Is It All a Game? Understanding the Principles of Gamification

Business Horizons (2015) 58, 411—420

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

Is it all a game? Understanding the principles

of gamiﬁcation

a, b a a

Karen Robson *, Kirk Plangger , Jan H. Kietzmann , Ian McCarthy , a

Leyland Pitt

Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, 500 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 1W6, Canada

King’s College London, University of London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford Street,

London SE1 9NH, UK

KEYWORDS Abstract There is growing interest in how gamiﬁcation–—deﬁned as the application

Gamiﬁcation; of game design principles in non-gaming contexts–—can be used in business. However,

Experience; academic research and management practice have paid little attention to the

Mechanics; challenges of how best to design, implement, manage, and optimize gamiﬁcation

Dynamics; strategies. To advance understanding of gamiﬁcation, this article deﬁnes what it is

Emotions; and explains how it prompts managers to think about business practice in new and

Behavior change; innovative ways. Drawing upon the game design literature, we present a framework of

Motivation; three gamiﬁcation principles–—mechanics, dynamics, and emotions (MDE)–—to explain

American Idol how gamiﬁed experiences can be created. We then provide an extended illustration of

gamiﬁcation and conclude with ideas for future research and application opportu-

nities.

# 2015 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All

rights reserved.

1. Press play to start employees and customers with game-like incentives

(e.g., competitions among ﬁnancial traders, leader-

Games are everywhere. We play games while trav- boards for salespeople, participation badges).

eling, while relaxing, or while at work, simply to However, increasing engagement and rewarding

create enjoyable experiences for ourselves and for desired behavior with such incentives has always

others. Firms, too, have long motivated their been hard to perform at scale. Only now, at a time

when much of what we do is mediated by digital

technologies and social media, may ﬁrms change

that behavior by turning traditional processes into

* Corresponding author

deeper, more engaging game-like experiences for

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Robson),

many of their customers and for their employees.

[email protected] (K. Plangger),

This process is commonly referred to as gamiﬁca-

[email protected] (J.H. Kietzmann),

[email protected] (I. McCarthy), [email protected] (L. Pitt) tion.

412 K. Robson et al.

Gamiﬁcation has potentially wide applications in real-world simulations (Keys & Wolfe, 1990), or

contexts such as healthcare, sustainability, govern- game theory in organizational settings (Camerer,

ment, transportation, and education, among others. 2003). It does not. Rather, gamiﬁcation is the appli-

For instance, more than 75 energy companies are cation of lessons from the gaming domain to change

already using Opower, a service that equips homes behaviors in non-game situations. ‘Gamiﬁed’ expe-

with sensors enabling residents to compare their riences can focus on business processes (e.g., cus-

householdenergy consumption with that of neighbors, tomer acquisition) or outcomes (e.g., employee

and broadcasting their achievements on Facebook sales). Moreover, these experiences can involve

(Wingﬁeld, 2012). Samsung Nation, Pepsi Soundoff, participants–—or players–—outside of a ﬁrm (e.g.,

and other online loyalty programs use points, levels to co-develop products with customers) and/or

(e.g., gold status), or badges to drive customer en- within it (e.g., to improve employee satisfaction).

gagement and deepen the relationships they have While ﬁrms’ use of such game-like experiences to

with the brands they use or aspire to use. Drivers of control behavior and increase loyalty and engage-

a Nissan Leaf can collect points for driving in an ment is not new, efforts to date have neither sought

ecologically friendly manner, and can compete with to learn from formal game design principles nor

theirfriends on Facebook. Xerox employs gamiﬁcation been labeled gamiﬁcation. In fact, the term gami-

to train managers who collaborate online to complete ﬁcation only started to attract widespread attention

quests, and Salesforce uses challenges and leader- in non-gaming contexts in 2010 (Zichermann & Cun-

boards to increase sales. Microsoft has gamiﬁed the ningham, 2011). We suggest the heightened interest

relatively tedious but important process of translating in gamiﬁcation today is the result of three recent

its Windows 7 operating system into different lan- developments.

guages and adapting it to work in different cultures. First, over the last 20 years with the growth and

Although studies suggest that 70% of the world’s importance of the computer game industry, game

largest public companies will have at least one ga- designers and researchers have invested signiﬁcant-

miﬁed application in the next 2 years (Gartner, 2011), ly in studies to better understand what makes a

there are warnings that about 80% of current gamiﬁed computer game engaging and successful. This has

applications will fail to meet business objectives led to a number of theories and lessons about the

(Gartner, 2012), primarily because processes have design and management of gaming experiences, and

been inappropriately gamiﬁed. A likely reason for to frameworks about incentives that motivate indi-

this is a lack of understanding of what gamiﬁcation is, viduals to play. In the next section, we build on this

how gamification works and, more specifically, how work and introduce three important gamification

to design gamiﬁcation experiences that inspire player principles that are based on the gaming literature’s

(e.g., employee, customer, citizen) behavior changes lessons: mechanics (i.e., the goals, rules, and re-

and result in desirable outcomes. wards), dynamics (i.e., how players enact the me-

However, the academic business literature offers chanics), and emotions (i.e., how players feel

little direction to, or understanding of, gamiﬁca- toward the gamiﬁed experience).

tion, its design principles, and the key underlying Second, the pervasiveness of social media and

psychological motivations by which gamiﬁcation mobile and Web-based technologies has changed

changes behavior and achieves organizational goals. how individuals and organizations participate in,

Thus, we begin by deﬁning gamiﬁcation and describ- share, co-create, discuss, and modify any type of

ing its application in organizations. Next, we explain experience (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, &

the psychology behind the promise of gamiﬁcation. Silvestre, 2011). Today’s ﬁrms can request and

We then introduce a framework, rooted in game generate previously unattainable amounts of data

design, that includes three principles for creating about people and their opinions, feelings, and be-

gamiﬁcation experiences: mechanics, dynamics, havior. The quantity and quality of the resulting

and emotions (MDE). Next, we link the MDE frame- insights has only now become useful for producing

work to employee and customer engagement by gamiﬁed employment or consumption experiences

illustrating its application in the popular reality at scale, which in turn will yield new data.

television show American Idol. Finally, we present Third, ﬁrms are continually looking for new and

concluding remarks on gamiﬁcation and present impactful ways to better connect with, learn from,

ideas for future research and application. and inﬂuence the behaviors of employees and cus-

tomers. Three recent developments provide a rich

2. Gamiﬁcation deﬁned landscape of opportunities to innovate in this re-

gard: (1) new knowledge about the design and

The term gamiﬁcation could be misleading, suggest- management of gaming experiences (2) combined

ing that it represents the use of actual games, with the advent of social media and technology and

Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamiﬁcation 413

(3) the heightened interest in providing more en- positive or negative, such as loss avoidance–—and

gaging experiences. should generally lead to satisfying outcomes for

the players. Through this mix of rewards and emo-

tions, employees and customers in a gamiﬁed expe-

3. Why gamiﬁcation works rience repeat the behavioral outcome desired by the

organization in a habitual or routine form (Duhigg,

Gamiﬁcation can change stakeholder behavior be- 2012). Through tapping into rewards and emotions,

cause it taps into motivational drivers of human an effective gamiﬁcation experience will motivate

behavior in two connected ways: reinforcements individuals’ behavior changes in business settings. In

and emotions. First, both positive and negative order to understand how to design an effective ga-

reinforcements encourage repetition of behaviors, miﬁed experience, we examine the fundamental

as operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938) and the law principles that underpin gamiﬁcation by introducing

of effect (Thorndike, 1905) show us. These ap- the MDE framework.

proaches have long been used in psychology to

explain a range of human behaviors as well as

behavior modiﬁcation. They also posit that behavior 4. Gamiﬁcation principles: The MDE

changes can be motivated either through extrinsic framework

or intrinsic reinforcements. That is, while external

factors such as money or fame can certainly moti-

As with any emerging area of endeavor, the termi-

vate human behavior, emotions are also powerful

nologies central to gamiﬁcation are still in ﬂux and

motivators for behavior change (Higgins, 2006). In

are often used ﬂuidly, without categorical separa-

either case, behavioral learning theory and operant

tions. To move the practice and research of gami-

conditioning argue that all behavior is motivated by

ﬁcation forward, in this section we introduce the

reinforcements. In addition, behaviors which lead to

roles of game designers, players, spectators,

satisfying outcomes are more likely to lead to re-

and observers, and we deﬁne three gamiﬁcation

peated or ongoing behavior changes while ones with

principles–—mechanics, dynamics, and emotions

unsatisfying outcomes are far less likely to be sus-

(MDE)–—adapted from the game design literature

tained (Skinner, 1938).

(Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). Speciﬁcally,

Successful gamiﬁcation involves the repetition of

our MDE framework is developed from an approach

desired outcomes. Through the motivational mech-

to design games that highlight the need to understand

anisms of reinforcements and emotions, desired

game mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics (Hunicke

outcomes become automatic behavioral processes

et al., 2004). In game design, ‘aesthetics’ describes

or habits (Duhigg, 2012). Habits are formed through

the desirable emotional responses (e.g., fantasy,

providing cues that elicit behaviors and then re-

submission, fellowship, discovery) evoked in players

warding the behavior, thus forming a behavioral loop

when they interact with the game. As these aesthetic

that requires less and less cognitive resources as the

responses are largely computer game-speciﬁc, we

desired behavior is repeatedly reinforced (Duhigg,

use the term ‘emotions’ as it better links to the

2012). Gamiﬁcation can produce desired behavior

engagement outcomes that businesses can attain

change through the formation of habits by reinforcing

from employees and customers. In the coming sec-

the reward and emotional response of the individuals

tions, we provide speciﬁc recommendations on how

participating in the experience, thus requiring fewer

to apply each gamiﬁcation principle and then discuss

cognitive resources each time the desired activity is

how these collectively form the MDE framework that

reproduced.

creates a gamiﬁed experience.

Gamiﬁcation can create desired behavior change

in business contexts through rewarding desired em- 4.1. Designers, players, spectators, and

ployee and customer behaviors, thus leading to more observers

satisfying outcomes for employees or customers than

in a non-gamiﬁed context. The reinforcements that All parties involved in gamiﬁed experiences can be

motivate behavior changes can come in a variety of described using two fundamental dimensions

forms, including extrinsic (i.e., prizes, money) and adapted from Pine and Gilmore (1998): variations

intrinsic (i.e., fun, enjoyment) rewards. Regardless in participation and connection with the gamiﬁed

of the form, the appropriate reinforcement or mix environment. Player participation describes the ex-

thereof is key to motivating a successful behavior tent to which the individual either actively contrib-

change through inspiring affective responses from utes to the experience or is merely passively involved

individuals. Thus, a well-designed gamiﬁcation in it. Player connection describes the type of envi-

experience should include reinforcements–—whether ronmental relationship (absorption vs. immersion)

414 K. Robson et al.

that unites the individual with the experience. In potential players or spectators, as they can assume

absorption, the experience unfolds before the person new roles by seeking out ways to become more active

and occupies the person’s mind, whereas in immer- or immersed in the experience. In a non-game set-

sion, a person becomes part of the experience itself, ting, an observer could include employees in other

either physically or virtually. departments or ofﬁces in the ﬁrm. These employees

There are four types of people involved in gami- have no direct contact with the players, but are

ﬁed experiences–—players, designers, spectators, aware of the gamiﬁed experience and follow the

and observers–—all of whom vary in the extent to outcomes to see who wins.

which they are involved in a passive or active sense Of course, any people involved in gamiﬁcation can,

and in whether they are predominantly absorbed or through their actions, change the extent to which

immersed in the experience. First, players are those they participate in the experience and are connected

who compete in the gamiﬁed experience. They are to it. A player, for example, can decide to watch and

the real performers, those who actively compete in cheer for another player; in doing so, he/she takes on

the experience and are highly immersed. Players a more passive role and is more immersed in the

can include potential, new, or existing employees experience than absorbed by it, thus becoming a

and/or customers of a ﬁrm. Thus, players can be spectator. Consider an employee whose shift is over:

internal or external to the ﬁrm. he or she is no longer a player in the experience, but

Second, designers are the decision makers in he/she may assume a spectator role by supporting

organizations who develop and design, as well as and cheering on colleagues who are just beginning

often manage and maintain, the gamiﬁed experi- their shift. However, we argue that the majority of

ence. For instance, in the context of improving the roles these types of people play in a gamiﬁed

employee engagement, these designers could be experience will fall onto one end of the spectrums of

human resource managers; or, in the context of passive versus active and immersed versus absorbed

boosting customer engagement, these designers (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). In sum, designers set up,

could be customer relationship managers. It is these manage, and maintain the gamiﬁed experience that

designers who will need to understand the MDE the players compete in. Spectators are part of the

framework in order to design and implement an gamiﬁcation environment and can inﬂuence player

effective gamiﬁcation strategy. These designers behavior. Observers are outsiders who can witness

are highly active when setting up the experience, the experience, but do not impact the experience in

but once the experience starts they are predomi- any way. Understanding the individuals that are in-

nantly involved in a passive sense, overseeing the volved in a gamiﬁed experience is fundamental to

experience and ensuring that it is meeting organi- understanding gamiﬁcation. Next, we turn to the

zational goals. basic gamiﬁcation mechanics essential to construct-

Third, spectators are those individuals who do not ing the experience.

directly compete in the gamiﬁed experience but

whose presence will inﬂuence how the gamiﬁed 4.2. Mechanics

experience works. Spectators are part of the gami-

ﬁed environment (e.g., audience members) and are Mechanics are the decisions that designers–—those

therefore highly immersed in the experience. While who wish to gamify a non-game context–—make to

taking a mostly passive role, they indirectly impact specify the goals, the rules, the setting, the con-

the experience by contributing to the atmosphere. text, the types of interactions (i.e., opponents), and

In a non-game setting, for example, a spectator the boundaries of the situation to be gamiﬁed.

could include a supervisor who contributes to the These gamiﬁcation mechanics are known before

atmosphere by serving as a visible authority or a the experience starts and they remain constant.

source of support. Such a supervisor is not involved In other words, they do not change from one player

in designing the gamiﬁed experience or in compet- to the next, and they stay the same each time a

ing in the experience, but is present to ensure that player engages in the experience. In chess, for

the experience progresses smoothly and, in doing example, the mechanics include decisions that have

so, alters player behavior. determined the number of pieces, how pieces move

Finally, there are observers. These are outside and take other pieces, the number and pattern of

individuals who are passively involved and absorbed squares on the board, and how a winner is decided.

in the experience. They have no direct impact on the In terms of organizational control theory, mechanics

gamiﬁed experience and are merely able to watch equate to the organizational systems and technolo-

it from the outside. However, the presence–—and gies that managers can use to induce the required

quantity–—of observers will impact the popularity behaviors and outcomes (McCarthy & Gordon,

of the experience. Furthermore, observers are 2011).

Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamiﬁcation 415

There are three different types of mechanics–— increase the likelihood that certain behaviors will

setup mechanics, rule mechanics, and progression be repeated in the future. To signal their progress,

mechanics–—which are tremendously important not achievement rewards are often used. These could be

only for games, but also for gamiﬁed experiences. virtual victory point systems that players accumulate

Setup mechanics are those considerations that as they progress–—such as scores, levels, progress

shape the environment of the experience, including bars, or resources (e.g., strength)–—but they can also

the setting, what objects are needed, and how be real rewards (e.g., currency). In particular,

the objects are to be distributed among players achievement rewards with social signiﬁcance (e.g.,

(Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007). For example, the setup badges, trophies, leaderboards) indicate the social

mechanics will determine who a player is playing standing within a community and are powerful pro-

against: Is the competitor known or unknown, in- gression mechanics. Progression mechanics provide

ternal or external, a single competitor or a group? important feedback that signals a player’s success

These decisions impact the overall context of the toward victory. However, the achievement rewards

gamiﬁed experience. Designers must consider spa- must be desirable for the players; otherwise, the

tial dimensions to determine where in the real or the experience loses its salience. The distribution of

virtual world the experience will take place, and extrinsic rewards is also an important aspect of

temporal dimensions to regulate when the gamiﬁed progression mechanics since they may be either

experience will happen, whether it is real time- or zero-sum (i.e., some players win and some lose) or

turn-based, or whether it has a ﬁnite end or inﬁnite positive-sum (i.e., overall the rewards are above

play. Design choices regarding player structure limit zero). Designers must plan this distribution carefully,

who can play and whether the experience is for as mistakes could be very costly to the organization

single or multiple players; allow single or multiple and possibly bankrupt the gamiﬁed application’s

teams; and include real friends, strangers, or even budget. Furthermore, having too many rewards–—

computer-controlled allies and enemies. especially top rewards–—may dilute the overall

Rule mechanics shape the concept or goal of the strength of rewards and the meaning of player wins

gamiﬁed experience to be pursued (Elverdam & and/or status levels.

Aarseth, 2007). They not only prescribe the actions Gamiﬁcation mechanics are the foundational as-

that are permissible but also the constraints (e.g., pects of gamiﬁed experience: they determine who

time restriction) that limit those actions in order to the key parties are, how they interact, how to win or

create pressure for players (Kelly, 2012b). Some rule lose, and where and when the experience takes

mechanics are highly deterministic and invariably place. Mechanics form the structure that the gami-

produce the same result if the player input is iden- ﬁed experience exists in; however, on their own,

tical each time. Other rule mechanics are non- mechanics are not enough to create an experience

deterministic, especially when elements of chance that will motivate behavior changes in target em-

are involved or when players are allowed to interact ployees or customers. Emerging from this structure,

with each other. Rule mechanics can be topological, both dynamics and emotions animate the experi-

too, and specify what happens when a player lands ence and are key dimensions in creating the desired

on a speciﬁc real or virtual spot. Think about how a behavior change. This interdependent relationship

player collects a reward for ‘passing Go’ in Monopoly between the three gamiﬁcation dimensions signal to

or how in a gamiﬁed geo-location setting people are designers what changes, if any, need to be made to

rewarded for going places and for checking in to the mechanics to ensure that the organization’s

locations they’re visiting. Time-based rule mechan- goals are met. These components of a gamiﬁed

ics spell out whether players have to act within a experience are discussed next.

time period or how resources build up or deplete

over time. Objective-based rule mechanics specify 4.3. Dynamics

the effects of a speciﬁc circumstance being met

(e.g., completing one level unlocks the next). Gamiﬁcation dynamics are the types of player be-

Progression mechanics describe different types of havior that emerge as players partake in the expe-

instruments that designers embed to affect the ex- rience. Contrary to mechanics that are set by the

perience while it happens (Elverdam & Aarseth, designer, the gamiﬁcation dynamics are produced by

2007). In the context of gamiﬁcation, progression how players follow the mechanics chosen by design-

mechanics are particularly important: they dictate ers. These dynamics describe in-game behaviors and

the reinforcements present in the experience. That the strategic actions and interactions that emerge

is, as behaviors with rewarding outcomes are more during play (Camerer, 2003). In a game context, the

likely to be repeated (Rothschild & Gaidis, 1981), mechanics of the multiplayer card game Poker in-

appropriate progression mechanics are used to clude shufﬂing, trick-taking, and betting, from

416 K. Robson et al.

Figure 1. MDE framework of gamiﬁcation principles

which different dynamics like blufﬁng, cheating,

conspiring, and bragging can emerge. In gamiﬁca-

tion, mechanics such as team-based player struc-

tures can lead to dynamics such as cooperation,

while an individual player structure may lend itself

to a more competitive dynamic. Beyond player

structure, the presence of both spectators and ob-

servers has a number of implications with respect to

player dynamics. For example, in negotiation games

when players know they are being watched–—by

observers or spectators–—Lewicki, Barry, and Saun-

ders (2014) suggest that a number of player behaviors

result. For example, players are more competitive

when they know they are being watched, as they do

not wish to look bad in front of others. Relatedly,

players are less willing to quit, concede, or settle.

Ultimately, possible dynamics include competition,

cooperation, coopetition, cheating, and many other

behaviors.

Gamiﬁcation dynamics are difﬁcult to predict and also shows how small changes in one principle can

thus can lead to unintended behaviors and out- impact the other two and create different experi-

comes, which can be positive or negative in nature. ences. Furthermore, the MDE framework helps clarify

Designers do not know exactly what will happen how designers and players perceive gamiﬁed expe-

(LeBlanc, 2004). Consequently, the challenge for riences differently (LeBlanc, 2004). Speciﬁcally, ga-

designers is to anticipate the types of dynamics that miﬁcation designers’ foremost focus is on selecting

can emerge and to develop the mechanics of the appropriate mechanics in order to retain control over

experience appropriately. the experience, followed by a focus on dynamics, and

lastly on players’ emotions. For players, on the other

4.4. Emotions hand, emotions are key. The adrenaline rush resulting

from surviving a vicarious adventure or mastering a

Gamiﬁcation emotions are the mental affective mental challenge and the associated dynamics

states and reactions evoked among individual play- is more important than the rules that make them

ers when they participate in a gamiﬁed experience. possible (Lazzaro, 2004). In optimized gamiﬁed

Emotions are a product of how players follow the experiences, players’ emotional responses and

mechanics and then generate dynamics. As with the dynamics that emerge during play shape the

games, the emotions in a gamiﬁed experience mechanics that govern play and vice versa. As

should be fun-oriented and appealing, not only on a result, understanding gamiﬁcation mechanics,

a pragmatic level but also on an emotional level dynamics, and emotions and how these principles

(LeBlanc, 2004). Assuming that players will not relate to one another is key for successfully gamifying

continue to play if they do not enjoy themselves, an experience.

creating player enjoyment should be seen as the

single-most important player engagement goal for

gamiﬁcation (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Such fun 5. Gamiﬁcation at work: The case of

and enjoyment can come in many different forms, American Idol

including positive emotions such as excitement,

amusement, amazement, surprise, wonder, and In what follows, we use a very well-known and

personal triumph over adversity. While fun should ratings-busting TV show in America, American Idol,

be part of the experience, a mix of emotions is often to illustrate how the different gamiﬁcation princi-

felt by the players. This could include negative ples can motivate desired behavior changes among

feelings, such as disappointment at losing or sadness employees and customers. We use American Idol for

at not achieving a reward. three reasons: (1) it exempliﬁes how to increase

In sum, the MDE framework outlines the interde- engagement and change behavior through gamiﬁca-

pendent relationship of the gamiﬁcation principles of tion, (2) it demonstrates how to improve both

mechanics, dynamics, and emotions (Figure 1) and customer and employee engagement, and (3) it

illustrates how these principles can be applied to- illustrates how gamiﬁcation can become a success

gether to create and extend the player experience. It story.

Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamiﬁcation 417

First, American Idol is not just an entertaining aligning the mechanics, dynamics, and emotions it

show, but also an excellent example of how to developed for contestants with those developed for

increase the engagement and change the behavior audience members (Amegashie, 2009; Ciulla et al.,

of both employees (i.e., the artists who hope to 2012; Meizel, 2011).

secure record deals) and customers (i.e., viewers

who watch and vote) through gamiﬁcation. Tradi- 5.1. American Idol mechanics

tional talent searches were much less engaging

because they relied on individual talent scouts to As designed by its setup and spatial mechanics,

bring their discoveries to recording companies in American Idol hosts auditions online and in various

hopes of securing a contract. Likewise, the older cities in the U.S., takes place in front of a live studio

model of engaging audience members was based on audience of more than 7,000 members, and is broad-

the weekly popularity of songs as measured by radio cast to millions via television and the Internet.

airplay and Billboard Charts–—which stimulated Temporal mechanics are employed such that once

sales. Simon Fuller and his team, the designers of a week, for an average of 10 weeks, American Idol

American Idol, cleverly gamiﬁed these two very contestants take turns performing songs based on a

traditional practices, which we argue are not unlike weekly theme (e.g., Motown, Elvis, Number 1 hits).

many other business processes. For instance, Regarding player structure, American Idol creatively

American Idol is an example of gamifying traditional combines some of the choices involving both con-

human resource management: All contestants enter testants and their supporters (i.e., observers and

into a contractual agreement with 19 Entertain- spectators) in the experience. Spectators include

ment, the production company behind American members of the live studio audience and individuals

Idol, before they ever set foot on a stage. Much like at home watching on their television who vote via

other employees, they work on a probationary peri- voice calls, SMS texts, or the American Idol website

od before some of them receive continuing con- (Amegashie, 2009; Ciulla et al., 2012). Observers

tracts. As regards audience experience, we argue are those fans who are not part of the studio audi-

that American Idol illustrates how traditional prod- ence and who do not participate in the experience

uct development and sales experiences can be ga- by voting, but merely view the show for personal

miﬁed. Firms often solicit the input of customers enjoyment. The players, spectators, and observers

during the development of a product or service all consent to be involved in American Idol. This is

(e.g., in beta releases or usability tests). The audi- important, because when consent to participate

ence of American Idol is in essence a very large and in games is present, positive affects increase;

highly engaged focus group where the opinions of when consent is lacking, positive affects decrease

customers are collected to select and improve the (Burawoy, 1979; Mollick & Rothbard, 2014).

ﬁrm’s offerings. In the case of American Idol, setup mechanics

Second, most gamiﬁcation activities are focused are plentiful and varied, and any number of com-

on improving either customer or employee engage- binations is possible. However, what these me-

ment. By including the talent search (i.e., engaging chanics have in common is that they are all

potential new employees) and record sales (i.e., decisions that inﬂuence the experience before it

engaging customers) in one show, American Idol commences. One of the most basic rule mechanics

demonstrates that these two can be combined. for American Idol is that the popularity of contest-

The result is a two-sided gamiﬁed experience that ants is highly dependent on comparisons with other

increases the engagement and changes the behavior contestants (Amegashie, 2009). Time-based rule

of employees and customers at the same time. This mechanics in American Idol spell out whether play-

is particularly interesting in the context of managers ers have to act within a time period (e.g., when

looking to grow their engagement with communities spectators can vote, again and again, for their

inside and outside the ﬁrm simultaneously to build favorite contestants on American Idol) and how

value for the brand internally and externally. resources build up or deplete over time (e.g., votes

Lastly, American Idol illustrates how the resulting collected by each contestant cannot be carried

gamiﬁed experience can become a success story in its forward into the next round, and the score is reset

own right. American Idol has not only produced such each week). Contestants at the top of the popu-

hugely successful entertainers as Carrie Underwood, larity scale will move forward, making popularity

Kelly Clarkson, and Jennifer Hudson–—through and votes from spectators key to the progression

gamiﬁed employee engagement during the talent mechanics of American Idol. The ultimate reward

search–—and sold millions of albums–—through gami- in American Idol is being the ﬁnalist–—as voted by

ﬁed customer engagement leading to sales–—but it spectators–—and thus receiving a lucrative record-

has also created a highly proﬁtable TV show by ing contract and fame.

418 K. Robson et al.

5.2. American Idol dynamics the show’s recording labels identify and sign popular

contestants. As of 2012, over 59 million albums and

American Idol primarily leverages the contestants’ 110 million singles and digital tracks have sold in the

desire to win and spectators’ desire to see their United States alone (Ciulla et al., 2012).

favorites succeed. For the contestants, time pres-

sure and opponent play are included to reward

competitive dynamics and motivate individual con- 6. Game on! The value of gamiﬁcation

testants to perform at their best in solo perfor-

mances. In other cases, winning conditions that All organizations need to motivate and engage

require working with other players (e.g., duets or stakeholders, whether these stakeholders are vot-

group performances) are included to drive collabo- ers, students, patients, employees, or consumers.

rative dynamics. Audience members as spectators Gamiﬁcation is an approach to achieving this: It

cheer on singers; their role is signiﬁcant because the employs lessons from the gaming domain to create

audience contributes to dynamics of the experi- experiences that motivate and engage individuals in

ence. non-game settings. The goal of our article has been

to advance the understanding of gamiﬁcation con-

5.3. American Idol emotions cepts, applications, and impacts. To do this we have

provided three contributions. First, we deﬁned ga-

Participants in American Idol undergo a number of miﬁcation and explained how it has been used to

emotional responses. For contestants, emotions are design highly engaging processes in a range of ser-

even more powerful–—often visible through the tears vice industries. Second, we introduced the MDE

of joy and sorrow–—and include nervousness, exhil- framework to show how gamiﬁcation mechanics,

aration, pride, and euphoria–—even frustration. dynamics, and emotions are used to create gamiﬁed

Spectators experience anxiety as the time to cast experiences. Third, using the case of American Idol,

votes runs out, and both spectators and observers we illustrated how MDE was used to transition a

experience excitement when the winners are an- traditional talent search to an important cultural

nounced, followed by happiness and relief or sad- phenomenon that engaged not only the contestants

ness, depending on the outcome of their favorite but also a whole nation of viewers. From these

contestant (Ciulla et al., 2012). Aspirations for contributions we present ﬁve summary guidelines

the emotions associated with a big win help over- to help ﬁrms capture value using our gamiﬁcation

come smaller emotional disappointments that play- framework:

ers experience–—which helps explain why people

continue to play even when they lose most of 1. What’s the goal of the game? A process should

the time. These desired and aspired mental states not be gamiﬁed simply for the sake of gamiﬁca-

are the reasons why players start and continue to tion itself. It should be driven by goals that can

participate. But, of course, these emotions do not be ﬁnancial, social, or environmental. Firms

emerge by themselves: They are shaped by the should assess the potential to use gamiﬁcation

interplay of mechanics and dynamics. to produce and adjust behaviors and outcomes

American Idol is a successful example of how a needed to attain those goals. Focusing on one

gamiﬁed talent search can motivate people–—sing- goal, not two or three, minimizes complexity and

ers and numerous fans–—to participate actively in ensures that mechanics, dynamics, and emotions

the selection and marketing of the next pop star do not conﬂict or offset each other (Kelly,

(Amegashie, 2009; Ciulla et al., 2012; Meizel, 2011). 2012a). Firms should also identify different ga-

The setup mechanics are carefully designed (e.g., miﬁcation measures and targets and understand

with its real-time and its online presence), as are how the intended mechanics, dynamics, and

rule mechanics (jury member voting, viewer phone- emotions would drive and moderate these mea-

in balloting, and performers singing for survival or sures. It is important to determine the causality

elimination) and progress mechanics (posting the between the gamiﬁcation measures and the busi-

voting tally in real time). Together these mechanics ness goals.

fundamentally support the collaborative and com-

petitive nature of the talent search competition, 2. Recognize all the different roles. Most gamiﬁca-

and in turn give rise to the powerful emotional tion examples focus only on the connection be-

attachment felt by contestants and members of tween the designer and the players. This is

the audience alike. The MDE alignment has resulted important because it promotes an in-depth under-

in more than 100 million votes–—the record is cur- standing of the links between mechanics, dynam-

rently 132 million votes during season 11–—that help ics, emotions, and player-related outcomes.

Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamiﬁcation 419

However, it is also important to understand when life of a gamiﬁed process. Designers must rec-

to incorporate spectators and/or observers and ognize that this phase exists, and they must be

how their participation can energize and direct able to adjust and conclude the process so that

different behaviors and outcomes in a process. players, spectators, and observers will be will-

Spectators and observers played a very signiﬁcant ing to return and engage with new gamiﬁed

role in the success of American Idol. processes.

3. Gaming the game. People will want to try and References

cheat a gamiﬁed process. There will be players,

observers, and spectators who will try to game Amegashie, J. (2009). American Idol: Should it be a singing

the game by colluding and breaking the rules. It is contest or a popularity contest? Journal of Cultural Econom-

ics, 33(4), 265—277.

important to understand both the positives and

Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F. , McCarthy, I., & Kates, S. M. (2007).

negatives of this human endeavor. On the one

When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing

hand, it can create dynamics that lead to unde-

with creative consumers. Business Horizons, 50(1), 39—47.

sirable emotions (i.e., perceived injustice) that Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor

could put off other players, observers, and spec- process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

tators. Furthermore, individuals might extract

Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in

excessive rewards that outweigh any beneﬁts to

strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

the ﬁrm using the gamiﬁcation. However, there Press.

can be positive learning and change that come Ciulla, F. , Mocanu, D., Baronchelli, A., Gonc¸alves, B., Perra, N., &

from rule breaking. For example, these behav- Vespignani, A. (2012). Beating the news using social media:

The case study of American Idol. EPJ Data Science, 1(1), 1—11.

iors can be the basis for modifying the mechanics

Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit: Why we do what we do in

of a gamiﬁed process so as to attain deeper

life and business. New York: Random House LLC.

loyalty engagement and improve the outcomes,

Elverdam, C., & Aarseth, E. (2007). Game classiﬁcation and game

because when an innovation is produced by a design construction through critical analysis. Games and Cul-

creative individual rather than the ﬁrm, the ture, 2(1), 3—22.

Gartner. (2011, November 9). Gartner predicts over 70 percent of

adoption and use of that innovation is more

global 2000 organisations will have at least one gamiﬁed

impactful and enduring (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy,

application by 2014. Available at http://www.gartner.com/

& Kates, 2007). it/page.jsp?id=1844115

Gartner. (2012, November 27). Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent

4. Adjust and transition the experience. It is un- of current gamiﬁed applications will fail to meet business

objectives primarily due to poor design. Available from

likely that an organization will stand still once

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2251015

players start playing, or that organizational de-

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engage-

sires to transform behavior will remain the same

ment. Psychological Review, 113(3), 439—460.

over time. As other aspects of the organization Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal

change, so too should the gamiﬁed experience. approach to game design and game research. Paper presented

at the Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in

As in any strategic investment, keeping focus on

Game AI, San Jose, CA.

the managerial goals and strategic objectives is

Kelly, T. (2012a, November 17). Everything you’ll ever need to

important. This means that the gamiﬁed experi-

know about gamiﬁcation. Available at http://techcrunch.

ence will constantly need to be monitored, both com/2012/11/17/everything-youll-ever-need-to-know-

internally (Does it still make sense?) and exter- about-gamiﬁcation/

Kelly, T. (2012b, December 8). Real gamiﬁcation mechanics

nally (Are players, observers, and spectators still

require simplicity and, yes, game designers can do

excited and engaged?). Mechanics should be

it. Available at http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/08/

adjusted accordingly so that individuals will real-vs-fake-gamiﬁcation-mechanics/

continue playing and not move on to something Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and

that is more exciting (in terms of emotions) or simulations in education and research. Journal of Manage-

ment, 16(2), 307—336.

more engaging (in terms of the overall experi-

ence). Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P. , & Silvestre, B. S.

(2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the func-

tional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons,

5. What’s the endgame for the game? Eventually, 54(3), 241—251.

the gamiﬁed experience will come to an end. Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why we play games: Four keys to more

emotion without story. Oakland, CA: XEODesign.

Adjusting and transitioning the experience will

LeBlanc, M. (2004). Game design and tuning workshop materials.

prolong its usefulness to the organization; how-

Presentation at the Game Developers Conference: San Jose,

ever, managers should watch out for signs that CA.

the experience has simply lost its appeal to Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2014). Negotiation.

players. The endgame is the ﬁnal phase in the New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

420 K. Robson et al.

McCarthy, I. P. , & Gordon, B. R. (2011). Achieving contextual Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental

ambidexterity in R&D organizations: A management control analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.

system approach. R&D Management, 41(3), 240—258. Sweetser, P. , & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evalu-

Meizel, K. (2011). Idolized: Music, media, and identity in ating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertain-

American Idol. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. ment (CIE), 3(3), 1—24.

Mollick, E. R., & Rothbard, N. (2014, September 30). Mandatory Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York:

fun: Consent, gamiﬁcation, and the impact of games at AG Seiler.

work. The Wharton School Research Paper Series. Available Wingﬁeld, C. (2012, December 23). All the world’s a game,

at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2277103 and business is a player. The New York Times. Available at

Pine, B. J., II, & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/technology/all-

economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97—105. the-worlds-a-game-and-business-is-a-player.html?_r=0

Rothschild, M. L., & Gaidis, W. C. (1981). Behavioral learning Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamiﬁcation by

theory: Its relevance to marketing and promotions. Journal of design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile

Marketing, 45(2), 70—78. apps. San Francisco: O’Reilly Media.