, or really have anything to do with anything.It’s apples and oranges.


@Grant, @Darpan While I think this new policy is fine, I think you may need to re-think the all No Thank You’s and the all unrated ones. Won’t the same few people pretty much win all those type that you close? If you’re basing it on the prior months “Love Its” won’t that same group win the majority of all the “No Thank You’s”? Or am I missing something?

And as @LorinsEggshells pointed out, they could win with any nonsensical name just because they entered that contest. Maybe in JUST those contests it should remain random.

It’s almost too bad this policy was not in effect this past year. It has happened to me 5 times where I was not a random winner when I was one of 5 Love Its and the other 4 got it. No hard feelings, however. :innocent:


I thought short listed names were supposed to automatically get a like or love rating or the highest rating that was given to anyone else? @Grant @Darpan am I mistaken on this? All of these changes are confusing and yes, seemingly deflating as well.


I don’t like the no thank you split either. Sometimes I’m more active than others so I don’t want to miss my chance to be selected when I have put the time in because the previous month I barely participated and didn’t meet the love requirement, and for many other reasons already stated above.

@hollygirl I know the winnings you speak of seem petty vs the work you may have put in for those contests, but on the positive side you’ve made $15 and it’s only been 3 days! Imagine what you might accumulate in 30 days. It could be an equivalent amount to what you already average in splits, who knows?? If so, you may not get a healthy compensation for your hard work in a single contest, but for your overall efforts and time put in as a whole, in all contests!


I had a high rating that earned me a $2.70. A prize split between 37 people…


See … that is what I’m worried about.


Are you sure? 37 people @ $1.70 each is $62.90.


@Arnet My bad, $2.70 from a $100 prize split 37 ways. I will edit my comment to include that extra dollar, certainly wouldn’t want to be misleading.


I’m not sure yet how I feel about the new policy, so I’ll wait and see. I do feel that SH should strongly encourage the CH to shortlist and/or Love as few entries as possible (instead of the 100 or so Love Its I’ve seen in some contests). I also wonder about the part that said the CH has up to 30 days (after SH selects winners on their abandoned contest) to come back and say that they want to choose a winner. I’m guessing that means we can’t count on the money we get from an abandoned contest for 30 days after receiving it?