Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification

Abstract

There is growing interest in how gamification—defined as the application of game design principles in non-gaming contexts—can be used in business. However, academic research and management practice have paid little attention to the challenges of how best to design, implement, manage, and optimize gamification strategies. To advance understanding of gamification, this article defines what it is and explains how it prompts managers to think about business practice in new and innovative ways. Drawing upon the game design literature, we present a framework of three gamification principles—mechanics, dynamics, and emotions (MDE)—to explain how gamified experiences can be created. We then provide an extended illustration of gamification and conclude with ideas for future research and application opportunities.

Full text

BUSHOR-1216;
No.
of
Pages
10
Is
it
all
a
game?
Understanding
the
principles
of
gamification
Karen
Robson
a,
*,
Kirk
Plangger
b
,
Jan
H.
Kietzmann
a
,
Ian
McCarthy
a
,
Leyland
Pitt
a
a
Beedie
School
of
Business,
Simon
Fraser
University,
500
Granville
Street,
Vancouver,
BC
V6C
1W6,
Canada
b
King’s
College
London,
University
of
London,
Franklin-Wilkins
Building,
150
Stamford
Street,
London
SE1
9NH,
UK
1.
Press
play
to
start
Games
are
everywhere.
We
play
games
while
trav-
eling,
while
relaxing,
or
while
at
work,
simply
to
create
enjoyable
experiences
for
ourselves
and
for
others.
Firms,
too,
have
long
motivated
their
employees
and
customers
with
game-like
incentives
(e.g.,
competitions
among
financial
traders,
leader-
boards
for
salespeople,
participation
badges).
However,
increasing
engagement
and
rewarding
desired
behavior
with
such
incentives
has
always
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
deeper,
more
engaging
game-like
experiences
for
many
of
their
customers
and
for
their
employees.
This
process
is
commonly
referred
to
as
gamifica-
tion.
Business
Horizons
(2015)
xxx,
xxx—xxx
Available
online
at
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
KEYWORDS
Gamification;
Experience;
Mechanics;
Dynamics;
Emotions;
Behavior
change;
Motivation;
American
Idol
Abstract
There
is
growing
interest
in
how
gamification–—defined
as
the
application
of
game
design
principles
in
non-gaming
contexts–—can
be
used
in
business.
However,
academic
research
and
management
practice
have
paid
little
attention
to
the
challenges
of
how
best
to
design,
implement,
manage,
and
optimize
gamification
strategies.
To
advance
understanding
of
gamification,
this
article
defines
what
it
is
and
explains
how
it
prompts
managers
to
think
about
business
practice
in
new
and
innovative
ways.
Drawing
upon
the
game
design
literature,
we
present
a
framework
of
three
gamification
principles–—mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
(MDE)–—to
explain
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.
*
Corresponding
author
E-mail
addresses:
krobson@sfu.ca
(K.
Robson),
kirk.plangger@me.com
(K.
Plangger),
jan_kietzmann@sfu.ca
(J.H.
Kietzmann),
imccarth@sfu.ca
(I.
McCarthy),
lpitt@sfu.ca
(L.
Pitt)
0007-6813/$
—
see
front
matter
#
2015
Kelley
School
of
Business,
Indiana
University.
Published
by
Elsevier
Inc.
All
rights
reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006

Gamification
has
potentially
wide
applications
in
contexts
such
as
healthcare,
sustainability,
govern-
ment,
transportation,
and
education,
among
others.
For
instance,
more
than
75
energy
companies
are
already
using
Opower,
a
service
that
equips
homes
with
sensors
enabling
residents
to
compare
their
household energy
consumption with
that
of
neighbors,
and
broadcasting
their
achievements
on
Facebook
(Wingfield,
2012).
Samsung
Nation,
Pepsi
Soundoff,
and
other
online
loyalty
programs
use
points,
levels
(e.g.,
gold
status),
or
badges
to
drive
customer
en-
gagement
and
deepen
the
relationships
they
have
with
the
brands
they
use
or
aspire
to
use.
Drivers
of
a
Nissan
Leaf
can
collect
points
for
driving
in
an
ecologically
friendly
manner,
and
can
compete
with
theirfriends
on
Facebook.
Xerox
employs
gamification
to
train
managers
who
collaborate
online
to
complete
quests,
and
Salesforce
uses
challenges
and
leader-
boards
to
increase
sales.
Microsoft
has
gamified
the
relatively
tedious
but
important
process
of
translating
its
Windows
7
operating
system
into
different
lan-
guages
and
adapting
it
to
work
in
different
cultures.
Although
studies
suggest
that
70%
of
the
world’s
largest
public
companies
will
have
at
least
one
ga-
mified
application
in
the
next
2
years
(Gartner,
2011),
there
are
warnings
that
about
80%
of
current
gamified
applications
will
fail
to
meet
business
objectives
(Gartner,
2012),
primarily
because
processes
have
been
inappropriately
gamified.
A
likely
reason
for
this
is
a
lack
of
understanding
of
what
gamification
is,
how
gamification
works
and,
more
specifically,
how
to
design
gamification
experiences
that
inspire
player
(e.g.,
employee,
customer,
citizen)
behavior
changes
and
result
in
desirable
outcomes.
However,
the
academic
business
literature
offers
little
direction
to,
or
understanding
of,
gamifica-
tion,
its
design
principles,
and
the
key
underlying
psychological
motivations
by
which
gamification
changes
behavior
and
achieves
organizational
goals.
Thus,
we
begin
by
defining
gamification
and
describ-
ing
its
application
in
organizations.
Next,
we
explain
the
psychology
behind
the
promise
of
gamification.
We
then
introduce
a
framework,
rooted
in
game
design,
that
includes
three
principles
for
creating
gamification
experiences:
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
(MDE).
Next,
we
link
the
MDE
frame-
work
to
employee
and
customer
engagement
by
illustrating
its
application
in
the
popular
reality
television
show
American
Idol.
Finally,
we
present
concluding
remarks
on
gamification
and
present
ideas
for
future
research
and
application.
2.
Gamification
defined
The
term
gamification
could
be
misleading,
suggest-
ing
that
it
represents
the
use
of
actual
games,
real-world
simulations
(Keys
&
Wolfe,
1990),
or
game
theory
in
organizational
settings
(Camerer,
2003).
It
does
not.
Rather,
gamification
is
the
appli-
cation
of
lessons
from
the
gaming
domain
to
change
behaviors
in
non-game
situations.
‘Gamified’
expe-
riences
can
focus
on
business
processes
(e.g.,
cus-
tomer
acquisition)
or
outcomes
(e.g.,
employee
sales).
Moreover,
these
experiences
can
involve
participants–—or
players–—outside
of
a
firm
(e.g.,
to
co-develop
products
with
customers)
and/or
within
it
(e.g.,
to
improve
employee
satisfaction).
While
firms’
use
of
such
game-like
experiences
to
control
behavior
and
increase
loyalty
and
engage-
ment
is
not
new,
efforts
to
date
have
neither
sought
to
learn
from
formal
game
design
principles
nor
been
labeled
gamification.
In
fact,
the
term
gami-
fication
only
started
to
attract
widespread
attention
in
non-gaming
contexts
in
2010
(Zichermann
&
Cun-
ningham,
2011).
We
suggest
the
heightened
interest
in
gamification
today
is
the
result
of
three
recent
developments.
First,
over
the
last
20
years
with
the
growth
and
importance
of
the
computer
game
industry,
game
designers
and
researchers
have
invested
significant-
ly
in
studies
to
better
understand
what
makes
a
computer
game
engaging
and
successful.
This
has
led
to
a
number
of
theories
and
lessons
about
the
design
and
management
of
gaming
experiences,
and
to
frameworks
about
incentives
that
motivate
indi-
viduals
to
play.
In
the
next
section,
we
build
on
this
work
and
introduce
three
important
gamification
principles
that
are
based
on
the
gaming
literature’s
lessons:
mechanics
(i.e.,
the
goals,
rules,
and
re-
wards),
dynamics
(i.e.,
how
players
enact
the
me-
chanics),
and
emotions
(i.e.,
how
players
feel
toward
the
gamified
experience).
Second,
the
pervasiveness
of
social
media
and
mobile
and
Web-based
technologies
has
changed
how
individuals
and
organizations
participate
in,
share,
co-create,
discuss,
and
modify
any
type
of
experience
(Kietzmann,
Hermkens,
McCarthy,
&
Silvestre,
2011).
Today’s
firms
can
request
and
generate
previously
unattainable
amounts
of
data
about
people
and
their
opinions,
feelings,
and
be-
havior.
The
quantity
and
quality
of
the
resulting
insights
has
only
now
become
useful
for
producing
gamified
employment
or
consumption
experiences
at
scale,
which
in
turn
will
yield
new
data.
Third,
firms
are
continually
looking
for
new
and
impactful
ways
to
better
connect
with,
learn
from,
and
influence
the
behaviors
of
employees
and
cus-
tomers.
Three
recent
developments
provide
a
rich
landscape
of
opportunities
to
innovate
in
this
re-
gard:
(1)
new
knowledge
about
the
design
and
management
of
gaming
experiences
(2)
combined
with
the
advent
of
social
media
and
technology
and
BUSHOR-1216;
No.
of
Pages
10
2
K.
Robson
et
al.

(3)
the
heightened
interest
in
providing
more
en-
gaging
experiences.
3.
Why
gamification
works
Gamification
can
change
stakeholder
behavior
be-
cause
it
taps
into
motivational
drivers
of
human
behavior
in
two
connected
ways:
reinforcements
and
emotions.
First,
both
positive
and
negative
reinforcements
encourage
repetition
of
behaviors,
as
operant
conditioning
(Skinner,
1938)
and
the
law
of
effect
(Thorndike,
1905)
show
us.
These
ap-
proaches
have
long
been
used
in
psychology
to
explain
a
range
of
human
behaviors
as
well
as
behavior
modification.
They
also
posit
that
behavior
changes
can
be
motivated
either
through
extrinsic
or
intrinsic
reinforcements.
That
is,
while
external
factors
such
as
money
or
fame
can
certainly
moti-
vate
human
behavior,
emotions
are
also
powerful
motivators
for
behavior
change
(Higgins,
2006).
In
either
case,
behavioral
learning
theory
and
operant
conditioning
argue
that
all
behavior
is
motivated
by
reinforcements.
In
addition,
behaviors
which
lead
to
satisfying
outcomes
are
more
likely
to
lead
to
re-
peated
or
ongoing
behavior
changes
while
ones
with
unsatisfying
outcomes
are
far
less
likely
to
be
sus-
tained
(Skinner,
1938).
Successful
gamification
involves
the
repetition
of
desired
outcomes.
Through
the
motivational
mech-
anisms
of
reinforcements
and
emotions,
desired
outcomes
become
automatic
behavioral
processes
or
habits
(Duhigg,
2012).
Habits
are
formed
through
providing
cues
that
elicit
behaviors
and
then
re-
warding
the
behavior,
thus
forming
a
behavioral
loop
that
requires
less
and
less
cognitive
resources
as
the
desired
behavior
is
repeatedly
reinforced
(Duhigg,
2012).
Gamification
can
produce
desired
behavior
change
through
the
formation
of
habits
by
reinforcing
the
reward
and
emotional
response
of
the
individuals
participating
in
the
experience,
thus
requiring
fewer
cognitive
resources
each
time
the
desired
activity
is
reproduced.
Gamification
can
create
desired
behavior
change
in
business
contexts
through
rewarding
desired
em-
ployee
and
customer
behaviors,
thus
leading
to
more
satisfying
outcomes
for
employees
or
customers
than
in
a
non-gamified
context.
The
reinforcements
that
motivate
behavior
changes
can
come
in
a
variety
of
forms,
including
extrinsic
(i.e.,
prizes,
money)
and
intrinsic
(i.e.,
fun,
enjoyment)
rewards.
Regardless
of
the
form,
the
appropriate
reinforcement
or
mix
thereof
is
key
to
motivating
a
successful
behavior
change
through
inspiring
affective
responses
from
individuals.
Thus,
a
well-designed
gamification
experience
should
include
reinforcements–—whether
positive
or
negative,
such
as
loss
avoidance–—and
should
generally
lead
to
satisfying
outcomes
for
the
players.
Through
this
mix
of
rewards
and
emo-
tions,
employees
and
customers
in
a
gamified
expe-
rience
repeat
the
behavioral
outcome
desired
by
the
organization
in
a
habitual
or
routine
form
(Duhigg,
2012).
Through
tapping
into
rewards
and
emotions,
an
effective
gamification
experience
will
motivate
individuals’
behavior
changes
in
business
settings.
In
order
to
understand
how
to
design
an
effective
ga-
mified
experience,
we
examine
the
fundamental
principles
that
underpin
gamification
by
introducing
the
MDE
framework.
4.
Gamification
principles:
The
MDE
framework
As
with
any
emerging
area
of
endeavor,
the
termi-
nologies
central
to
gamification
are
still
in
flux
and
are
often
used
fluidly,
without
categorical
separa-
tions.
To
move
the
practice
and
research
of
gami-
fication
forward,
in
this
section
we
introduce
the
roles
of
game
designers,
players,
spectators,
and
observers,
and
we
define
three
gamification
principles–—mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
(MDE)–—adapted
from
the
game
design
literature
(Hunicke,
LeBlanc,
&
Zubek,
2004).
Specifically,
our
MDE
framework
is
developed
from
an
approach
to
design
games
that
highlight
the
need
to
understand
game
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
aesthetics
(Hunicke
et
al.,
2004).
In
game
design,
‘aesthetics’
describes
the
desirable
emotional
responses
(e.g.,
fantasy,
submission,
fellowship,
discovery)
evoked
in
players
when
they
interact
with
the
game.
As
these
aesthetic
responses
are
largely
computer
game-specific,
we
use
the
term
‘emotions’
as
it
better
links
to
the
engagement
outcomes
that
businesses
can
attain
from
employees
and
customers.
In
the
coming
sec-
tions,
we
provide
specific
recommendations
on
how
to
apply
each
gamification
principle
and
then
discuss
how
these
collectively
form
the
MDE
framework
that
creates
a
gamified
experience.
4.1.
Designers,
players,
spectators,
and
observers
All
parties
involved
in
gamified
experiences
can
be
described
using
two
fundamental
dimensions
adapted
from
Pine
and
Gilmore
(1998):
variations
in
participation
and
connection
with
the
gamified
environment.
Player
participation
describes
the
ex-
tent
to
which
the
individual
either
actively
contrib-
utes
to
the
experience
or
is
merely
passively
involved
in
it.
Player
connection
describes
the
type
of
envi-
ronmental
relationship
(absorption
vs.
immersion)
BUSHOR-1216;
No.
of
Pages
10
Is
it
all
a
game?
Understanding
the
principles
of
gamification
3

that
unites
the
individual
with
the
experience.
In
absorption,
the
experience
unfolds
before
the
person
and
occupies
the
person’s
mind,
whereas
in
immer-
sion,
a
person
becomes
part
of
the
experience
itself,
either
physically
or
virtually.
There
are
four
types
of
people
involved
in
gami-
fied
experiences–—players,
designers,
spectators,
and
observers–—all
of
whom
vary
in
the
extent
to
which
they
are
involved
in
a
passive
or
active
sense
and
in
whether
they
are
predominantly
absorbed
or
immersed
in
the
experience.
First,
players
are
those
who
compete
in
the
gamified
experience.
They
are
the
real
performers,
those
who
actively
compete
in
the
experience
and
are
highly
immersed.
Players
can
include
potential,
new,
or
existing
employees
and/or
customers
of
a
firm.
Thus,
players
can
be
internal
or
external
to
the
firm.
Second,
designers
are
the
decision
makers
in
organizations
who
develop
and
design,
as
well
as
often
manage
and
maintain,
the
gamified
experi-
ence.
For
instance,
in
the
context
of
improving
employee
engagement,
these
designers
could
be
human
resource
managers;
or,
in
the
context
of
boosting
customer
engagement,
these
designers
could
be
customer
relationship
managers.
It
is
these
designers
who
will
need
to
understand
the
MDE
framework
in
order
to
design
and
implement
an
effective
gamification
strategy.
These
designers
are
highly
active
when
setting
up
the
experience,
but
once
the
experience
starts
they
are
predomi-
nantly
involved
in
a
passive
sense,
overseeing
the
experience
and
ensuring
that
it
is
meeting
organi-
zational
goals.
Third,
spectators
are
those
individuals
who
do
not
directly
compete
in
the
gamified
experience
but
whose
presence
will
influence
how
the
gamified
experience
works.
Spectators
are
part
of
the
gami-
fied
environment
(e.g.,
audience
members)
and
are
therefore
highly
immersed
in
the
experience.
While
taking
a
mostly
passive
role,
they
indirectly
impact
the
experience
by
contributing
to
the
atmosphere.
In
a
non-game
setting,
for
example,
a
spectator
could
include
a
supervisor
who
contributes
to
the
atmosphere
by
serving
as
a
visible
authority
or
a
source
of
support.
Such
a
supervisor
is
not
involved
in
designing
the
gamified
experience
or
in
compet-
ing
in
the
experience,
but
is
present
to
ensure
that
the
experience
progresses
smoothly
and,
in
doing
so,
alters
player
behavior.
Finally,
there
are
observers.
These
are
outside
individuals
who
are
passively
involved
and
absorbed
in
the
experience.
They
have
no
direct
impact
on
the
gamified
experience
and
are
merely
able
to
watch
it
from
the
outside.
However,
the
presence–—and
quantity–—of
observers
will
impact
the
popularity
of
the
experience.
Furthermore,
observers
are
potential
players
or
spectators,
as
they
can
assume
new
roles
by
seeking
out
ways
to
become
more
active
or
immersed
in
the
experience.
In
a
non-game
set-
ting,
an
observer
could
include
employees
in
other
departments
or
offices
in
the
firm.
These
employees
have
no
direct
contact
with
the
players,
but
are
aware
of
the
gamified
experience
and
follow
the
outcomes
to
see
who
wins.
Of
course,
any
people
involved
in
gamification
can,
through
their
actions,
change
the
extent
to
which
they
participate
in
the
experience
and
are
connected
to
it.
A
player,
for
example,
can
decide
to
watch
and
cheer
for
another
player;
in
doing
so,
he/she
takes
on
a
more
passive
role
and
is
more
immersed
in
the
experience
than
absorbed
by
it,
thus
becoming
a
spectator.
Consider
an
employee
whose
shift
is
over:
he
or
she
is
no
longer
a
player
in
the
experience,
but
he/she
may
assume
a
spectator
role
by
supporting
and
cheering
on
colleagues
who
are
just
beginning
their
shift.
However,
we
argue
that
the
majority
of
the
roles
these
types
of
people
play
in
a
gamified
experience
will
fall
onto
one
end
of
the
spectrums
of
passive
versus
active
and
immersed
versus
absorbed
(Pine
&
Gilmore,
1998).
In
sum,
designers
set
up,
manage,
and
maintain
the
gamified
experience
that
the
players
compete
in.
Spectators
are
part
of
the
gamification
environment
and
can
influence
player
behavior.
Observers
are
outsiders
who
can
witness
the
experience,
but
do
not
impact
the
experience
in
any
way.
Understanding
the
individuals
that
are
in-
volved
in
a
gamified
experience
is
fundamental
to
understanding
gamification.
Next,
we
turn
to
the
basic
gamification
mechanics
essential
to
construct-
ing
the
experience.
4.2.
Mechanics
Mechanics
are
the
decisions
that
designers–—those
who
wish
to
gamify
a
non-game
context–—make
to
specify
the
goals,
the
rules,
the
setting,
the
con-
text,
the
types
of
interactions
(i.e.,
opponents),
and
the
boundaries
of
the
situation
to
be
gamified.
These
gamification
mechanics
are
known
before
the
experience
starts
and
they
remain
constant.
In
other
words,
they
do
not
change
from
one
player
to
the
next,
and
they
stay
the
same
each
time
a
player
engages
in
the
experience.
In
chess,
for
example,
the
mechanics
include
decisions
that
have
determined
the
number
of
pieces,
how
pieces
move
and
take
other
pieces,
the
number
and
pattern
of
squares
on
the
board,
and
how
a
winner
is
decided.
In
terms
of
organizational
control
theory,
mechanics
equate
to
the
organizational
systems
and
technolo-
gies
that
managers
can
use
to
induce
the
required
behaviors
and
outcomes
(McCarthy
&
Gordon,
2011).
BUSHOR-1216;
No.
of
Pages
10
4
K.
Robson
et
al.

There
are
three
different
types
of
mechanics–—
setup
mechanics,
rule
mechanics,
and
progression
mechanics–—which
are
tremendously
important
not
only
for
games,
but
also
for
gamified
experiences.
Setup
mechanics
are
those
considerations
that
shape
the
environment
of
the
experience,
including
the
setting,
what
objects
are
needed,
and
how
the
objects
are
to
be
distributed
among
players
(Elverdam
&
Aarseth,
2007).
For
example,
the
setup
mechanics
will
determine
who
a
player
is
playing
against:
Is
the
competitor
known
or
unknown,
in-
ternal
or
external,
a
single
competitor
or
a
group?
These
decisions
impact
the
overall
context
of
the
gamified
experience.
Designers
must
consider
spa-
tial
dimensions
to
determine
where
in
the
real
or
the
virtual
world
the
experience
will
take
place,
and
temporal
dimensions
to
regulate
when
the
gamified
experience
will
happen,
whether
it
is
real
time-
or
turn-based,
or
whether
it
has
a
finite
end
or
infinite
play.
Design
choices
regarding
player
structure
limit
who
can
play
and
whether
the
experience
is
for
single
or
multiple
players;
allow
single
or
multiple
teams;
and
include
real
friends,
strangers,
or
even
computer-controlled
allies
and
enemies.
Rule
mechanics
shape
the
concept
or
goal
of
the
gamified
experience
to
be
pursued
(Elverdam
&
Aarseth,
2007).
They
not
only
prescribe
the
actions
that
are
permissible
but
also
the
constraints
(e.g.,
time
restriction)
that
limit
those
actions
in
order
to
create
pressure
for
players
(Kelly,
2012b).
Some
rule
mechanics
are
highly
deterministic
and
invariably
produce
the
same
result
if
the
player
input
is
iden-
tical
each
time.
Other
rule
mechanics
are
non-
deterministic,
especially
when
elements
of
chance
are
involved
or
when
players
are
allowed
to
interact
with
each
other.
Rule
mechanics
can
be
topological,
too,
and
specify
what
happens
when
a
player
lands
on
a
specific
real
or
virtual
spot.
Think
about
how
a
player
collects
a
reward
for
‘passing
Go’
in
Monopoly
or
how
in
a
gamified
geo-location
setting
people
are
rewarded
for
going
places
and
for
checking
in
to
locations
they’re
visiting.
Time-based
rule
mechan-
ics
spell
out
whether
players
have
to
act
within
a
time
period
or
how
resources
build
up
or
deplete
over
time.
Objective-based
rule
mechanics
specify
the
effects
of
a
specific
circumstance
being
met
(e.g.,
completing
one
level
unlocks
the
next).
Progression
mechanics
describe
different
types
of
instruments
that
designers
embed
to
affect
the
ex-
perience
while
it
happens
(Elverdam
&
Aarseth,
2007).
In
the
context
of
gamification,
progression
mechanics
are
particularly
important:
they
dictate
the
reinforcements
present
in
the
experience.
That
is,
as
behaviors
with
rewarding
outcomes
are
more
likely
to
be
repeated
(Rothschild
&
Gaidis,
1981),
appropriate
progression
mechanics
are
used
to
increase
the
likelihood
that
certain
behaviors
will
be
repeated
in
the
future.
To
signal
their
progress,
achievement
rewards
are
often
used.
These
could
be
virtual
victory
point
systems
that
players
accumulate
as
they
progress–—such
as
scores,
levels,
progress
bars,
or
resources
(e.g.,
strength)–—but
they
can
also
be
real
rewards
(e.g.,
currency).
In
particular,
achievement
rewards
with
social
significance
(e.g.,
badges,
trophies,
leaderboards)
indicate
the
social
standing
within
a
community
and
are
powerful
pro-
gression
mechanics.
Progression
mechanics
provide
important
feedback
that
signals
a
player’s
success
toward
victory.
However,
the
achievement
rewards
must
be
desirable
for
the
players;
otherwise,
the
experience
loses
its
salience.
The
distribution
of
extrinsic
rewards
is
also
an
important
aspect
of
progression
mechanics
since
they
may
be
either
zero-sum
(i.e.,
some
players
win
and
some
lose)
or
positive-sum
(i.e.,
overall
the
rewards
are
above
zero).
Designers
must
plan
this
distribution
carefully,
as
mistakes
could
be
very
costly
to
the
organization
and
possibly
bankrupt
the
gamified
application’s
budget.
Furthermore,
having
too
many
rewards–—
especially
top
rewards–—may
dilute
the
overall
strength
of
rewards
and
the
meaning
of
player
wins
and/or
status
levels.
Gamification
mechanics
are
the
foundational
as-
pects
of
gamified
experience:
they
determine
who
the
key
parties
are,
how
they
interact,
how
to
win
or
lose,
and
where
and
when
the
experience
takes
place.
Mechanics
form
the
structure
that
the
gami-
fied
experience
exists
in;
however,
on
their
own,
mechanics
are
not
enough
to
create
an
experience
that
will
motivate
behavior
changes
in
target
em-
ployees
or
customers.
Emerging
from
this
structure,
both
dynamics
and
emotions
animate
the
experi-
ence
and
are
key
dimensions
in
creating
the
desired
behavior
change.
This
interdependent
relationship
between
the
three
gamification
dimensions
signal
to
designers
what
changes,
if
any,
need
to
be
made
to
the
mechanics
to
ensure
that
the
organization’s
goals
are
met.
These
components
of
a
gamified
experience
are
discussed
next.
4.3.
Dynamics
Gamification
dynamics
are
the
types
of
player
be-
havior
that
emerge
as
players
partake
in
the
expe-
rience.
Contrary
to
mechanics
that
are
set
by
the
designer,
the
gamification
dynamics
are
produced
by
how
players
follow
the
mechanics
chosen
by
design-
ers.
These
dynamics
describe
in-game
behaviors
and
the
strategic
actions
and
interactions
that
emerge
during
play
(Camerer,
2003).
In
a
game
context,
the
mechanics
of
the
multiplayer
card
game
Poker
in-
clude
shuffling,
trick-taking,
and
betting,
from
BUSHOR-1216;
No.
of
Pages
10
Is
it
all
a
game?
Understanding
the
principles
of
gamification
5

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
thus
can
lead
to
unintended
behaviors
and
out-
comes,
which
can
be
positive
or
negative
in
nature.
Designers
do
not
know
exactly
what
will
happen
(LeBlanc,
2004).
Consequently,
the
challenge
for
designers
is
to
anticipate
the
types
of
dynamics
that
can
emerge
and
to
develop
the
mechanics
of
the
experience
appropriately.
4.4.
Emotions
Gamification
emotions
are
the
mental
affective
states
and
reactions
evoked
among
individual
play-
ers
when
they
participate
in
a
gamified
experience.
Emotions
are
a
product
of
how
players
follow
the
mechanics
and
then
generate
dynamics.
As
with
games,
the
emotions
in
a
gamified
experience
should
be
fun-oriented
and
appealing,
not
only
on
a
pragmatic
level
but
also
on
an
emotional
level
(LeBlanc,
2004).
Assuming
that
players
will
not
continue
to
play
if
they
do
not
enjoy
themselves,
creating
player
enjoyment
should
be
seen
as
the
single-most
important
player
engagement
goal
for
gamification
(Sweetser
&
Wyeth,
2005).
Such
fun
and
enjoyment
can
come
in
many
different
forms,
including
positive
emotions
such
as
excitement,
amusement,
amazement,
surprise,
wonder,
and
personal
triumph
over
adversity.
While
fun
should
be
part
of
the
experience,
a
mix
of
emotions
is
often
felt
by
the
players.
This
could
include
negative
feelings,
such
as
disappointment
at
losing
or
sadness
at
not
achieving
a
reward.
In
sum,
the
MDE
framework
outlines
the
interde-
pendent
relationship
of
the
gamification
principles
of
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
(Figure
1)
and
illustrates
how
these
principles
can
be
applied
to-
gether
to
create
and
extend
the
player
experience.
It
also
shows
how
small
changes
in
one
principle
can
impact
the
other
two
and
create
different
experi-
ences.
Furthermore,
the
MDE
framework
helps
clarify
how
designers
and
players
perceive
gamified
expe-
riences
differently
(LeBlanc,
2004).
Specifically,
ga-
mification
designers’
foremost
focus
is
on
selecting
appropriate
mechanics
in
order
to
retain
control
over
the
experience,
followed
by
a
focus
on
dynamics,
and
lastly
on
players’
emotions.
For
players,
on
the
other
hand,
emotions
are
key.
The
adrenaline
rush
resulting
from
surviving
a
vicarious
adventure
or
mastering
a
mental
challenge
and
the
associated
dynamics
is
more
important
than
the
rules
that
make
them
possible
(Lazzaro,
2004).
In
optimized
gamified
experiences,
players’
emotional
responses
and
the
dynamics
that
emerge
during
play
shape
the
mechanics
that
govern
play
and
vice
versa.
As
a
result,
understanding
gamification
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
and
how
these
principles
relate
to
one
another
is
key
for
successfully
gamifying
an
experience.
5.
Gamification
at
work:
The
case
of
American
Idol
In
what
follows,
we
use
a
very
well-known
and
ratings-busting
TV
show
in
America,
American
Idol,
to
illustrate
how
the
different
gamification
princi-
ples
can
motivate
desired
behavior
changes
among
employees
and
customers.
We
use
American
Idol
for
three
reasons:
(1)
it
exemplifies
how
to
increase
engagement
and
change
behavior
through
gamifica-
tion,
(2)
it
demonstrates
how
to
improve
both
customer
and
employee
engagement,
and
(3)
it
illustrates
how
gamification
can
become
a
success
story.
BUSHOR-1216;
No.
of
Pages
10
Figure
1.
MDE
framework
of
gamification
principles
6
K.
Robson
et
al.

First,
American
Idol
is
not
just
an
entertaining
show,
but
also
an
excellent
example
of
how
to
increase
the
engagement
and
change
the
behavior
of
both
employees
(i.e.,
the
artists
who
hope
to
secure
record
deals)
and
customers
(i.e.,
viewers
who
watch
and
vote)
through
gamification.
Tradi-
tional
talent
searches
were
much
less
engaging
because
they
relied
on
individual
talent
scouts
to
bring
their
discoveries
to
recording
companies
in
hopes
of
securing
a
contract.
Likewise,
the
older
model
of
engaging
audience
members
was
based
on
the
weekly
popularity
of
songs
as
measured
by
radio
airplay
and
Billboard
Charts–—which
stimulated
sales.
Simon
Fuller
and
his
team,
the
designers
of
American
Idol,
cleverly
gamified
these
two
very
traditional
practices,
which
we
argue
are
not
unlike
many
other
business
processes.
For
instance,
American
Idol
is
an
example
of
gamifying
traditional
human
resource
management:
All
contestants
enter
into
a
contractual
agreement
with
19
Entertain-
ment,
the
production
company
behind
American
Idol,
before
they
ever
set
foot
on
a
stage.
Much
like
other
employees,
they
work
on
a
probationary
peri-
od
before
some
of
them
receive
continuing
con-
tracts.
As
regards
audience
experience,
we
argue
that
American
Idol
illustrates
how
traditional
prod-
uct
development
and
sales
experiences
can
be
ga-
mified.
Firms
often
solicit
the
input
of
customers
during
the
development
of
a
product
or
service
(e.g.,
in
beta
releases
or
usability
tests).
The
audi-
ence
of
American
Idol
is
in
essence
a
very
large
and
highly
engaged
focus
group
where
the
opinions
of
customers
are
collected
to
select
and
improve
the
firm’s
offerings.
Second,
most
gamification
activities
are
focused
on
improving
either
customer
or
employee
engage-
ment.
By
including
the
talent
search
(i.e.,
engaging
potential
new
employees)
and
record
sales
(i.e.,
engaging
customers)
in
one
show,
American
Idol
demonstrates
that
these
two
can
be
combined.
The
result
is
a
two-sided
gamified
experience
that
increases
the
engagement
and
changes
the
behavior
of
employees
and
customers
at
the
same
time.
This
is
particularly
interesting
in
the
context
of
managers
looking
to
grow
their
engagement
with
communities
inside
and
outside
the
firm
simultaneously
to
build
value
for
the
brand
internally
and
externally.
Lastly,
American
Idol
illustrates
how
the
resulting
gamified
experience
can
become
a
success
story
in
its
own
right.
American
Idol
has
not
only
produced
such
hugely
successful
entertainers
as
Carrie
Underwood,
Kelly
Clarkson,
and
Jennifer
Hudson–—through
gamified
employee
engagement
during
the
talent
search–—and
sold
millions
of
albums–—through
gami-
fied
customer
engagement
leading
to
sales–—but
it
has
also
created
a
highly
profitable
TV
show
by
aligning
the
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
it
developed
for
contestants
with
those
developed
for
audience
members
(Amegashie,
2009;
Ciulla
et
al.,
2012;
Meizel,
2011).
5.1.
American
Idol
mechanics
As
designed
by
its
setup
and
spatial
mechanics,
American
Idol
hosts
auditions
online
and
in
various
cities
in
the
U.S.,
takes
place
in
front
of
a
live
studio
audience
of
more
than
7,000
members,
and
is
broad-
cast
to
millions
via
television
and
the
Internet.
Temporal
mechanics
are
employed
such
that
once
a
week,
for
an
average
of
10
weeks,
American
Idol
contestants
take
turns
performing
songs
based
on
a
weekly
theme
(e.g.,
Motown,
Elvis,
Number
1
hits).
Regarding
player
structure,
American
Idol
creatively
combines
some
of
the
choices
involving
both
con-
testants
and
their
supporters
(i.e.,
observers
and
spectators)
in
the
experience.
Spectators
include
members
of
the
live
studio
audience
and
individuals
at
home
watching
on
their
television
who
vote
via
voice
calls,
SMS
texts,
or
the
American
Idol
website
(Amegashie,
2009;
Ciulla
et
al.,
2012).
Observers
are
those
fans
who
are
not
part
of
the
studio
audi-
ence
and
who
do
not
participate
in
the
experience
by
voting,
but
merely
view
the
show
for
personal
enjoyment.
The
players,
spectators,
and
observers
all
consent
to
be
involved
in
American
Idol.
This
is
important,
because
when
consent
to
participate
in
games
is
present,
positive
affects
increase;
when
consent
is
lacking,
positive
affects
decrease
(Burawoy,
1979;
Mollick
&
Rothbard,
2014).
In
the
case
of
American
Idol,
setup
mechanics
are
plentiful
and
varied,
and
any
number
of
com-
binations
is
possible.
However,
what
these
me-
chanics
have
in
common
is
that
they
are
all
decisions
that
influence
the
experience
before
it
commences.
One
of
the
most
basic
rule
mechanics
for
American
Idol
is
that
the
popularity
of
contest-
ants
is
highly
dependent
on
comparisons
with
other
contestants
(Amegashie,
2009).
Time-based
rule
mechanics
in
American
Idol
spell
out
whether
play-
ers
have
to
act
within
a
time
period
(e.g.,
when
spectators
can
vote,
again
and
again,
for
their
favorite
contestants
on
American
Idol)
and
how
resources
build
up
or
deplete
over
time
(e.g.,
votes
collected
by
each
contestant
cannot
be
carried
forward
into
the
next
round,
and
the
score
is
reset
each
week).
Contestants
at
the
top
of
the
popu-
larity
scale
will
move
forward,
making
popularity
and
votes
from
spectators
key
to
the
progression
mechanics
of
American
Idol.
The
ultimate
reward
in
American
Idol
is
being
the
finalist–—as
voted
by
spectators–—and
thus
receiving
a
lucrative
record-
ing
contract
and
fame.
BUSHOR-1216;
No.
of
Pages
10
Is
it
all
a
game?
Understanding
the
principles
of
gamification
7

5.2.
American
Idol
dynamics
American
Idol
primarily
leverages
the
contestants’
desire
to
win
and
spectators’
desire
to
see
their
favorites
succeed.
For
the
contestants,
time
pres-
sure
and
opponent
play
are
included
to
reward
competitive
dynamics
and
motivate
individual
con-
testants
to
perform
at
their
best
in
solo
perfor-
mances.
In
other
cases,
winning
conditions
that
require
working
with
other
players
(e.g.,
duets
or
group
performances)
are
included
to
drive
collabo-
rative
dynamics.
Audience
members
as
spectators
cheer
on
singers;
their
role
is
significant
because
the
audience
contributes
to
dynamics
of
the
experi-
ence.
5.3.
American
Idol
emotions
Participants
in
American
Idol
undergo
a
number
of
emotional
responses.
For
contestants,
emotions
are
even
more
powerful–—often
visible
through
the
tears
of
joy
and
sorrow–—and
include
nervousness,
exhil-
aration,
pride,
and
euphoria–—even
frustration.
Spectators
experience
anxiety
as
the
time
to
cast
votes
runs
out,
and
both
spectators
and
observers
experience
excitement
when
the
winners
are
an-
nounced,
followed
by
happiness
and
relief
or
sad-
ness,
depending
on
the
outcome
of
their
favorite
contestant
(Ciulla
et
al.,
2012).
Aspirations
for
the
emotions
associated
with
a
big
win
help
over-
come
smaller
emotional
disappointments
that
play-
ers
experience–—which
helps
explain
why
people
continue
to
play
even
when
they
lose
most
of
the
time.
These
desired
and
aspired
mental
states
are
the
reasons
why
players
start
and
continue
to
participate.
But,
of
course,
these
emotions
do
not
emerge
by
themselves:
They
are
shaped
by
the
interplay
of
mechanics
and
dynamics.
American
Idol
is
a
successful
example
of
how
a
gamified
talent
search
can
motivate
people–—sing-
ers
and
numerous
fans–—to
participate
actively
in
the
selection
and
marketing
of
the
next
pop
star
(Amegashie,
2009;
Ciulla
et
al.,
2012;
Meizel,
2011).
The
setup
mechanics
are
carefully
designed
(e.g.,
with
its
real-time
and
its
online
presence),
as
are
rule
mechanics
(jury
member
voting,
viewer
phone-
in
balloting,
and
performers
singing
for
survival
or
elimination)
and
progress
mechanics
(posting
the
voting
tally
in
real
time).
Together
these
mechanics
fundamentally
support
the
collaborative
and
com-
petitive
nature
of
the
talent
search
competition,
and
in
turn
give
rise
to
the
powerful
emotional
attachment
felt
by
contestants
and
members
of
the
audience
alike.
The
MDE
alignment
has
resulted
in
more
than
100
million
votes–—the
record
is
cur-
rently
132
million
votes
during
season
11–—that
help
the
show’s
recording
labels
identify
and
sign
popular
contestants.
As
of
2012,
over
59
million
albums
and
110
million
singles
and
digital
tracks
have
sold
in
the
United
States
alone
(Ciulla
et
al.,
2012).
6.
Game
on!
The
value
of
gamification
All
organizations
need
to
motivate
and
engage
stakeholders,
whether
these
stakeholders
are
vot-
ers,
students,
patients,
employees,
or
consumers.
Gamification
is
an
approach
to
achieving
this:
It
employs
lessons
from
the
gaming
domain
to
create
experiences
that
motivate
and
engage
individuals
in
non-game
settings.
The
goal
of
our
article
has
been
to
advance
the
understanding
of
gamification
con-
cepts,
applications,
and
impacts.
To
do
this
we
have
provided
three
contributions.
First,
we
defined
ga-
mification
and
explained
how
it
has
been
used
to
design
highly
engaging
processes
in
a
range
of
ser-
vice
industries.
Second,
we
introduced
the
MDE
framework
to
show
how
gamification
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
are
used
to
create
gamified
experiences.
Third,
using
the
case
of
American
Idol,
we
illustrated
how
MDE
was
used
to
transition
a
traditional
talent
search
to
an
important
cultural
phenomenon
that
engaged
not
only
the
contestants
but
also
a
whole
nation
of
viewers.
From
these
contributions
we
present
five
summary
guidelines
to
help
firms
capture
value
using
our
gamification
framework:
1.
What’s
the
goal
of
the
game?
A
process
should
not
be
gamified
simply
for
the
sake
of
gamifica-
tion
itself.
It
should
be
driven
by
goals
that
can
be
financial,
social,
or
environmental.
Firms
should
assess
the
potential
to
use
gamification
to
produce
and
adjust
behaviors
and
outcomes
needed
to
attain
those
goals.
Focusing
on
one
goal,
not
two
or
three,
minimizes
complexity
and
ensures
that
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
do
not
conflict
or
offset
each
other
(Kelly,
2012a).
Firms
should
also
identify
different
ga-
mification
measures
and
targets
and
understand
how
the
intended
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
emotions
would
drive
and
moderate
these
mea-
sures.
It
is
important
to
determine
the
causality
between
the
gamification
measures
and
the
busi-
ness
goals.
2.
Recognize
all
the
different
roles.
Most
gamifica-
tion
examples
focus
only
on
the
connection
be-
tween
the
designer
and
the
players.
This
is
important
because
it
promotes
an
in-depth
under-
standing
of
the
links
between
mechanics,
dynam-
ics,
emotions,
and
player-related
outcomes.
BUSHOR-1216;
No.
of
Pages
10
8
K.
Robson
et
al.

However,
it
is
also
important
to
understand
when
to
incorporate
spectators
and/or
observers
and
how
their
participation
can
energize
and
direct
different
behaviors
and
outcomes
in
a
process.
Spectators
and
observers
played
a
very
significant
role
in
the
success
of
American
Idol.
3.
Gaming
the
game.
People
will
want
to
try
and
cheat
a
gamified
process.
There
will
be
players,
observers,
and
spectators
who
will
try
to
game
the
game
by
colluding
and
breaking
the
rules.
It
is
important
to
understand
both
the
positives
and
negatives
of
this
human
endeavor.
On
the
one
hand,
it
can
create
dynamics
that
lead
to
unde-
sirable
emotions
(i.e.,
perceived
injustice)
that
could
put
off
other
players,
observers,
and
spec-
tators.
Furthermore,
individuals
might
extract
excessive
rewards
that
outweigh
any
benefits
to
the
firm
using
the
gamification.
However,
there
can
be
positive
learning
and
change
that
come
from
rule
breaking.
For
example,
these
behav-
iors
can
be
the
basis
for
modifying
the
mechanics
of
a
gamified
process
so
as
to
attain
deeper
loyalty
engagement
and
improve
the
outcomes,
because
when
an
innovation
is
produced
by
a
creative
individual
rather
than
the
firm,
the
adoption
and
use
of
that
innovation
is
more
impactful
and
enduring
(Berthon,
Pitt,
McCarthy,
&
Kates,
2007).
4.
Adjust
and
transition
the
experience.
It
is
un-
likely
that
an
organization
will
stand
still
once
players
start
playing,
or
that
organizational
de-
sires
to
transform
behavior
will
remain
the
same
over
time.
As
other
aspects
of
the
organization
change,
so
too
should
the
gamified
experience.
As
in
any
strategic
investment,
keeping
focus
on
the
managerial
goals
and
strategic
objectives
is
important.
This
means
that
the
gamified
experi-
ence
will
constantly
need
to
be
monitored,
both
internally
(Does
it
still
make
sense?)
and
exter-
nally
(Are
players,
observers,
and
spectators
still
excited
and
engaged?).
Mechanics
should
be
adjusted
accordingly
so
that
individuals
will
continue
playing
and
not
move
on
to
something
that
is
more
exciting
(in
terms
of
emotions)
or
more
engaging
(in
terms
of
the
overall
experi-
ence).
5.
What’s
the
endgame
for
the
game?
Eventually,
the
gamified
experience
will
come
to
an
end.
Adjusting
and
transitioning
the
experience
will
prolong
its
usefulness
to
the
organization;
how-
ever,
managers
should
watch
out
for
signs
that
the
experience
has
simply
lost
its
appeal
to
players.
The
endgame
is
the
final
phase
in
the
life
of
a
gamified
process.
Designers
must
rec-
ognize
that
this
phase
exists,
and
they
must
be
able
to
adjust
and
conclude
the
process
so
that
players,
spectators,
and
observers
will
be
will-
ing
to
return
and
engage
with
new
gamified
processes.
References
Amegashie,
J.
(2009).
American
Idol:
Should
it
be
a
singing
contest
or
a
popularity
contest?
Journal
of
Cultural
Econom-
ics,
33(4),
265—277.
Berthon,
P.
R.,
Pitt,
L.
F. ,
McCarthy,
I.,
&
Kates,
S.
M.
(2007).
When
customers
get
clever:
Managerial
approaches
to
dealing
with
creative
consumers.
Business
Horizons,
50(1),
39—47.
Burawoy,
M.
(1979).
Manufacturing
consent:
Changes
in
the
labor
process
under
monopoly
capitalism.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Camerer,
C.
(2003).
Behavioral
game
theory:
Experiments
in
strategic
interaction.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University