I suspect @yahoo62278 could save his employers a lot of money if he kept a log of the minimum rates each user would accept, particularly paying attention to those sr+ members looking to secure lower tier slots.
I'd say the reason for users willing to accept any pay is because of the longevity of the campaign, at least for me it is. The pay rate is also better than what most campaign tends to offer these days, so why not. I'd rather join $25 per week campaign which is bound(probably) to last for long term, than ~$40-50 paying campaign which would only last for a 2-3 weeks.
Additionally, i think Yahoo is looking for high quality posters, not for random users that accept lower payment rates. After all, the company already decided the amount of money per week they want to spend. The best thing a good manager can do is to choose high quality users to make the best use of that money. Not search for lower quality users because they are cheaper and save money.
Actually, it is the other way around: High pay rates attract better posters to join the campaign, which will have a better reputation to represent the company brand. Which is what matters, in the end: what is the reputation of those people representing your brand.
I am not criticizing in no way people who are willing to accept lower pay rates. I am now in a Sr. Member slot in Yolodice campaign, for the same reasons as mentioned by Harkorede (good pay rates, good management, longevity...). But I don`t think managers should look for that to save money.
