Are we losing genuine players before we ever speak to them?

Back

An applicant passes the screener. We invite them to complete video validation.

Then nothing happens...

A reminder may help. Another may not. Some people never open the invitation; others look at the questions and leave, or return later to complete them.

These are different behaviours. Treating them all as evidence of an unsuitable applicant would miss an important recruitment question.

Eligibility doesn’t explain disengagement

• On a recent project, 92 applicants passed screening. 65 completed validation, while 27 did not, despite repeated email and text requests.
• That tells us where progress stopped. It does not tell us why.
• We did not assess those 27 applicants through validation, so we cannot conclude they lacked relevant gaming experience or would have contributed poorly to the research.

Explain what the next step involves

• “Video validation” describes our purpose. It may not explain the experience clearly to an applicant.
• People need to know what they will be asked to do, how long it will likely take, who will review their responses, and what happens afterwards.
• Where accurate, explain that we want their own experiences and that a polished presentation is unnecessary. Avoid language that makes the step sound like an audition or a test of specialist vocabulary.

Examine where people stop

• An unopened invitation suggests different questions from a recording started but not submitted.
• Check whether the message reached the applicant, whether the link worked and whether instructions were understandable on the device they used.
• For those who opened the activity, consider the number of steps, recording requirements and any technical difficulties. Follow-up feedback can help identify issues that completion figures alone cannot explain.

Offer another route where appropriate

• Some applicants may be more comfortable in a live conversation than recording answers alone.
• At Gromotion, we can use recorded responses or a live video conversation, depending on the study. An alternative should preserve the assessment required while making participation more workable.
• Not every applicant will progress, and not every abandoned activity needs removing. Meaningful checks remain part of the process.

Improve access without weakening selection

• The objective is to give suitable people a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their experience.
• That means clear expectations, proportionate effort and support where needed. It also means retaining human judgement about whether the applicant meets the agreed requirements.

Planning participant validation? Get in touch to discuss an approach that supports both applicant experience and research suitability.