Winner Selection Policy Update


[Base on the feedback from the community, this update will not be enacted.]

We are updating our Winner Selection Policy. Awards will be governed by the updated guidelines starting February 15.

Squadhelp contests require a Contest Holder to choose one winner from 100-600+ entries. During this process, there are four stages in which a Contest Holder signals which names are still in the running for winner selection:

  1. Initial rating
  2. Shortlisting
  3. Audience Testing
  4. Trademark Validation

Previously, the Award Distribution Policy only took ratings and shortlisting into account. Moving forward, the list of entries sent for Audience Testing and then Trademark Validation will be considered for award distribution.


  • If a contest is abandoned after the Contest Holder begins Audience Testing (up to 6 entries), only the Creatives whose entries are included in the Test will receive the award split.

  • If a contest is abandoned after the Contest Holder begins Trademark Research (up to 3 entries), only the Creatives whose entries are included in the Research process will receive the award split.

This will allow the award amount to be split based on the latest list of names that the CH is considering.

When the Audience Testing or Trademark Research process is initiated by the CH, we will mark your name with an icon on the Contest Page’s My Entries Tab, so you will know that your name is included.

If the contest does not initiate audience testing or trademark validation, then the existing guidelines will apply.


Grant, I’m usually really excited about SH improvements. However, the statement I’ve quoted does not make sense in this scenario. If a CH abandons a contest, they are not considering any of the names from audience testing or trademark validation. What it really means is the results of the testing and validation meant they could not choose any of the names (limited to 6 or 3)… What really needs to happen instead of abandonment, is for the CH to re-evaluate the names they have or reopen the contest, not depriving those with SL names of a portion of the award. Kindly reconsider because this policy does not make sense.


The thing about this is… I have seen CH’s many times say they are back to square one as all the names they initially liked and tested, had trademark issues or were already being used in their field,or didn’t fare well in audience testing. I don’t understand why those names would be awarded if they are names that the CH ultimately couldn’t use, and may be part of the reason for abandonment.

Plus we already have discluded love it names that don’t get shortlisted…so now you propose to eliminate shortlistings too (which obviously means the CH was/is seriously considering them) should the CH elect to run trademark research or audience testing? The names they may be testing may not be viable names they could or would choose after seeing the results. This doesn’t seem entirely fair to me.


This is a great way to put it. I am saying the same thing in a different way.


This could go either way for me, so i will just wait and see how it pans out before i formulate an opinion,


ah I see I misread it - how about giving them a re contest if all names fail the tests


Do all contests go through this 4 step process of initial rating, shortlisting, audience testing, and trademark validation?

I was unaware that the lower cost packages included audience testing and trademark validation.


If SH decides to stay with this policy, could you mark the contents that will go through the process and indicate where they are in the process so we can all see? I know there are icons on the names that are being tested, etc., but if our names are not being tested or validated then we don’t know.



[quote=“Commulinks, post:8, topic:2472”]
…but if our names are not being tested or validated then we don’t know.[/quote]
Hmmmm, good point, CLinks - If our names have been shortlisted, but NOT sent on for testing and validation, we should be able to withdraw them and enter them in other projects, right? :confused:


Hi Everyone,

This update was driven by previous feedback from the Creative Community that you would like more meaningful payouts and shorter short lists. We believe that this change is a mechanism to meet these ends. However, if the majority of the community does not feel that this is a desirable update, we are happy to keep the previous policy.

We’ll keep this thread open for a few more days and continue to take feedback from you. We will then make the final policy decision.


[quote=“grant, post:10, topic:2472”]
This update was driven by previous feedback from the Creative Community that you would like more meaningful payouts and shorter short lists[/quote]
Grant, if this policy ensures “more meaningful payouts,” then YES, I’m all for it :+1:

… and Thank-You for responding to our feedback! :kissing_heart:


Not sure what to think, I do now I’d be pretty irrataed getting shortlisted. Then excluded after that. As I barely make a shortlist, could poss go the extra steps, if that doesn’t pan out in finding a winner by the time a split comes it would revert to all top rated or prevent shortlisted get a piece


I personally believe that the current payout system works great and is as fair as possible. The shorter short-list will eliminate a lot of the people who were unhappy with the new system to begin with. I also am not sure that those sentiments were the majority of us. I have kept close track of the new system vs. the old bot system. Just as you and Dan said, the newest system actually gives us the same or more than the old one collectively, on average. Yes, some payouts are $1, etc… but if people would look back at their averages before with the bot system, they will see that over time their payouts on average are at least the same if not better than before. One month doesn’t mean much. You have to look as far back as you are able, depending on how long you’ve been here. Under the shorter short-list system, I do not see how that can be encouraging to those who get left out even more.

All that said, I will of course go with whatever SH decides to do and decide for myself if it works for me to keep going or not. I could actually benefit from the this change, but I feel it will be at the cost of others. I will also pay attention to see if I am wrong about it and say so… right now, this is just a theory.


Well, my basic question wasn’t answered. I can’t be ‘for’ anything when simple questions about the process can’t be answered. Do all contests go through the 4 step process? If not, which ones are exempt? The $100 contests? The $200 contests? Which ones?

I would agree that creatives who used common names which are clear trademark violations should not be awarded. But the problem arises when the name isn’t a clear trademark violation which is a more common occurrence I would guess. And this is where questions start to arise. What qualifications do these people have who are determining trademark violations? And I could ask the same about audience testing. Where is this audience from? Do you hire them off the street? If they are testing an app name, do they even own a smartphone? And so on.

When decisions involve money and how we get paid, we need to know more than just a few highlights.


I like it the way it is now.


I don’t know, maybe I’m looking at this issue too simplistically, but I’d much rather be a part of a 3-way split for a $300 contest, than one of 10 splits for the same contest. :wink:


I actually fair alot worse than the old old system


Well, yea, you’re assuming that you will be 1 of the 3. Not saying that you wouldn’t. But there’s a saying that has been around for many, many years, I’d rather have something than nothing at all.


My possible issue with it though, is that names that may win the split may be ones that wouldn’t/didn’t pass trademark or audience testing (or the CH probably would have chosen it and not abandoned the contest). So why should those people get awarded the pot…while other people who had love its/shortlistings be left out with names that still may have been viable options? I would like to make more money also…but not at the expense of other people who deserve a cut too.


shouldnt there be a poll rather than listening to a couple of people