The extensive patents-versus-prizes literature has thus far focused on specific competitions—competitions that reward inventions based on how well they solve a narrow, predetermined problem. However, prize competitions do not have to specify the problem to be solved in such great detail. Indeed, the degree by which prize competitions specify the problem to be solved falls along a spectrum, with completely general competitions that permit submission of any innovation under the sun falling on one end of the spectrum, and highly specific competitions that lay out the problem to be solved in painstaking detail falling on the other end. This Article makes three primary contributions to the innovation literature. First, this Article analyzes and discusses prize competitions of various degrees of generality, and in particular tackles theoretical considerations related to where prize competitions fall along this spectrum of generality. Second, this Article highlights key factors to consider when designing these unexplored general innovation competitions. Third, this Article provides survey data collected from participants of more general innovation competitions regarding their subjective evaluations of whether and how general innovation competitions affected their innovative activity.