Since they usually required doing something in the world, I'd be lucky if I got five entries.
My winner-picking method is to write down the names of the entrants on paper, and put a cat treat on each paper, and which ever one my cat eats first is the winner (and second, third, if I had more than one winner). This was videotaped unless I had technical problems.
I always thought they were fun and gave people an idea to post about, in but my prizes weren't huge and it was a lot more effort than "pick a number" so only a handful of people joined in.I haven't done a giveaway in a minute, but when I used to do them it was usually for HSBI shares or dust sweeper funds on their account (or both, because I'd often have like, first/second/third place winners). But I never had a lot of entries because my contests were always themed, like, "make a post about you doing something good for the environment" which could be a #cleanplanet walk or something else, or I'd do a photo scavenger hunt like "find a purple flower/a yellow leaf/a mushroom" or something, and all the #wednesdaywalk type folks could enter if they found those things on their walk. Or "do a random act of kindness" was another one I'd do.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yeah see, in giveaways like that it wouldn't even matter what the prize are to curators like me for instance, I'd vote the contest based on the requirements to enter and the content that may come from it and potentially the entries too.
We do contests with ocd quite often as well and it's about providing something of value/effort in exchange for a chance to win something big or at least get a vote as participation reward.
I guess a good comparison is, don't be a bitcoin miner getting inflation rewards for just spouting random numbers, but use your proof of brain. :P
Proof of brain is important! LOL