ChapterPDF Available

Gamification Strategies for Social Media

Authors:

Abstract

With the evolution of technology and all the associated paradigms, the business reality had the need to adapt and incorporate all this evolution. Gamification strategies in social networks are used to optimize the use and involvement of users. Thus, in a business context, these strategies are used to increase user engagement in the company/brand's social networks with the aim of increasing and strengthening trust. This chapter's main objectives are to understand if internet users and social media users know the term gamification and if the associated strategies are perceptible in the social media context. Therefore, to better analyze the users' behavior regarding these strategies and their knowledge about gamification, an online survey was developed and applied. After the survey, it was possible to conclude that 16.3% of the respondents already knew the term gamification. Through the survey it was also possible to conclude that most respondents had already been in contact with gamification strategies, even if 90.6% did not adhere to them frequently.
Chapter(7(
Gamification*Strategies*for*Social*Media*
Jorge&Esparteiro&Garcia&
!""#$%&&'()*+,'(-&..../...0/120./11123
Polytechnic+Institute+of+Viana+do+Castelo,+Portugal+
Pedro&Rodrigues&
Polytechnic+Institute+of+Viana+do+Castelo,+Portugal+
Jorge&Simões&
!""#$%&&'()*+,'(-&..../...4/2544/..653
Instituto+Superior+Politécnico+Gaya,+Portugal+
Manuel&José&Serra&da&Fonseca&
!""#$%&&'()*+,'(-&..../...4/748./59983
Polytechnic+Institute+of+Viana+do+Castelo,+Portugal+
INTRODUCTION
Before the creation of computers as we know them today, in the middle of the 20th century, there was a
huge evolution caused by technological advances and the growing industrial demand. Due to the need for
information storage and automation of processes that until then would have been manual, the creation of
the first computers began, quite different from the ones we know today. A few years later, and thanks to
the continuous and rapid technological advance, computers became more intelligent and capable of
storing more information. At the height of the Cold War between the United States of America and the
USSR (from 1947 to 1991), the Americans felt the need to decentralize the information they contained in
buildings such as the Pentagon and so began the ideology of backup and data security and consequently
the creation of the Internet (Sandroni, 2015).
After the first email was sent, there was an exponential growth of computer systems and the Internet
itself. A few years later, after years of research and investment in this type of technology, the World Wide
Web, the World Wide Web of Computers, was created in the 1990s - the Internet thus became a global
phenomenon, spreading rapidly through all countries on planet Earth. In a fraction of time, it became
possible to communicate with any part of the world, which until then would have been impossible
(Sandroni, 2015).
Gamification has already been used successfully to achieve improvements and optimizations in a
multitude of challenges. Gamification can be seen as the use of game elements for user reward.
Examples include, from creating bronze or marble statues of the winners from the early days of the
Olympic games to coming to the present day with improving learning through success badges (Hakulinen,
Auvinen & Korhonen, 2013), improving employee engagement (Neeli, 2012) and encouraging users to
act more safely (Kroeze & Oliver, 2012). In each of these studies, game-like elements were used to make
improvements, rewarding users, or encouraging certain behaviors.
Throughout this chapter, the main concepts, and the evolution that gamification has undergone over the
years in the different sectors where it is used will be addressed.
Of the multiple applications that the Internet has brought to the human being, there was the creation of
web applications called social networks. It was in 1997 that one of the first social networks was created -
it is difficult to classify one as the first - Six Degrees, where in many aspects it fits into the context that
we know today as a social network (creating a profile, uploading photos, sharing personal information). It
is, however, in 2004 that the social network MySpace reaches one million monthly users, and it is argued
that this is the beginning of social networks (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019).
Right now, Facebook, the world's largest social media platform, has 2.4 billion users. Other social media
platforms, including Youtube and Whatsapp, also have over a billion users each.
Given that there are almost 8 billion people worldwide, with at least 3.5 billion nodes online, this means
that social media platforms are used by more than one in three people in the world, and more than two-
thirds of all Internet users (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019).
Social media has changed and will continue to change the world. The rapid and wide adoption of these
technologies is changing how we meet partners, how we access information from the news, and how we
organize to demand policy change.
In the case of this chapter, the object of study of this research is the knowledge of the term gamification
and its strategies in social networks, directly or indirectly, by the user.
The objectives are divided into general and specific, having fundamental roles in the research process.
The general objective of the research is as follows:
- To verify the knowledge of gamification strategies in social networks.
To achieve the general objective, the following research questions (RQ) were determined:
RQ1 - Does the audience of this study recognize the term gamification?
RQ2 - Do the respondents recognize the existence of strategies in social media with specific objectives
and are they aware of the strategies applied?
RQ3 - On what device are social media most accessed?
RQ4 - Are individuals willing to participate in gamification strategies?
This chapter is divided into 7 sections. The first section introduces this chapter by contextualizing the
theme, defining the problem and objectives, and presenting the structure of the document. Sections 2, 3
and 4 are related to the literature review, with a study of the definition of social networks and the
evolution of the World Wide Web in section 2, the definition of gamification and its constituents in
section 3, and the contextualization of gamification in networks, the platforms under study and the mobile
era in section 4. Section 5 presents the research methodology of this work. Section 6 describes the
analysis of the results of the questionnaire survey developed in this work. Finally, the conclusions, the
final considerations of this chapter are presented in Section 7, as well as research ideas related to the
results of this chapter are proposed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
There is a huge variety of proposals for defining social media. For Ahlqvist, Bäck, Halonen and Heinonen
(2008) the definition is based on three key elements: content, communities, and web 2.0. The argument of
these authors is built on the development of these elements in social networks where there is creation of
content and communities with the same interests of the user himself and this whole process is done
through the development of services based on web 2.0 technologies.
Kietzmann et al. (2011) gives us another and different perspective on how to define social networks.
Their proposal is called "social network hive". The hive is a metaphor for the construction of social
networks. According to the same authors and according to their study, the way social networks are built is
divided into seven parts: identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputations, and groups.
Identity is the amount of information revealed by each user about themselves. Conversations depict the
extent of communication between users (Rodrigues, MIM., Fonseca, MJSd., & Garcia, JE., 2022).
Sharing depicts the amount of content distributed by users (Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., Setiawan, I., 2021).
Presence refers to the ability of users to know about the accessibility of others. Reputation is about users
knowing the standing of others and finally, groups which represent the communities formed by users.
According to Kaplan & Haenlein (2010) social networks refer us to a set of web-based services and
applications where users create and exchange content of their own creation (Costa C.R.., Garcia J.E.., Da
Fonseca M.J.S.., & Teixeira A., 2021). These authors propose that social media can be divided into six
categories. Thus, the categories are based on the level of social presence and self-presentation and are as
follows: blogs, social networking websites, virtual social worlds, virtual game worlds, content
communities and collaborative projects.
The same authors also admit, and in addition to the concrete definition of social networks, it is necessary
to mention two concepts that are related to each other and that underlie the definition of social networks:
web 2.0 and user-created content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
First, user-created content. For the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007),
there are requirements for this content. These are as follows: publication on a public website so that a
group of users can access this content and furthermore it must demonstrate a creative effort and must be
created outside of professional practices (OECD, 2007). Kaplan & Haenlein (2010) also reinforce these
requirements by saying that emails, replicas, and content that is made for a professional purpose are
excluded from this category.
In 2004 the term web 2.0 appeared to describe new ways of using web-based technologies in which users
create and change content collaboratively. These authors, Kaplan & Haenlein (2010), exemplify web 2.0
with Adobe Flash which allows animation and interactivity, AJAX for asynchronous data transfer without
the need to refresh web pages or interfere with their viewing, and RSS, which is a family of web feed
formats.
In short, there is no concrete and precise definition for social media, but although they vary somewhat,
they complement each other in such a way that many elements are generally accepted. In this way, social
media help in the creation and sharing of content by users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Ahlqvist, Bäck,
Halonen & Heinonen, 2008; Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre, 2011).
World Wide Web
Today society still thinks that the web is synonymous with the Internet, but this is a common
misconception. The World Wide Web, or better known as the web, is the most prominent part of the
Internet. It can be defined, based on technological systems, as a techno-social system for the purpose of
human-machine interaction. A techno-social system is defined as a system for the purpose of
improvement. Improvement at the cooperative, cognitive and communicational level.
To better understand this process, it is necessary to understand two aspects:
- To communicate it first requires recognition, and in turn the neuron needs to communicate to cooperate.
- Cooperation is a recipe for communication and, in turn, a recipe for cognition.
Web 1.0
It is in 1989 that Tim Burners-Lee suggested the creation of a worldwide hypertext space that, at any time
of accessibility, would be driven by a single Universal Document Identifier (CUDI). This suggestion
comes with a single purpose and goal: the creation of a pervasive information space in which people
communicate by sharing information. Web 1.0 emerged as a read-only web, meaning that it was one-way
and static. It was a big step for the business world, as companies could present their catalogs, which were
advertised in newspapers and magazines. Thus, a new way for companies to present their range of
products and/or services to consumers emerged. The HTML pages of the websites were only static and, in
turn, not very regularly updated. The main purpose of the websites was solely and exclusively to publish
information to mark the online presence, and the websites were not interactive, resembling brochures or
posters. In this era of the web, the following main protocols were used: HTTP, HTML and URI, which
made connections too weak, making it impossible for many users to visit.
Web 2.0
In 2004, Dale Doughertv defines the term web 2.0 as the business revolution of the computer industry.
Caused by the shift to the internet as a platform and an attempt to understand the rules to achieve their
success. "Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet
as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those
rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them." (Tim
O'Reilly, 2004). People-centric, web 2.0 identically known as a web of wisdom, participatory, reading
and writing, thus becoming bidirectional. Web 2.0 does not appear as a new version of web 1.0. It allows
flexible design, updates, creative reuse, and the modification of collaborative content, i.e., it is a web as a
platform where users can let go of many of the controls, they were used to in web 1.0. Web 2.0 marks this
evolution with a feature with great weight to the user which is to support collaboration to gather collective
intelligence instead of web 1.0 (Murugesan San, 2007).
Web 3.0
In 2006, John Markoff, suggests web 3.0 as the third generation (Nova, Spivack, 2011). The basis of web
3.0 is to define structural data and link it to new more effective discovery, integration, automation, and
reuse across the various applications (Ossi, Nykänen, 2003). Web 3.0 attempts to link, integrate, and
analyze data from various data sets to obtain new information flows, support mobile Internet accessibility,
improve data management, encourage the factor of globalization phenomena, increase customer
satisfaction, help organize collaboration in social networks, and simulate creativity and innovation. The
semantic web, the way web 3.0 is known, was conceived by Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World
Wide Web. Being worked on by a team to extend, improve and standardize the system, publications,
languages, and tools that had previously been developed (Sean B, Palmer, 2001). Semantic web is a web
that can demonstrate things in the approach that computer can understand, with its main goal which is to
make the web readable by machines and not just humans. Currently the web is a web of documents,
functioning, in a way, as a global information system that includes the most important problems on it. It
was generated for human consumption, where the primary objects are documents and the links between
them as well (or part of them). The semantics of content and links are implicit and the degree of structure
between objects is quite low (Christian, Bizer & Tom, Heath & Tim, Berners-Lee, 2009; Tim, Berners-
Lee & Christian, Bizer & Tom, Heath & Kingsley, Idehen, 2008; Oktie, Hassanzadeh, 2008). The
development of the semantic web comes to solve and overcome the problems of the current web. It can be
defined as a web of data and in a sense a global database that is mostly represented by the following
characteristics: The design goal of the data web is machines first and only then humans. The primary
goals are things hence the links between things. Thus, the semantics of content and links is explicit and
the degree of structure between objects is high and is based on the RDF model (Christian, Bizer & Tom,
Heath & Tim, Berners-Lee, 2009; Tim, Berners-Lee & Christian, Bizer & Tom, Heath & Kingsley,
Idehen, 2008; Oktie, Hassanzadeh, 2008). The main difference between web 2.0 and web 3.0 is that web
2.0 targets the content creativity of users and producers while web 3.0 targets the connected data sets.
Web 4.0
As the phase of the web we are witnessing, it can be said that it is an ongoing idea and there is no exact
definition like the previous ones. Known as the symbiotic web, it aims at the interaction between humans
and machines in symbiosis. In a brief explanation, machines would be intelligent in reading web content,
and would react in the way of executing and deciding what to execute first to load websites quickly with
higher quality and performance and build interfaces with greater command (Hemnath ,2010). Web 4.0 is
predicted to be the read-write-execute-agree web. It will reach a critical mass of participation in online
networks that provide global transparency, governance, distribution, participation, collaboration in key
communities such as industry, political, social, and other communities (Marcus, Cake, 2008). Web 4.0
will parallel the human brain, and this implies a massive network of highly intelligent interactions (Dan,
Farber, 2007). Although web 4.0 is not defined in an exact way nor as all its technologies, this reality is
moving towards using artificial intelligence and making web 4.0 an intelligent web. To best describe this
statement, the best example will be the Siri and Alexa technology.
GAMIFICATION
Over the past few years, gamification has been a phenomenon that has gained greater importance in
academic research contexts. Recently, gamification has been used in many contexts to achieve various
goals. It has been used in risk management (Bajdor & Dragolea, 2011), usability problem solving (Saha,
Manna & Geetha, 2012), education (Huang & Soman, 2013; Hakulinen, Auvinen & Korhonen, 2013;
Muntean, 2011), and marketing (Tillström, 2012), to name a few.
In this chapter the different aspects of gamification are presented, it is important to start with the
definition of gamification and closely related concepts, and then focusing further on games, game-like
elements, and the effects of gamification - which can be found in real-life use.
Definition
The definition of gamification according to Deterding, Dixon, Khaled and Nacke (2011) refers to the "use
of game design elements in non-game contexts", that is, in gamification, game design elements are used
in other types of systems, such as social media.
Terms that have been used in the same context are, among others, "applied game" and "play design."
(Deterding et al., 2011) It is important to note that gamification involves the elements of game design
while a ludic design often lacks structure, goals, or both (Groh, 2012). In terms of what the "non-game
contexts" are, (Deterding et al., 2011) suggest not limiting the definition further as it offers no advantage
in making such restrictions.
From a service marketing perspective, there is another definition, given by Huotari and Hamari (2011),
where according to their definition, gamification is seen as a packaging for a service. The core service is
enhanced by a rule-based system incorporating feedback and interaction mechanisms. This definition is
more restrictive than the previous one but has many similarities with the various definitions of game and
game elements, which will be discussed throughout this chapter. The main goal of gamification is to
"support overall user value creation by providing game-like experiences" (Hamari & Koivisto, 2013).
From a broader perspective, gamification has some similarities to more traditional marketing tools, such
as customer loyalty cards, leading companies to increasingly view their marketing as games (Hamari &
Eranti, 2011).
Gamification can sometimes be confused with serious games, which are games made for non-recreational
purposes (Deterding et al., 2011; Susi, Johannesson & Backlund, 2007).
A "serious game" is a game based on computer games and simulation approaches and/or technologies for
non-entertainment purposes. The term "serious" refers that the game is intended for educational purposes
rather than entertainment. They have been widely used in the fields of defense, education, scientific
exploration, health services, emergency management, defense, business, tourism, urban planning,
engineering, religion, and politics in an immersive or interactive way that can be enjoyed in the best
possible way.
Gamified applications use only certain appropriate elements of games (Groh, 2012), while "serious
games" are games. Overlapping with gamification in terms of mechanisms used, another closely related
topic is that of persuasive technologies, although these aim to change users' attitudes and behavior
(Hamari & Koivisto, 2013).
A term closely related to gamification is "games with a purpose," or GWAP (Games with a Porpuse). In
GWAPs, users play a game to entertain themselves while simultaneously completing tasks that are
difficult or impossible for computers (Von Ahn & Dabbish, 2008). For example, GWAPs can be used to
tag subjects in photographs (Von Ahn & Dabbish, 2008) or to collect geospatial data using a location-
based mobile game (Matyas et al, 2008).
To fully understand gamification and what it consists of it is first necessary to understand the definition of
games and game-like elements.
Badges
A commonly used game element in gamification and one of the most discussed in previous literature is a
badge, also known as an achievement or a trophy. Badges are defined by Antin and Churchill as "digital
artifacts that have some visual representation that are awarded to users who complete specific activities"
(Antin & Churchill, 2011), like medals awarded to military heroes or merit badges used by the Boy
Scouts of America.
Achievements, or in English "achievements," can be defined as optional subgoals that are rewarded in a
secondary reward system, i.e., the achievement system, separate from the primary reward system,
according to Montola et al. (2009).
However, Hamari and Eranti (2011) argue that viewing achievements as optional or secondary can be
problematic. They raise the issue of a player explicitly attempting to complete all available achievements,
thus making achievements their primary goal. Therefore, these authors propose that achievements should
be viewed as games of their own, and not just as secondary reward systems to the main functionality. This
view that achievements are a game in themselves contradicts the definition of a game, casting
achievements as puzzles rather than games, as mentioned earlier.
Badges have five main functions:
Goal setting - badges challenge users to achieve the goals set by their requirements.
Instruction - badges can instruct users about the activities that are available in the system.
Reputation - badges can be used to assess the reputation of users, for example, expertise
Affirmation - badges function as status symbols and provide personal affirmation by showing users' past
accomplishments.
Group identification - badges "communicate a set of shared activities that bind a group of users together"
(Antin and Churchill, 2011, p. 3).
Broadly speaking, achievements can fall into several categories (Montola et al, 2009), including tutorial
achievements attributed for experiencing the features of the game, completion achievements attributed for
completing tasks, collection achievements attributed for obtaining items, virtuosity achievements
attributed for excelling exceptionally (e.g., not dying at all), hard mode achievements attributed for
succeeding on high difficulty, veteran achievements attributed for playing the game for an extended
period of time loyalty achievements awarded to players for being loyal to the game and the community
(e.g. subscription for an extended period of time), paragon achievements which are achievements awarded
to some top players for accomplishing something extremely difficult or rare (e.g. being the first player in
the world to complete a task), and "random" achievements awarded to players who perform fan activities
(e.g. attending game conventions or buying collector's editions).
Based on the findings of Montola et al. (2009), achievement systems require certain properties to work
well with players. For example, when the player completes an achievement, it must be notified
immediately and explicitly to reward the player, to remind the player of the existence of the
achievements, and to "pique their curiosity for the achievements".
Game Design Mechanics and Patterns
According to Sicart, the definition of game mechanism has been problematic to achieve (Sicart, 2008). As
such, there have been numerous attempts over the years to define game mechanics. In some studies,
distinctions have been made between the rules of games and the actions that players have available
(Sicart, 2008). An example of this distinction is made by Avedon (1971) who suggests that game
mechanics are formed by "action procedures," i.e., "specific operations, necessary courses of action,
method of play" (p. 422).
In 2003, Lundgren and Björk present a more informal definition of game mechanics that is given by
defining them as "any part of a game's rule system that covers one, and only one, type of possible
interaction that takes place during the game" (Lundgren and Björk, 2003). Examples of game mechanics
are trading, bidding, negotiation, storytelling, and role-playing.
A few years later, in 2008 and building on the previous definitions, Sicart defines a game mechanic as
"methods invoked by agents, designed for interaction with the game state" (Sicart, 2008, Introduction,
par. 6). Examples of game design patterns and mechanics include the game of Monopoly: "Roll dice,
move counterclockwise around the board, the number of spaces indicated on the dice" (Avedon, 1971, p.
422). Other common mechanics include time constraints, limited resources, and turn-based play (Groh,
2012).
Hunicke et al. (2004) define game mechanics as "the particular components of the game, at the level of
data representation and algorithms." According to this definition, mechanics are all the actions, behaviors,
and control mechanisms in the context of the game that are available to the player.
In his article, Muntean (2011) lists some of the various game mechanics used in gamification. These
mechanisms include points, levels, challenges, virtual goods, leaderboards, donations, and charity. A
larger list of examples of game mechanics is listed by Gamification-Research.org (2014). In this list,
mechanisms such as achievements, commitments, behavioral dynamics, happy productivity, bonuses,
cascading information theory, combos, community collaboration, countdown, discovery, infinite
gameplay, levels, points, progression, quests, rewards, status, among others are mentioned. While some of
these mechanics are not mentioned by other sources, many of them, such as points, achievements, levels,
and progression are (Muntean, 2011; Avedon, 1971; Groh, 2012).
Effects of Gamification
Over the years and to support the research papers claiming the effects of gamification in various contexts,
there have been reported results of real-world applications of gamification. Microsoft has applied
gamification to increase both internal productivity and end-user productivity (Jacobs, 2011). One such
project was "Communicate Hope," which was used to collect feedback from Lync users on product
usability and design, as well as to submit bug reports. The scoreboard was linked to a variety of charities,
and as users submitted feedback and bug reports, Microsoft donated more money to the charities based on
the results of the scoreboard. As a result, users who chose to play the game submitted sixteen times more
feedback than users who did not play. Tens of thousands of dollars were also donated to charities ("Facts
& Figures," 2013). Microsoft also created two games, Ribbon Hero 1 and 2, to improve end-user
productivity. These games aim to improve the skills and practices of Microsoft Office users (Jacobs,
2011).
Autodesk's research team applied gamification to teach beginner users how to use AutoCAD (Li,
Grossman & Fitzmaurice, 2012). Called "GamiCAD," the project was integrated into AutoCAD software
as an interactive tutorial system. The researchers behind GamiCAD argue that in the case of software
applications containing hundreds or thousands of features, new users may gain little or no help from
software documentation. To overcome this problem, they incorporated GamiCAD into AutoCAD
software, with fantasy game elements, clear goals, feedback and guidance, progressive disclosure, time
pressure, rewards, and encouragement. In GamiCAD, the user is given "missions," or tasks, to complete.
These missions are related to designing components of a spacecraft for NASA, giving a game context for
the actions. Each mission consists of multiple levels, and after completing a level, the system displays a
performance feedback screen.
The University of Hawaii has committed to sustainability and energy conservation, even changing the
behavior of dorm residents through gamification (Brewer et al, 2011). In their study, Brewer et al created
a contest for energy conservation. They used game design elements such as rounds, levels, and prizes to
encourage participation. The goals were to increase knowledge about sustainability issues, gain insight
into one's behavior and how to change it, build community, and create commitment. Evidence of the
effectiveness of gamification includes increased energy knowledge, changes in energy behaviors, short-
term energy reductions, and educational contributions (Kukui Cup, 2014).
Gamification in Social Networks
After all the previous definitions and the literature review of some concepts it is now possible to
insert and analyze the main topic of this chapter: gamification in social networks. The effects of
gamification in the context of social networks have been increasingly the subject of research and analysis.
Bista, Nepal, Colineau, and Paris (2012) defined a model of gamification of online communities and
proceeded to implement a gamified online service for welfare recipients transitioning back to work.
Although the study does not look at the gamification of an actual social media service, but rather an
online community, it provides relevant information about how gamification is or could be conducted in
this context.
Despite the differences between commercial portals and social communities, "visitor engagement remains
at the heart of their success" (Bista et al 2012, p. 611). As such, the benefits of gamification could be
leveraged to improve user engagement in social media as well. According to the same authors, the
problems in establishing a new online community have three challenges that can be addressed with
gamification:
Bootstrapping - process of gathering initial members to the community and keeping them involved during
the initial phase;
Monitoring - process of observing the use of the service;
Sustainability - process of maintaining user engagement after the initial phase.
According to Antin and Churchill (2011), badges are commonly used in social media to engage and
motivate users. For example, Wikipedia has incorporated "Barnstars," which are badges used by users to
reward others for doing valuable work. Other examples given by Antin and Churchill are StackOverflow
and Foursquare. A community that shares similar goals and interests is essential in the context of
gamification, according to Hamari and Koivisto, the network of users "creates opportunities for
meaningful interaction," "enables reciprocal activity," and "increases the perceived benefits of the
service". To create engaging gamified services, social elements are essential, so social networking
services and gamification support each other simultaneously. However, the authors also noted that a user's
attitude toward a gamified service strongly determines whether the user will continue to use the service,
as well as intentions to recommend the service to others. Some social media services make use of the real-
life contexts surrounding the services. For example, when a Foursquare user checks in at five different
Starbucks cafes, they receive a free drink (Hamari & Eranti, 2011). In this case, the feature is called the
"out-game" component, referring to the fact that the reward is external to the game or the system itself.
We can admit that, gamification is at its core, entirely related to statistics (Bunchball, 2010), the
collection of statistics and their derivatives creates a continuous and extended motivation for
participation. Closely related, Bista et al. (2012) gives examples of number of YouTube views, Facebook
likes, and Instagram likes as statistics related to status, achievement, competition and reward, all game
dynamics listed by Bunchball (2010) as seen earlier. As such, many features of social media such as the
counting of views and likes can be considered as game dynamics.
Mobile Era
As it has been possible to do throughout this chapter, the concept of gamification can be discussed as
being as old as the idea of the Olympic Games, in which the status of the winner of the Olympic Games
was symbolized by a crown of olive leaves and in which the winners of 3 times in a row, received as a
reward their own bronze or marble statues made to be displayed in Olympia ("JetBlue Badges Deliver
Gartner's Gamification," Comarch, 2014). This view fails to consider a significant gamification
landscape, which consists of three elements:
- The rapid adoption of the smartphone;
- The enormous growth of the mobile web;
- Finally, the increased use of social media.
7.2 million people use a smartphone in Portugal, which represents 84.2% of the population and a
significant increase compared to 2012, when this percentage was less than 30%. Marktest data for the
month of July 2020 also show that among the groups that most use a smartphone are men and the higher
social classes.
The values now disclosed leave no doubt: the Portuguese are increasingly using the smartphone. The July
figures more than tripled compared to 2012, with a growth of 57.2% over the past eight years. The data
and analysis are part of the TGI study. The research collects information for 17 market sectors, 280
product and service categories and over 3,000 brands providing data on consumption, brands, hobbies,
lifestyle, and media consumption. More recently, in 2017, 6.5 million Portuguese had a smartphone. All
in all, in three years there has been a growth of almost one million users. Smartphones have brought a
world of possibilities, allowed Internet access and use on the go. All the information stored in the world's
largest library - i.e., the Internet - is now available on a smartphone, which can be easily carried wherever
you go. The rapid adoption of the smartphone has led to a growth in mobile data traffic, and this has had a
direct and consequent effect on the mobile web - the part of the World Wide Web that mobile device
access - as the desktop web competitor. By far the most common smartphone use is access to social
networks such as Facebook and Twitter. In 2013, smartphone users spent nine hours and six minutes per
month on social networks, compared to one hour and fifteen minutes per month streaming video on the
device and about one hour and eleven minutes engaged in sports-related news and videos (Dawn C.
Chmielewski, 2103). The combination of these three elements - the smartphone, the mobile web and
social networking - has made the popularity of gamification applications possible. The mobile web itself
has made real-time information sharing about such gamification applications a reality. People who were
used to social networks not only quickly adopted these gamification applications as another means of
tracking and sharing their own and their friends' daily activities, but they also began to share and display
the points and badges they earned on social networks, thus increasing the popularity of gamification itself.
What is new about gamification is not necessarily the idea of applying game elements to a real-world
activity, but rather how these game elements are now applied seamlessly, ubiquitously, and socially. It is
now possible to access our contacts, emails, notes, calendar, map, social media accounts, and even history
and spending patterns (if using a personal finance app) on a small smartphone. Being placed on the same
device where all this information resides and which we carry wherever we go, games can easily infiltrate
real-world actuality activities. This is a real difference between today's mobile gamification applications
and all past attempts to use games and game elements for a real-world purpose. Commercial video games
have been popular for years, and many of them had impressive graphics and sophisticated narratives. But
the smartphone, mobile and social networks have completely changed where and how games are played
and game dynamics can be applied. It is this new mobile and social era that has allowed games to become
ubiquitous in everyday activities, even can be used beyond an imaginary game world confined to a
computer or video game console. While there have been "serious games" that have attempted to use game
elements and dynamics for education beyond mere entertainment, these serious games have never reached
the same level of popularity as gamification. The significance of the smartphone, mobile network, and
social media in the wide adoption and popularity of gamification does not mean that gamification should
take the form of a mobile application. As we will see in the next chapter, everyday activities like
recycling or watching the speed limit while driving can be gamified without the use of a smartphone or
the Internet. What makes something a game is never pure technology. However, understanding the
significance of these three elements in the recent trend of gamification provides a vantage point from
which we can determine where the strength of gamification lies. A simple way to understand the
difference between gamification and games is that while games tend to create an imaginary world
separate from reality, gamification creates a game layer on top of the real world (Seth Priebatsch, 2010).
We do not enter a fictional game world when, for example, we open the Foursquare, Waze, or Nike+
apps. Instead, these gamification apps create a game layer on top of real-life activities, using game
elements such as points, badges, and leaderboards. Gamification rewards our behavior on the web, often
on the mobile web, with social connections and statuses. It even occasionally offers discounts or freebies
that can be used in the real world. As we spend more and more time online, the line between our online
and real lives will only become increasingly blurred, and more things will start to cross between these two
domains.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Throughout any research, it is necessary to adopt a specific methodology. Carlos Morais says that "it is
not easy to find a definition for research, but it is quite consensual to admit that research is being carried
out, among other reasons, to solve problems, deepen concepts and build knowledge. The search for
consistency and answers to problems is one of the challenges that we can associate with the concept of
research". Thus, research "is a procedure of systematic, controlled and critical reflection that allows the
discovery of new facts or data, relationships or laws in the field of knowledge" (Ander-Egg, 1978, cited in
Marconi & Lakatos, 2003).
Object of study
In this case the object of study of this research is the user's knowledge of the term gamification and its
strategies in social networks, directly or indirectly. The objectives are divided into general and specific,
having key roles in the research process.
The general objective of the research is as follows:
- To verify the knowledge of gamification strategies in social media.
To achieve the general objective, the following research questions were determined:
RQ1 - Does the audience of this study recognize the term gamification?
RQ2 - Do the respondents recognize the existence of strategies in social media with specific objectives
and are they aware of the strategies applied?
RQ3 - On what device are social media most accessed?
RQ4 - Are individuals willing to participate in gamification strategies?
Methodology
It is essential to use a methodology that allows, as reliable as possible, to obtain an inspection for the
evaluation of the main problem.
With the establishment of objectives, it is foreseen to be fulfilled, for this it is necessary to divide it into
parts for the accomplishment and, in the end, the success of the same.
First, a survey was constructed with the necessary questions to be able to make a study and draw
objective and determined conclusions about this very area of research.
Next, the survey was applied to a specific target audience to determine their knowledge (directly or
indirectly) about gamification strategies on social media.
The final phase of this chapter involves data collection and data analysis through a qualitative and
quantitative research method, using analytical reports provided by the survey responses in question.
Questionnaire
The various scales and questionnaire model that was used were based on verifying and researching, in the
most practical way possible, i.e., by online questionnaire, regarding gamification in social media.
The questionnaire is a research instrument that will include several organized questions aimed at
collecting data and information for research (Fonseca, 2022).
There are some advantages and disadvantages in using questionnaires to obtain data. The main
advantages are associated with the low costs of operationalization of this type of data collection,
especially online questionnaires that still offer a larger scope without the need for printing or the need for
researchers. Their practicality and quick results allow for collection and subsequent analysis almost in
real time, and it is also possible to readjust response times according to the needs of the project in
question. These questionnaires also have the advantage of guaranteeing total anonymity to the respondent,
since there is no direct contact with any of the stakeholders.
However, in using these questionnaires there are also some disadvantages, the main one being the
likelihood of dishonesty in the survey responses. There is a probability that some results may not
correspond faithfully to reality due to dishonesty on the part of the respondent, which may be motivated
by social desirability or an attempt to protect individual privacy. Answers may not be given
conscientiously and may have been given too quickly, without consideration, or even by not reading them
carefully enough. In the case of weighted questions, differences may arise in the understanding and
interpretation by the respondents, and predetermined answers may limit the real feeling or meaning of the
questionnaire. These questionnaires may also present accessibility problems, such as for visually impaired
users.
For these disadvantages to be minimized, it is advisable that the questions asked are simple and easy to
interpret, and that answers are provided that do not cause the respondent to feel doubtful. Taking into
consideration the points discussed above, it is possible to obtain questionnaires with more reliable results.
The questionnaire was structurally divided into four groups, and was conducted on the Google Forms
platform, free of charge. Before the respondent enters the groups of questions, an introductory text is
written to briefly explain the area, the institute, and what the research study is about. The initial title,
"Gamification strategies in social networks", describes the topic that is intended to be investigated. This
choice is related to the general object of study and the research questions presented earlier in this chapter.
In group I, the user, a decisive question was asked to continue answering this questionnaire, which is "Are
you a user of social networks". In case they answered no, the questionnaire would end here. The single
answer selection method was used.
In group II, social network advertisements, we asked directly whether the respondent knows the term
gamification and his or her opinion on strategies in this area. Questions 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 are answerable to
all respondents, with questions 4, 5 and 6 being only for respondents who answered "yes" to question 3
which is "Do you know the term Gamification, or do you know what it means". In this group, the single
answer selection method was used for questions 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 and for questions 5 and 6 the Likert
scale of values 1 to 5, where values 1 and 2 are negative, i.e., disagree or strongly disagree and values 4
and 5 are positive response, agree or strongly agree. The value 3 is neutral.
In group III, social networks are used to indirectly find out if the respondent knows and interacts with
gamification strategies on social networks. In this way 11 questions were asked. The first question in this
group, question 10, uses the multiple answer method to find out which social networks the respondent
uses. In question 12, 13 and 14 examples of social networks are shown with an illustration for each
question to check whether the user recognizes that content. For this, questions 11, 12, 13 and 14 the single
answer selection method is used. In the answers to questions 15, 19, 20 and 21 the Likert scale of values 1
to 5 is used, where values 1 and 2 are negative, i.e., disagree or strongly disagree, and values 4 and 5 are
positive answers, agree or strongly agree. The value 3 is neutral. And finally, in questions 16, 17, and 18
the frequency is verified through a Likert scale of values 1 to 5, where the values 1 and 2 are negative,
i.e., never, and rarely, and the values 4 and 5 are positive, frequent, and very frequent. The value 3 is
neutral.
In Group IV, it is intended to collect information regarding socio-demographic elements, which will
analyze and characterize the sample, such as gender, age, academic qualifications, income, current
employment status, and area of residence.
Ending, the questionnaire, in a new window with a thank you message.
Sampling
To conduct the study for a large audience, the study will be published on various social media platforms,
which will further broaden the possibility to respond, and there will be no criteria of any kind. For
convenience, the locations of the respondents will be in the north of Portugal as well as in the age groups
being in higher education. It will be shared in university, public and private education groups. The choice
of sharing in these groups arises in the context that Millennials are the public with more connection,
interactivity, intensity, and habit of using social networks. Without underestimating the rest of the
individuals who use social networks, Millennials are the audience that receives the most information
about the social networks where gamification strategies are applied. In summary, the target audience for
this study will be as follows: Female and male individuals, aged 17 to 60, belonging to social classes A,
B, and C. Students or workers with a lifestyle that leads them to frequently use social networks and or
other applications that come from social networks in their daily lives.
RESULTS
In this section, the results obtained from the questionnaire applied to the respondents will be analyzed.
This questionnaire was developed through the Google Forms platform and was available from January
2022 to February of the same year. The main results obtained are presented below:
In general, do you pay attention to the ads and publications of brands, institutions,
associations, or companies on social networks?
Of all the participants in this survey, 68% (138 answers) of the respondents answered that they pay
attention to the advertisements and publications of brands, institutions, associations, or companies on
social networks. And 32% (65 answers) do not. With this, we can conclude that the attention that users
have while surfing and using social networks differs from their habits, interests, and lifestyles, such as
how they use social networks, for professional issues, direct search for some product or service or even
for leisure. These habits, interests, and lifestyles, previously mentioned, are influential factors with great
relevance in the answers to this survey, as well as all the conclusions that may arise from it.
Are you familiar with the term Gamification, or do you know what it means?
This question comes as a key to the various conclusions that can be made about this study. Thus, only
16.3% (33 answers) of the total respondents know the term Gamification and, consequently, 83.7% (170
answers) do not. The term Gamification is an uncommon term both in society and in the vast world of
marketing, more precisely in digital marketing, because it is still in a phase of introduction.
Do you know any kind of Gamification strategy?
In a first instance the respondents who know the term Gamification, 30.3% (10 answers) do not know any
Gamification strategy in social networks, which makes 69.7% (23 answers) know concrete strategies of
this area. Concluding even if knowing the term and the area of Gamification, respondents may not know
applications of it in social networks. So, they may know strategies by the entities but are not recognizing
or relating with the term Gamification.
Do you agree that Gamification strategies are a good practice by the brand/company?
Despite their opinion about these strategies on the reputation of brands, institutions, associations, or
companies and how much it affects them, of the respondents 18.2% (6 responses) Totally Agree that these
types of strategies are a good practice by entities, and further, 63.6% (21 responses) Agree and 18.2% (6
responses) Neither Agree nor Disagree. It is important to emphasize that no respondents Disagree or
Totally Disagree with this statement. Of these 6 answers that Neither Agree nor Disagree are from the
same respondents that in the previous question 66.67% (4 answers) answered Neither Agree nor Disagree,
and 33.33% (2 answers) Agree that these strategies damage the reputation of brands, institutions,
associations, or companies.
Do the brands/companies that you follow on social networks usually have this type of
strategies?
Of all the respondents, the brands, institutions, associations, or companies of the personal interests of the
respondents of this questionnaire, answering the question whether they adopt these strategies, 3% (6
answers) entities never adopt this type of strategies, and 20.2% (41 answers) rarely, 37.9% (77 answers)
occasionally, 33.5% (68 answers) often and 5.4% (11 answers) very often.
Do I usually interact with brands/companies that use this type of strategies in their
publications?
Of all respondents 24.6% (50 answers) never interact with these strategies on social networks, so that,
31% (63 answers) rarely, 35% (71 answers) occasionally, 8.4% (17 answers) often and 1% (2 answers)
very often.
Do you think brands/companies should use more of this type of strategy in their social
networks?
Of all the respondents 15.3% (31 answers) totally disagree that entities should use more of this type of
strategies in their social networks, so that, 16.3% (33 answers) disagree, 44.8% (91 answers) neither
disagree nor agree, 20.2% (41 answers) agree and 3.4% (7 answers) totally agree.
If the brands/companies you follow on social networks used more of this type of
strategies, would you participate?
Answering this question, of all respondents 16.7% (34 answers) totally disagree, 16.7% (34 answers)
disagree, 41.9% (85 answers) neither disagree nor agree, 22.7% (46 answers) agree, and 2% (4 answers)
totally agree.
These strategies used by brands/companies are reliable?
Of this statement, 6.9% (14 responses) strongly disagree, 15.8% (32 responses) disagree, 49.3% (100
responses) neither disagree nor agree, 25.1% (51 responses) agree, and 3% (6 responses) strongly agree.
Do you trust these strategies used by brands/companies?
Of this statement, 13.8% (28 responses) totally disagree, 18.2% (37 responses) disagree, 43.8% (89
responses) neither disagree nor agree, 20.7% (42 responses) agree, and 3.4% (7 responses) totally agree.
Analysis of Results
RQ1 - Does the public in this study recognize the term gamification?
In answer to question 1, 16.3% of the respondents (33 answers) who know the term gamification
are between 19 and 56 years old. Of these respondents, only 3 do not have a higher education
degree, and it can be assumed that 2 of these 3 respondents, since they are between the ages of
18 and 21, may still be in the process of completing a higher education degree. 90.9% of these
responses are from respondents with a Higher Education Degree, which may affect why they are
aware of this term, as well as their strategies and reactions in their behaviors towards it.
RQ2 - Do respondents recognize the existence of strategies on social networks with
specific goals and are you aware of the strategies applied?
In answer to Q. I. 2, 16.3% (33 answers) of the respondents who know the term gamification are
between 19 and 56 years old. Of these respondents, only 3 do not have a higher education
degree, and it can be assumed that 2 of these 3 respondents, since they are between the ages of
18 and 21, may still be in the process of completing a higher education degree. 90.9% of these
responses are from respondents with higher education qualifications, which may affect the
reason why they are aware of this term, as well as their strategies and reactions in their behaviors
towards it.
Of these 33 respondents who know about the term gamification and disagree or strongly disagree
that these types of strategies are harmful to the reputation of brands, institutions, associations or
companies, their ages range from 20 to 52, with the highest frequency range being between 20
and 30 years old. These are individuals who have followed with greater intensity the evolution of
the world and the era of digital and technology, making their mentality more open in
approaching this area as well as the application of it, as well as likewise no respondents Disagree
or Totally Disagree that they are a good practice on the part of entities.
RQ3 - On what device are the social networks most accessed?
Regarding this question, this answer influences the whole thought of this study by the degree of
recetivity of these strategies by users, depending on the functions that the devices can do. Thus,
2% (4 answers) use more the computer to access their social networks, 0% (0 answers) use the
Tablet and, in turn, 98% (199 answers) use more the cell phone to access their social networks.
It is important to note that to any conclusion, all social networks, currently are available in the
desktop version, and yet it is concluded that the device that most accesses social networks is the
cell phone.
RQ4 - Are individuals willing to participate in gamification strategies?
Finally, it can also be concluded, in relation to P.I. 4, that respondents even not knowing the definition of
gamification, nor its strategies that are applied on social networks weave their opinion and 23.65% (48
answers) agree that these strategies damage the image of the understood. Of these same respondents,
more than half of the respondents usually have contact with this type of strategies, although 90.6% (184
answers) do not adhere to them frequently. This is a factor that can be easily identified due to the habits,
interests, and lifestyles of users as well as the age range being heavily geared towards Millennials.
Despite their strong opinion in not participating in these strategies, almost half of the sample in this
survey has no opinion if entities should use these strategies more, as well as no opinion if these types of
strategies are reliable, and do not know if they would participate if entities provided more content of this
kind. In this way, it can be assumed that it is a pondered society, without strong opinions about the future
and with awareness of concepts such as cybersecurity.
CONCLUSION
The technological evolution and social networks are already part of the lifestyle of today's society, and it
is a constant challenge for companies/brands to persist on these platforms with a high level of awareness
and visibility. This social media medium has already become irreplaceable for those used and, in a
business context, is where companies find potential customers, as well as analyze the choices and
strategies of their competitors.
Gamification and its strategies have already been used for improvement and optimization in a wide range
of challenges. Gamification can be seen as the use of game elements for user reward.
Bringing these two areas together brings us to the improvement and optimization of the strategies used in
social networks for a better relationship with the user. During this chapter it was shown how this junction
has already become indispensable. The main goal of gamification strategies in social networks is to
improve the use and involvement of users in social networks. Thus, this chapter aimed to analyze,
qualitatively and quantitatively, the behavior of users towards this type of strategies, as well as the
knowledge about this area, through an online questionnaire survey.
203 answers were registered. A quite a large number, being their most frequent age between 20 and 30
years old, from the northern region of Portugal, more precisely from Viana do Castelo. After analyzing
the surveys, it was possible to verify that for 83.7% of the respondents the term gamification in its pure
definition is not common in the knowledge of the target audience, as well as any definition of the same
area in the context of social networks, considering that 90.9% of the respondents have higher education
qualifications. Although this term is not common in the knowledge of the target audience in question, a
large percentage of them have observed, or even participated in strategies adopted by companies/brands
without having, totally or not, notion of this area, with the precision that 90.6% of respondents do not
adhere frequently to these same strategies. Even taking into account that of these respondents, most do not
have any opinion on whether or not companies/brands should continue to invest in these strategies nor do
they commit to their word about the future, it is possible to conclude that it is a pondered society, without
assuming strong opinions about the future and with awareness of concepts such as cybersecurity and what
care they should take in their exposure on the networks.
This study can benefit several areas, which are part of the business fabric, such as Marketing and Design.
For managers and marketers of brands or companies, there is a huge range of needs in the strategies
adopted to achieve the planned objectives and, consequently, to be closer to the consumer to understand
what they want and feel about this brand-consumer relationship.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Following the initial research plan, a deeper analysis and study regarding the considered objectives would
have been intended. Due to the time factor, it was not possible to carry them out as expected. These
objectives were expanded and used for future research.
The intended objectives would be as follows:
- To identify the different types of knowledge and acceptance of strategies in gamification according to
gender.
- To identify the different types of knowledge and acceptance of gamification strategies according to area
of residence.
- Identify the different types of knowledge and acceptance of strategies in this area according to income.
- To identify the different types of knowledge and acceptance of strategies in this area according to the
respondents' current professional situation.
For better utilization and to continue the research work, it is considered that the following research
approaches can be developed.
- Apply the research to an audience with a different income level.
- Direct the study to a different target audience, in terms of age and academic qualifications.
- Use this research and drive strategy, in a specific company/brand or organization, taking advantage of
the data analysis and finding positive solutions for it.
- Apply the research in different areas of residence, in large urban centers, and analyze the main
differences when compared to other geographical areas.
- To extend this study to an international level.
REFERENCES
Ahlqvist, T., Bäck, A., Halonen, M., & Heinonen, S. (2008). Social media roadmaps. Helsinki: Edita
Prima Oy.
Alexander, Ritt & Philipp, Hörtler (2008), “Security Aspects in Web 2.0 Mashup Systems”, Technology,
Altenbergerstrabe Linz, Austria, [Online]. Available at <http://www.fim.uni-
linz.ac.at/lva/SE_Netzwerke_und_Sicherheit_Security_Considerations_in_Intercon_Networks/semH.
pdf/> [Accessed on 10/02/2022]
Antin, J., & Churchill, E. F. (2011). Badges in social media: A social psychological perspective. In CHI,
2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Aurona J, Gerber & Andries, Barnard & Aletta Johanna, van der Merwe (2007), “Towards a semantic
web layered architecture”, the 25th conference on IASTED International Multi-Conference.
Avedon, E. M. (1971). The structural elements of games. The study of games, pp. 419-426.
Bajdor, P., & Dragolea, L. (2011). The gamification as a tool to improve risk management in the
enterprise. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica.
Bista, S. K., Nepal, S., Colineau, N. & Paris, C. (2012). Using gamification in an online community. In
Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom), 2012 8th
International Conference IEEE, pp. 611 618.
Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Chmielewski, Dawn (2013), “Nielsen Study: Social Networking Dominates Smartphone, Tablet Use”,
[Online]. Available at <http://articles.latimes .com/2013/jun/09/entertainment/la-et-ct-nielsenstudy-social-
networking-smartphone-tablet-20130609> [Accessed on 10/02/2022].
Christian, Bizer & Tom, Heath & Tim, Berners-Lee (2009). “Linked Data - The Story So Far”, Journal
Semantic Web and Information Systems.
Comarch (2014). “JetBlue Badges Deliver Gartner’s Gamification", [Online]. Available at <
www.comarch.us/media-resources/knowledge-articles/jetbluebadges-deliver-gartners-gamification/>
[Accessed on 10/02/2022].
Costa C.R.., Garcia J.E.., Da Fonseca M.J.S.., & Teixeira A.. (2021). Data Analysis in Content Marketing
Strategies. Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, CISTI.
Crawford, C. (2003). Chris Crawford on game design. United States of America: New York
Dan,Farber (2007). “From semantic Web (3.0) to the WebOS (4.0)”, [Online]. Available at
<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/from-semantic-web-30-to-the-webos-40/4499/> [Accessed on
10/02/2022].
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness:
defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference:
Envisioning Future Media Environments ACM, pp. 9-15.
Facts & Figures. (2013). [Online]. Available at <http://www.enterprise-
gamification.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Facts_%26_Figures> [Accessed on 12/01/2022]
Fonseca, J. (2002). Metodologia da pesquisa científica. Apostila. Editora Fortaleza.
Gamification-Research.org. (2021). [Online]. Available at <http:// http://gamification-research.org>
[Accessed on 23/11/2021].
Groh, F. (2012). Gamification: State of the art definition and utilization. Institute of Media Informatics
Ulm University, pp. 39-47.
Hakulinen, Auvinen & Korhonen (2013). Empirical Study on the Effect of Achievement Badges in
TRAKLA2 Online Learning Environment. Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering
(LaTiCE), pp. 21-24.
Hamari, J., & Eranti, V. (2011). Framework for designing and evaluating game achievements. In
Proceedings of DiGRA 2011: Think Design Play, pp. 115-134.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical study of gamifying
exercise. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Hamblen, Matt (2014). “Mobile Data Traffic Is Expected to Explode 11-Fold by 2018”, [Online].
Available at <www.computerworld.com/article/2487327/wireless-networking/mobile-data-traffic-is
expectedto-explode-11-fold-by-2018.html.> [Consultado a 13/02/2022]
Haytham,Al-Feel & M.A.Koutb & Hoda Suoror (2009). “Toward An Agreement on Semantic Web
Architecture”, Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering And Technology Volume 37
Hemnath (2010). “Web 4.0 - A New Web Technology”, [Online]. Available at <http://website-
quality.blogspot.com/2010/01/web-40-new-web-technology.html/> [Accessed on 13/02/2022].
Huang, W. H. Y., & Soman, D. (2013). Gamification of Education. Research Report Series: Behavioural
Economics in Action. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game
research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, pp. 04-05.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2011). Gamification from the perspective of service marketing. In Proceedings
of ACM CHI 2011 Workshop on Gamification.
Jacobs, S. (2011). Serious Play Conference 2011: Microsoft's 'Productivity Games'. [Online]. Available at
<http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36824/Serious_Play_Conference_2011_Mic
rosofts_Productivity_Games.php> [Accessed on 15/01/2022].
Jane, Greenberg & Stuart, Sutton & D. Grant, Campbell (2003). “Metadata: A Fundamental Component
of the Semantic Web”, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Volume 29, Issue 4, pp. 1618.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
Social Media. Business horizons, pp. 53-68.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., Setiawan, I. (2021). “Marketing 5.0: Technology for Humanity”. John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, pp. 241-251.
Kim, Bohyun (2013). “The Library Mobile Experience: Practices and User Expectations” Library
Technology Reports 49, no. 6, Chicago, ALA TechSource.
Kroeze, C., & Olivier, M. S. (2012). Gamifying authentication. Information Security for South Africa
(ISSA), pp. 1-8.
Li, W., Grossman, T., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2012). GamiCAD: a gamified tutorial system for first time
AutoCAD users. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and
technology, pp. 103-112.
Maged, N. Kamel Boulos & Steve, Wheeler (2007). “The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling
suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education”, Health Information and Libraries
Journal, pp: 2-23.
Malone, T. W. (1982). Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from computer games.
In Proceedings of the 1982 conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 63-68.
Marcus, C. (2008). “Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and Web 4.0 explained”, [Online]. Available at
<http://www.marcuscake.com/economic-development/internet-evolution/> [Accessed on 13/02/2022].
Matyas, S., Matyas, C., Schlieder, C., Kiefer, P., Mitarai, H., & Kamata, M. (2008). Designing location-
based mobile games with a purpose: collecting geospatial data with CityExplorer. In Proceedings of the
2008 International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, pp. 244-247.
Montola, M., Nummenmaa, T., Lucero, A., Boberg, M., & Korhonen, H. (2009). Applying game
achievement systems to enhance user experience in a photo sharing service. In Proceedings of the 13th
International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era, pp. 94-97.
Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In Proc. 6th International
Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL, pp. 323-329.
Neeli, B.K. (2012). A Method to Engage Employees Using Gamification in BPO Industry. Services in
Emerging Markets (ICSEM), 2012 Third International Conference pp. 12-15
OECD (2007). Participative web and user-created content: Web 2.0 wikis and social networking.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Oktie, Hassanzadeh (2008), “Introduction to Semantic Web Technologies & Linked Data” [Online].
Available at <http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~oktie/slides/web-of-data-intro.pdf> [Consultado a 13/11/2021]
Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban (2019). "The rise of social media” [Online]. Available at
<https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media> [Accessed on 21/02/2022].
Ossi, Nykänen (2003), “Semantic Web: Definition” [Online]. Available at
<http://www.w3c.tut.fi/talks/2003/0331umedia-on/slide6-0.html> [Accessed on 13/02/2022].
Priebatsch, Seth (2010), “Welcome to the Decade of Games,” HBR Blog Network, Harvard Business
Review, [Online]. Available at <http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/09/
welcome_to_the_decade_of_games.html.> [Accessed on 12/11/2021]
Rodrigues, MIM., Fonseca, MJSd., & Garcia, JE. (2022). The Use of CRM in Marketing and
Communication Strategies in Portuguese Non-Profit Organizations. Navigating Digital Communication
and Challenges for Organizations - Advances in E-Business Research, 223-244.
Saha, R., Manna, R., & Geetha, G. (2012). CAPTCHINO-A Gamification of Image-based CAPTCHAs to
Evaluate Usability Issues. In Computing Sciences (ICCS), 2012 International Conference, pp. 95-99.
San, Murugesan (2007), “Understanding Web 2.0”, JournalITProfessional.
Sandroni, Araújo Gabriela (2015). “Breve Historia y Origen del Internet” [Online]. Available at
<https://web.archive.org/web/20150505102148/http://www.academia.edu/5489717/BREVE_HISTORIA
_Y_ORIGEN_DEL_INTERNET> [Accessed on 21/02/2022]
Sean B, Palmer (2001). “The Semantic Web: An Introduction”, [Online]. Available at
<http://infomesh.net/2001/swintro/> [Accessed on 21/01/2022]
Sicart, M. (2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2).
Sudhir, Batra (2006). “AJAX - Asynchronous Java Script and XML”, ITS - Information Technology and
Systems Management.
Susi, T., Johannesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious Games: An Overview. Technical Report,
School of Humanities and Informatics, University of Skövde, Sweden.
Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games.
Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 3(3), 3-3.
Tillström, J. (2012). Gamification in automotive marketing: A conceptual framework for implementation.
Bachelor’s Thesis. Metropolia Ammattikorkeakoulu.
Tim, Berners-Lee & Christian, Bizer & Tom, Heath & Kingsley, Idehen (2008). “Linked Data on the
Web”, 17th International World Wide Web Conference.
Tim, Berners-Lee & James, Hendler & Ora, Lassila (2001). “The Semantic Web”, The Scientific
American, vol. 5(1).
Velazco, Chris (2012) “AT&T’s Wireless Data Traffic Doubles Every Year, but Throttling Is Not the
Solution” [Online]. Available at <http://techcrunch.com/ 2012/02/14/atts-wireless-data-traffic-doubles-
everyyear-but-throttling-is-not-the-solution> [Accessed on 10/02//2022].
Von Ahn, L., & Dabbish, L. (2008). Designing games with a purpose. Communications of the ACM, pp.
58-67.
W3C (1999). “Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification”, [Online].
Available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/> [Accessed on 10/02/2022]
W3C,(2004),“The Unicode Consortium” , [Online]. Available at <http http://www.unicode.org/>
[Accessed on 10/02/2022]
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (4th ed). West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley
& Sons.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Achievement: Defined as optional subgoals that are rewarded in a secondary reward system, i.e., the
achievement system, separate from the primary reward system.
Badges: A commonly used game element in gamification, also known as an achievement or a trophy.
Game Mechanics: Any part of a game's rule system that covers one, and only one, type of possible
interaction that takes place during the game.
Gamification: Use of game design elements in non-game contexts.
Social Networks: A set of web-based services and applications where users create and exchange content
of their own creation.
Web 4.0: Known as the symbiotic web, it aims at the interaction between humans and machines in
symbiosis.
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to assess the lecturers’ opinions about the use of e-learning tools to support distance and blended learning in higher education in Portugal, evidently reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic. This research was based on a qualitative methodology, specifically, a focus group with professors from five higher education institutions from different geographical areas in Portugal. The obtained results were analysed along four main dimensions: (1) the level of knowledge of e-learning tools, (2) the reasons for using or (3) not using them, and, finally, (4) the opinion of lecturers on the student assessment process using these tools. The results showed that in addition to the concerns with smooth running classes and the appropriate delivery of the syllabus, the lecturers considered the transition to the e-learning context to have been easy. They noted a high level of literacy in the used tools, believed in the continued use of e-learning in the post-pandemic context, indicated several advantages for those involved in the e-learning context and a majority of limitations related to the time required for the adoption of more tools; and, finally, underlined the student assessment issue, which was pointed out as the most sensitive topic in the whole e-learning context. The study informed on the lecturers’ perspective on e-learning and the used tools and provided insight into their perceived usefulness and benefits for lecturers and students. An especially strong concern was verified on the part of lecturers to optimise e-learning tools to provide better knowledge delivery to students.
Chapter
Full-text available
Nowadays, social media are inevitably part of people's daily lives. Thus, political communication should also go through digital communication channels, particularly on social media. In such channels, it is important to define a digital marketing and communication strategy to attract new voters and consecutively more votes. As in offline communication channels and also in digital communication, one of the indispensable points in political communication is the candidate’s image. This image must show its own style and differentiate the candidate from his opponents. The main objective of this study is to understand the influence of social media on Portuguese voters’ decision-making process. Throughout the study, different research questions were also analyzed to access which social media are the most used to follow the online political campaign and which criteria influence the voting decision-making process. To achieve this purpose, exploratory research was carried out through questionnaire surveys. Three surveys were conducted based on the Portuguese presidential elections of January 24, 2021. The surveys were distributed before, during, and after the end of the electoral campaign, and 106 people were questioned and answered all 3 surveys. With the results of this study, it was possible to conclude that only 11% of respondents changed their voting intention due to the political communication made by political parties on social media during this electoral campaign. The social media most used by respondents was Facebook, which is also the one they consider the safest and most trustworthy to follow political communication in online media.KeywordsPolitical marketing onlineDigital marketingSocial media
Chapter
Full-text available
The current research aims to analyze the relational marketing application in higher education institutions. Quantitative descriptive research was done, composed of two variables and ten indicators that explain these effects. The results describe the level of relation and student service contentment through digital marketing tools and communication channels for students enrolled in face-to-face and online classes. It has been determined that the digital tools with a more significant relation level to online students in academic matters are Instagram and YouTube. In the communication field, the Facebook tool and web portals show the highest percentage as significant, on the other hand, the most used communication channels to establish a relationship with the university during pandemic times were: Call Center, WhatsApp, virtual rooms, and every online service.KeywordsMarketing relationshipSatisfactionHigher education marketingStudent serviceDigital toolsCommunication channels
Article
Full-text available
Social media refers to a combination of three elements: content, user communities and Web 2.0 technologies. This foresight report presents six roadmaps of the anticipated developments of social media in three themes: society, companies, and local environment. One of the roadmaps, the meta-roadmap, is the synthesis of them all. The society sub-roadmap explores societal participation through communities. There are three sub-roadmaps relating to companies: interacting with companies through communities, social media in work environment, and social media enhanced shopping. The local environment sub-roadmap looks at social media in local environment. The roadmapping process was carried out through two workshops at VTT. The results of the report are crystallized into five main development lines triggered by social media. First development line is transparency referring to its increasing role in society, both with positive and negative consequences. The second development line is the rise of ubiquitous participatory communication model. This refers to an increase of two-directional and community-based interactivity in every field, where it has some added value. The third development is reflexive empowerment. This refers to the role of social media as an enabler of grass-root community collaboration. The fourth development line is the duality personalization/fragmentation vs. mass effects/integration. Personalization/ fragmentation emphasises the tailoring of the web services and content. This development is counterweighted by mass effects/integration, like the formation of super-nodes in the web. The fifth development line is the new relations of physical and virtual worlds. This development line highlights the idea that practices induced by social media, e.g. communication, participation, co-creation, feedback and rating, will get more common in daily environment, and that virtual and physical worlds will be more and more interlinked.
Book
Drawing on an expanding array of intelligent web services and applications, a growing number of people are creating, distributing and exploiting user-created content (UCC) and being part of the wider participative web. This study describes the rapid growth of UCC and its increasing role in worldwide communication, and draws out implications for policy. Questions addressed include: What is user-created content? What are its key drivers, its scope and different forms? What are the new value chains and business models? What are the extent and form of social, cultural and economic opportunities and impacts? What are the associated challenges? Is there a government role, and what form could it take?
Article
There are many problems associated with the World Wide Web: getting lost in the hyperspace; the web content is still accessible only to humans and difficulties of web administration. The solution to these problems is the Semantic Web which is considered to be the extension for the current web presents information in both human readable and machine processable form. The aim of this study is to reach new generic foundation architecture for the Semantic Web because there is no clear architecture for it, there are four versions, but still up to now there is no agreement for one of these versions nor is there a clear picture for the relation between different layers and technologies inside this architecture. This can be done depending on the idea of previous versions as well as Gerber's evaluation method as a step toward an agreement for one Semantic Web architecture.
Article
This article defins game mechanics in relation to rules and challenges. Game mechanics are methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world. I apply this definition to a comparative analysis of the games Rez, Every Extend Extra and Shadow of the Colossus that will show the relevance of a formal definition of game mechanics.