From brief to participant shortlist: a worked example

Back

What happens between receiving a recruitment brief and presenting players for selection?

This fictional example illustrates the decisions involved. It is not a client case study or a promise of recruitment results.

Imagine a team planning twelve online interviews with people who play cooperative action games. They want a mix of regular groups and people who usually join unfamiliar teammates.

First, clarify what the audience means

• “Cooperative action games” covers a range of experiences.
• We would ask which games or activities are relevant, how recently participants should have played and what the distinction between the two groups needs to capture.
• Someone might regularly play with friends but also join public sessions. Before screening, we need to understand how the research team wants that overlap handled.
• We would also establish interview dates, equipment requirements and any restrictions on previous research participation.

Choose sourcing routes around the brief

• Once the audience is defined, we can consider where suitable applicants might be found.
• That could involve our player community alongside targeted campaigns or outreach. The choice depends on the requirements and response, rather than an assumption that one source will cover every quota.
• Applications would be screened against the agreed criteria and practical commitments.

Explore the experience behind the application

• Suppose an applicant says they regularly play with unfamiliar teammates.
• During validation, we might ask them to describe a recent session: how they joined, how the group communicated and what the experience was like.
• That explanation helps us understand what their screener answer means in practice. If their account is unclear, we can ask follow-up questions before making a recommendation.
• The purpose is to assess relevant experience, without rewarding polished delivery or enthusiasm alone.

Review the sample as it develops

• Recruitment also needs to be assessed across the proposed group.
• Perhaps applicants who play with friends are progressing quickly, while suitable public-session players are harder to schedule. We would explain that distinction and discuss the available options with the client.
• Any proposed adjustment to the agreed criteria would need their approval.

Present information that supports selection

• The shortlist should make it straightforward to review each proposed participant’s relevant experience, quota fit and availability, with any outstanding questions clearly identified.
• Once selection decisions are agreed, scheduling and preparation can proceed within the project’s scope.
• At Gromotion, these decisions connect the brief to the people proposed for research. Each stage should give the next decision a firmer basis.

Working through an audience definition? Get in touch to chat or share a brief.