CEO Series

September 12, 2011

If Gamification is Great, Why Aren’t Game Companies Gamifying their Research?

Creating compelling game experiences (and by corollary, creating compelling gamified research) requires more than just the mechanics of a game. After all, we’ve all played something that just wasn’t fun. And if it’s not fun, what was the point of gamifying it in the first place?

Anyone who has spoken to me at any length about gamification might believe me to be an opponent of the concept as it applies to market research. A more accurate statement is that I am opposed to the rote application of gamification to market research. By analogy, consider any scenario where the processes and techniques of one company are blindly applied to another – presumably, out of lust for some desirable characteristic. Airlines mimicking parts of Southwest Airlines’ philosophy, for example. To borrow another person’s words, competitors can replicate products and programs but they can’t replicate people.

Creating compelling game experiences (and by corollary, creating compelling gamified research) requires more than just the mechanics of a game. After all, we’ve all played something that just wasn’t fun. And if it’s not fun, what was the point of gamifying it in the first place? My understanding of gamified research is that it can:

  1. Increase engagement (reduce dropout rates)
  2. Increase accuracy (measurement of behavior vs. expressed intent)
  3. Attract participants (reduce recruiting costs)

None of those things happen if the gamified research experience isn’t fun enough to bring people back.

Games begin as a creative design process…not a software development process. Software was a necessary ingredient, yes, but you first needed to create a set of rules and randomness that led to entertainment. Visual design, user interface, audio, and story are distinct crafts that are built upon a software scaffolding. When project schedules are constrained due to the technical challenges of getting the scaffolding to work, that’s when investments in the ‘craft’ are unfulfilled and the final product fails to find an audience. Market research begins with a design process of its own, too – but it’s more applied science than poetry.

Certainly the entertainment industry is well-positioned to understand the nuance and to guide research vendors in creating effective “gamified research.” Except that to the best of my knowledge, we haven’t. Why? Three hypotheses:

  1. For the most part, games companies are not research-driven organizations. Yes, you will find examples of pricing studies and segmentation models and brand health surveys and ad testing and all the other usual suspects, but if you were to look at marketing research investments as a percentage of marketing spend it is much lower than in other industries. (Exception: theatrical film. Tons of money spent here, but in fairly formulaic ways.)
  2. Most games research is vendor-driven, with marketing as the primary internal client. There are specific types of research such as usability and playtesting that are more closely aligned with product development (and thus with the creative crafters), and those efforts are often conducted in-house. But the exchange of ideas between game designers and marketing research professionals is second-hand.
  3. There’s no “there” there. Or, there’s not enough perceived value in doing research differently or better to motivate game developers and publishers to rethink their research agendas. What we’ve got is good enough.

That’s a lot of why-nots. But I actually believe there’s a way to do this right, and to bring the engagement level of games to research in some very creative ways. I just don’t think that badges and achievements are going to be the final solution.

ad testingdesigngamificationinnovationproduct developmentrespondent engagement segmentationuser experience

Comments

Comments are moderated to ensure respect towards the author and to prevent spam or self-promotion. Your comment may be edited, rejected, or approved based on these criteria. By commenting, you accept these terms and take responsibility for your contributions.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, data, and methodologies expressed above are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official policies, positions, or beliefs of Greenbook.

More from Jason Anderson

Pokemon Go: Gamification Lessons For Research
Research Technology (ResTech)

Pokemon Go: Gamification Lessons For Research

Pokémon Go has been hugely successful in terms of adoption and engagement. How has Pokémon Go garnered such success so quickly? What can we learn, as ...

Is Safe Harbor Still Safe?
Data Quality, Privacy, and Ethics

Is Safe Harbor Still Safe?

The European Court of Justice recently invalidated the Safe Harbor progrm. What are the implications for consumer research?

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act: We Reap What We Sow
Data Quality, Privacy, and Ethics

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act: We Reap What We Sow

Maybe our own behavior, and the never-ending stream of surveys, has tainted the previously clean karma of the after-work phone survey.

Of Innovation and Snake Oil

Of Innovation and Snake Oil

For several years now, the insights industry has been talking about innovation. I struggle to remember what people talked about before.

Sign Up for
Updates

Get content that matters, written by top insights industry experts, delivered right to your inbox.

67k+ subscribers