Which is why virtually every serious game designer and game scholar LOVES the notion of applying “things that make games compelling” to non-game areas but also HATES because it focuses on not just the wrong things, but the dead-last things that are the core of why well-designed games are compelling. On the other hand, operant conditioning DOES generate a flurry of behavior, just not the behavior that may be in a company’s long-term best interest (let alone the iser’s, but these discussions are rarely what is in the User’s best interest since the whole idea is to drive behavior the user did not truly want to do).

I actually do think that one of areas where gamification *could* be artfully and correctly and even ethically applied might be market research (surveys, etc.), but not based on nearly every discussion I have seen because it is a very complex and subtle process to do it “right” and quite easy to get wrong, with potentially serious consequences.

But the real question I would keep asking is — if the desire for gamification is based on a desire for more engagement — why is “more engagement” so crucial? Or more importantly, does the quality of the engagement matter? If the research is disconnected from a brand — so that the user has no idea who is behind the research, then if gamification drives a short-term behavior to complete a survey, then there is little harm. But the instant you add gamification to increase consumer/user engagement *with the brand itself*, the risks are both counter-intuitive and potentially severe.

For a tiny look at what can go wrong, watch the Dan Pink “Drive” Ted talk. But If you are serious about understanding this, read the underlying research on which it is based: namely, Self-Determination Theory. (cannot just understand it from a wikipedia entry — you need to read at least one overview book). And to begin to understand why gamification is different from games, start with the one book that was required reading for all game developers I have worked with (including my time at Virgin), “flow”. Real games are about creating a pleasurable experience. Gamification is about creating tiny hits of pleasure through extrinsic motivators. These might sound similar, but the consequences, side-effects, and long-term effects are drastically different.

But like I sad, good video games often include both, so it is easy for people to misunderstand the relationship between them. And since applying game mechanics and incentives is relatively easy and repeatable (compared with actual game design, which is quite difficult and subtle), the mechanics is what marketers and vendors have focused on. The potential downsides of incentives in areas where *quality* of engagement (as opposed to just quantity) matters are well-known, but little discussed in gamification hype today. Sadly.

Glad to see so great discussion rising around this post. So let me clarify something: when I use the expression “gamification”, I’m not talking about a specific technology, tool or a buzz word. I’m not talking about designing games, badges or fun surveys neither.

Gamification is not something new at all. More recently tough with the increasing integration of technologies into our daily lives, and the explosion of social networks and social games, the term “gamification” has been extensively used in different business areas, from education to human resources, referring to the usage of mechanisms broadly used by games to engage participants since its early stages.

Such game mechanisms include systems of achievement, rewarding detail-oriented tasks, rules, recognition, rewards, challenges, etc. So I believe we should direct this discussion to questions such as “What MR can learn from other industries that are already benefiting from the usage of game mechanisms?” , “What game mechanisms, tools and techniques can be applied to MR and which are the implications?” , “What are the best practices for developing more engaging surveys, increasing respondent experience and decreasing drop-out rates?”, etc. There are so many things to be discussed, tested and validated, so why not focus on the benefits and new opportunities instead of resisting to the new?

As for my last sentence “adopt it or die”, it can sound a little bit radical at this moment, but from my daily personal experience dealing with Gens X and Z, both at home and work, I don’t think it will be possible to attract and motivate those Gens to participate in surveys as they’ve been designed during the past 20 years.

Sorry if my analogy didn’t work for you! I think of myself as more of a technician in many ways so it may be my own bias seeping through! That said, I think my point of much of MR needing to adapt more readily to change holds. That doesn’t mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but it does mean perhaps being open to finding new ways to meet the needs of clients that may be a bit different than what we’re used to. I hope that clarifies and is easier to swallow!

In terms of case studies, there is a ton out there although not within the MR industry; the vast majority is in social sciences and marketing. Here is a Google link based on a search I just did for “successful applications of gamification” https://www.google.com/search?q=successful+applications+of+gamification&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a. I’ve also highlighted a few examples here on the blog of companies using gamification for MR and Marketing at the same time.

Just to be clear, I agree with all of the concerns you are bringing up, I just don’t agree that these are issues that don’t have a resolution or in many cases have not already been resolved. Gamification is just one tool in the toolbox for MR, but if our training as researchers is only as mechanics of vintage automobiles it may be that we need to update our toolbox and skillset to be able to understand how to use all of our tools effectively.

The point is that we can debate minutiae on this (and we should), but the business context needs to rule the decision making and that means that we need to stop thinking just as researchers and instead begin looking at the bigger picture of how something like gamification fits within the overall goals of an organization. Collecting data is easy, but bu8ilding engagement with consumers is tough. We should be doing both at the same time whenever we can.