Is it all a game? Understanding the principlesof gamification

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

aBeedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, 500 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 1W6, CanadabKing’s College London, University of London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford Street,London SE1 9NH, UK

Business Horizons (2015) 58, 411—420

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirectwww.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

KEYWORDSGamification;Experience;Mechanics;Dynamics;Emotions;Behavior change;Motivation;American Idol

Abstract There is growing interest in how gamification–—defined as the applicationof game design principles in non-gaming contexts–—can be used in business. However,academic research and management practice have paid little attention to thechallenges of how best to design, implement, manage, and optimize gamificationstrategies. To advance understanding of gamification, this article defines what it isand explains how it prompts managers to think about business practice in new andinnovative ways. Drawing upon the game design literature, we present a framework ofthree gamification principles–—mechanics, dynamics, and emotions (MDE)–—to explainhow gamified experiences can be created. We then provide an extended illustration ofgamification and conclude with ideas for future research and application opportu-nities.# 2015 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. Allrights reserved.

1. Press play to start

Games are everywhere. We play games while trav-eling, while relaxing, or while at work, simply tocreate enjoyable experiences for ourselves and forothers. Firms, too, have long motivated their

* Corresponding authorE-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, Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006

employees and customers with game-like incentives(e.g., competitions among financial traders, leader-boards for salespeople, participation badges).However, increasing engagement and rewardingdesired behavior with such incentives has alwaysbeen hard to perform at scale. Only now, at a timewhen much of what we do is mediated by digitaltechnologies and social media, may firms changethat behavior by turning traditional processes intodeeper, more engaging game-like experiences formany of their customers and for their employees.This process is commonly referred to as gamifica-tion.

ndiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

412 K. Robson et al.

Gamification has potentially wide applications incontexts such as healthcare, sustainability, govern-ment, transportation, and education, among others.For instance, more than 75 energy companies arealready using Opower, a service that equips homeswith sensors enabling residents to compare theirhouseholdenergy consumptionwith 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 havewith the brands they use or aspire to use. Drivers ofa Nissan Leaf can collect points for driving in anecologically friendly manner, and can compete withtheir friends on Facebook. Xerox employs gamificationto train managers who collaborate online to completequests, and Salesforce uses challenges and leader-boards to increase sales. Microsoft has gamified therelatively tedious but important process of translatingits Windows 7 operating system into different lan-guages and adapting it to work in different cultures.

Although studies suggest that 70% of the world’slargest 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 gamifiedapplications will fail to meet business objectives(Gartner, 2012), primarily because processes havebeen inappropriately gamified. A likely reason forthis is a lack of understanding of what gamification is,how gamification works and, more specifically, howto design gamification experiences that inspire player(e.g., employee, customer, citizen) behavior changesand result in desirable outcomes.

However, the academic business literature offerslittle direction to, or understanding of, gamifica-tion, its design principles, and the key underlyingpsychological motivations by which gamificationchanges behavior and achieves organizational goals.Thus, we begin by defining gamification and describ-ing its application in organizations. Next, we explainthe psychology behind the promise of gamification.We then introduce a framework, rooted in gamedesign, that includes three principles for creatinggamification experiences: mechanics, dynamics,and emotions (MDE). Next, we link the MDE frame-work to employee and customer engagement byillustrating its application in the popular realitytelevision show American Idol. Finally, we presentconcluding remarks on gamification and presentideas 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), orgame theory in organizational settings (Camerer,2003). It does not. Rather, gamification is the appli-cation of lessons from the gaming domain to changebehaviors in non-game situations. ‘Gamified’ expe-riences can focus on business processes (e.g., cus-tomer acquisition) or outcomes (e.g., employeesales). Moreover, these experiences can involveparticipants–—or players–—outside of a firm (e.g.,to co-develop products with customers) and/orwithin it (e.g., to improve employee satisfaction).

While firms’ use of such game-like experiences tocontrol behavior and increase loyalty and engage-ment is not new, efforts to date have neither soughtto learn from formal game design principles norbeen labeled gamification. In fact, the term gami-fication only started to attract widespread attentionin non-gaming contexts in 2010 (Zichermann & Cun-ningham, 2011). We suggest the heightened interestin gamification today is the result of three recentdevelopments.

First, over the last 20 years with the growth andimportance of the computer game industry, gamedesigners and researchers have invested significant-ly in studies to better understand what makes acomputer game engaging and successful. This hasled to a number of theories and lessons about thedesign and management of gaming experiences, andto frameworks about incentives that motivate indi-viduals to play. In the next section, we build on thiswork and introduce three important gamificationprinciples that are based on the gaming literature’slessons: mechanics (i.e., the goals, rules, and re-wards), dynamics (i.e., how players enact the me-chanics), and emotions (i.e., how players feeltoward the gamified experience).

Second, the pervasiveness of social media andmobile and Web-based technologies has changedhow individuals and organizations participate in,share, co-create, discuss, and modify any type ofexperience (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, &Silvestre, 2011). Today’s firms can request andgenerate previously unattainable amounts of dataabout people and their opinions, feelings, and be-havior. The quantity and quality of the resultinginsights has only now become useful for producinggamified employment or consumption experiencesat scale, which in turn will yield new data.

Third, firms are continually looking for new andimpactful ways to better connect with, learn from,and influence the behaviors of employees and cus-tomers. Three recent developments provide a richlandscape of opportunities to innovate in this re-gard: (1) new knowledge about the design andmanagement of gaming experiences (2) combinedwith the advent of social media and technology and

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

(3) the heightened interest in providing more en-gaging experiences.

3. Why gamification works

Gamification can change stakeholder behavior be-cause it taps into motivational drivers of humanbehavior in two connected ways: reinforcementsand emotions. First, both positive and negativereinforcements encourage repetition of behaviors,as operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938) and the lawof effect (Thorndike, 1905) show us. These ap-proaches have long been used in psychology toexplain a range of human behaviors as well asbehavior modification. They also posit that behaviorchanges can be motivated either through extrinsicor intrinsic reinforcements. That is, while externalfactors such as money or fame can certainly moti-vate human behavior, emotions are also powerfulmotivators for behavior change (Higgins, 2006). Ineither case, behavioral learning theory and operantconditioning argue that all behavior is motivated byreinforcements. In addition, behaviors which lead tosatisfying outcomes are more likely to lead to re-peated or ongoing behavior changes while ones withunsatisfying outcomes are far less likely to be sus-tained (Skinner, 1938).

Successful gamification involves the repetition ofdesired outcomes. Through the motivational mech-anisms of reinforcements and emotions, desiredoutcomes become automatic behavioral processesor habits (Duhigg, 2012). Habits are formed throughproviding cues that elicit behaviors and then re-warding the behavior, thus forming a behavioral loopthat requires less and less cognitive resources as thedesired behavior is repeatedly reinforced (Duhigg,2012). Gamification can produce desired behaviorchange through the formation of habits by reinforcingthe reward and emotional response of the individualsparticipating in the experience, thus requiring fewercognitive resources each time the desired activity isreproduced.

Gamification can create desired behavior changein business contexts through rewarding desired em-ployee and customer behaviors, thus leading to moresatisfying outcomes for employees or customers thanin a non-gamified context. The reinforcements thatmotivate behavior changes can come in a variety offorms, including extrinsic (i.e., prizes, money) andintrinsic (i.e., fun, enjoyment) rewards. Regardlessof the form, the appropriate reinforcement or mixthereof is key to motivating a successful behaviorchange through inspiring affective responses fromindividuals. Thus, a well-designed gamificationexperience should include reinforcements–—whether

positive or negative, such as loss avoidance–—andshould generally lead to satisfying outcomes forthe players. Through this mix of rewards and emo-tions, employees and customers in a gamified expe-rience repeat the behavioral outcome desired by theorganization in a habitual or routine form (Duhigg,2012). Through tapping into rewards and emotions,an effective gamification experience will motivateindividuals’ behavior changes in business settings. Inorder to understand how to design an effective ga-mified experience, we examine the fundamentalprinciples that underpin gamification by introducingthe MDE framework.

4. Gamification principles: The MDEframework

As with any emerging area of endeavor, the termi-nologies central to gamification are still in flux andare often used fluidly, without categorical separa-tions. To move the practice and research of gami-fication forward, in this section we introduce theroles of game designers, players, spectators,and observers, and we define three gamificationprinciples–—mechanics, dynamics, and emotions(MDE)–—adapted from the game design literature(Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). Specifically,our MDE framework is developed from an approachto design games that highlight the need to understandgame mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics (Hunickeet al., 2004). In game design, ‘aesthetics’ describesthe desirable emotional responses (e.g., fantasy,submission, fellowship, discovery) evoked in playerswhen they interact with the game. As these aestheticresponses are largely computer game-specific, weuse the term ‘emotions’ as it better links to theengagement outcomes that businesses can attainfrom employees and customers. In the coming sec-tions, we provide specific recommendations on howto apply each gamification principle and then discusshow these collectively form the MDE framework thatcreates a gamified experience.

4.1. Designers, players, spectators, andobservers

All parties involved in gamified experiences can bedescribed using two fundamental dimensionsadapted from Pine and Gilmore (1998): variationsin participation and connection with the gamifiedenvironment. Player participation describes the ex-tent to which the individual either actively contrib-utes to the experience or is merely passively involvedin it. Player connection describes the type of envi-ronmental relationship (absorption vs. immersion)

414 K. Robson et al.

that unites the individual with the experience. Inabsorption, the experience unfolds before the personand 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 towhich they are involved in a passive or active senseand in whether they are predominantly absorbed orimmersed in the experience. First, players are thosewho compete in the gamified experience. They arethe real performers, those who actively compete inthe experience and are highly immersed. Playerscan include potential, new, or existing employeesand/or customers of a firm. Thus, players can beinternal or external to the firm.

Second, designers are the decision makers inorganizations who develop and design, as well asoften manage and maintain, the gamified experi-ence. For instance, in the context of improvingemployee engagement, these designers could behuman resource managers; or, in the context ofboosting customer engagement, these designerscould be customer relationship managers. It is thesedesigners who will need to understand the MDEframework in order to design and implement aneffective gamification strategy. These designersare highly active when setting up the experience,but once the experience starts they are predomi-nantly involved in a passive sense, overseeing theexperience and ensuring that it is meeting organi-zational goals.

Third, spectators are those individuals who do notdirectly compete in the gamified experience butwhose presence will influence how the gamifiedexperience works. Spectators are part of the gami-fied environment (e.g., audience members) and aretherefore highly immersed in the experience. Whiletaking a mostly passive role, they indirectly impactthe experience by contributing to the atmosphere.In a non-game setting, for example, a spectatorcould include a supervisor who contributes to theatmosphere by serving as a visible authority or asource of support. Such a supervisor is not involvedin designing the gamified experience or in compet-ing in the experience, but is present to ensure thatthe experience progresses smoothly and, in doingso, alters player behavior.

Finally, there are observers. These are outsideindividuals who are passively involved and absorbedin the experience. They have no direct impact on thegamified experience and are merely able to watchit from the outside. However, the presence–—andquantity–—of observers will impact the popularityof the experience. Furthermore, observers are

potential players or spectators, as they can assumenew roles by seeking out ways to become more activeor immersed in the experience. In a non-game set-ting, an observer could include employees in otherdepartments or offices in the firm. These employeeshave no direct contact with the players, but areaware of the gamified experience and follow theoutcomes to see who wins.

Of course, any people involved in gamification can,through their actions, change the extent to whichthey participate in the experience and are connectedto it. A player, for example, can decide to watch andcheer for another player; in doing so, he/she takes ona more passive role and is more immersed in theexperience than absorbed by it, thus becoming aspectator. Consider an employee whose shift is over:he or she is no longer a player in the experience, buthe/she may assume a spectator role by supportingand cheering on colleagues who are just beginningtheir shift. However, we argue that the majority ofthe roles these types of people play in a gamifiedexperience will fall onto one end of the spectrums ofpassive versus active and immersed versus absorbed(Pine & Gilmore, 1998). In sum, designers set up,manage, and maintain the gamified experience thatthe players compete in. Spectators are part of thegamification environment and can influence playerbehavior. Observers are outsiders who can witnessthe experience, but do not impact the experience inany way. Understanding the individuals that are in-volved in a gamified experience is fundamental tounderstanding gamification. Next, we turn to thebasic gamification mechanics essential to construct-ing the experience.

4.2. Mechanics

Mechanics are the decisions that designers–—thosewho wish to gamify a non-game context–—make tospecify the goals, the rules, the setting, the con-text, the types of interactions (i.e., opponents), andthe boundaries of the situation to be gamified.These gamification mechanics are known beforethe experience starts and they remain constant.In other words, they do not change from one playerto the next, and they stay the same each time aplayer engages in the experience. In chess, forexample, the mechanics include decisions that havedetermined the number of pieces, how pieces moveand take other pieces, the number and pattern ofsquares on the board, and how a winner is decided.In terms of organizational control theory, mechanicsequate to the organizational systems and technolo-gies that managers can use to induce the requiredbehaviors and outcomes (McCarthy & Gordon,2011).

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

There are three different types of mechanics–—setup mechanics, rule mechanics, and progressionmechanics–—which are tremendously important notonly for games, but also for gamified experiences.Setup mechanics are those considerations thatshape the environment of the experience, includingthe setting, what objects are needed, and howthe objects are to be distributed among players(Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007). For example, the setupmechanics will determine who a player is playingagainst: Is the competitor known or unknown, in-ternal or external, a single competitor or a group?These decisions impact the overall context of thegamified experience. Designers must consider spa-tial dimensions to determine where in the real or thevirtual world the experience will take place, andtemporal dimensions to regulate when the gamifiedexperience will happen, whether it is real time- orturn-based, or whether it has a finite end or infiniteplay. Design choices regarding player structure limitwho can play and whether the experience is forsingle or multiple players; allow single or multipleteams; and include real friends, strangers, or evencomputer-controlled allies and enemies.

Rule mechanics shape the concept or goal of thegamified experience to be pursued (Elverdam &Aarseth, 2007). They not only prescribe the actionsthat are permissible but also the constraints (e.g.,time restriction) that limit those actions in order tocreate pressure for players (Kelly, 2012b). Some rulemechanics are highly deterministic and invariablyproduce the same result if the player input is iden-tical each time. Other rule mechanics are non-deterministic, especially when elements of chanceare involved or when players are allowed to interactwith each other. Rule mechanics can be topological,too, and specify what happens when a player landson a specific real or virtual spot. Think about how aplayer collects a reward for ‘passing Go’ in Monopolyor how in a gamified geo-location setting people arerewarded for going places and for checking in tolocations they’re visiting. Time-based rule mechan-ics spell out whether players have to act within atime period or how resources build up or depleteover time. Objective-based rule mechanics specifythe effects of a specific circumstance being met(e.g., completing one level unlocks the next).

Progression mechanics describe different types ofinstruments that designers embed to affect the ex-perience while it happens (Elverdam & Aarseth,2007). In the context of gamification, progressionmechanics are particularly important: they dictatethe reinforcements present in the experience. Thatis, as behaviors with rewarding outcomes are morelikely to be repeated (Rothschild & Gaidis, 1981),appropriate progression mechanics are used to

increase the likelihood that certain behaviors willbe repeated in the future. To signal their progress,achievement rewards are often used. These could bevirtual victory point systems that players accumulateas they progress–—such as scores, levels, progressbars, or resources (e.g., strength)–—but they can alsobe real rewards (e.g., currency). In particular,achievement rewards with social significance (e.g.,badges, trophies, leaderboards) indicate the socialstanding within a community and are powerful pro-gression mechanics. Progression mechanics provideimportant feedback that signals a player’s successtoward victory. However, the achievement rewardsmust be desirable for the players; otherwise, theexperience loses its salience. The distribution ofextrinsic rewards is also an important aspect ofprogression mechanics since they may be eitherzero-sum (i.e., some players win and some lose) orpositive-sum (i.e., overall the rewards are abovezero). Designers must plan this distribution carefully,as mistakes could be very costly to the organizationand possibly bankrupt the gamified application’sbudget. Furthermore, having too many rewards–—especially top rewards–—may dilute the overallstrength of rewards and the meaning of player winsand/or status levels.

Gamification mechanics are the foundational as-pects of gamified experience: they determine whothe key parties are, how they interact, how to win orlose, and where and when the experience takesplace. Mechanics form the structure that the gami-fied experience exists in; however, on their own,mechanics are not enough to create an experiencethat 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 desiredbehavior change. This interdependent relationshipbetween the three gamification dimensions signal todesigners what changes, if any, need to be made tothe mechanics to ensure that the organization’sgoals are met. These components of a gamifiedexperience 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 thedesigner, the gamification dynamics are produced byhow players follow the mechanics chosen by design-ers. These dynamics describe in-game behaviors andthe strategic actions and interactions that emergeduring play (Camerer, 2003). In a game context, themechanics of the multiplayer card game Poker in-clude shuffling, trick-taking, and betting, from

Figure 1. MDE framework of gamification principles

416 K. Robson et al.

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 itselfto a more competitive dynamic. Beyond playerstructure, the presence of both spectators and ob-servers has a number of implications with respect toplayer dynamics. For example, in negotiation gameswhen players know they are being watched–—byobservers or spectators–—Lewicki, Barry, and Saun-ders (2014) suggest that a number of player behaviorsresult. For example, players are more competitivewhen they know they are being watched, as they donot 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 otherbehaviors.

Gamification dynamics are difficult to predict andthus 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 fordesigners is to anticipate the types of dynamics thatcan emerge and to develop the mechanics of theexperience appropriately.

4.4. Emotions

Gamification emotions are the mental affectivestates and reactions evoked among individual play-ers when they participate in a gamified experience.Emotions are a product of how players follow themechanics and then generate dynamics. As withgames, the emotions in a gamified experienceshould be fun-oriented and appealing, not only ona pragmatic level but also on an emotional level(LeBlanc, 2004). Assuming that players will notcontinue to play if they do not enjoy themselves,creating player enjoyment should be seen as thesingle-most important player engagement goal forgamification (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Such funand enjoyment can come in many different forms,including positive emotions such as excitement,amusement, amazement, surprise, wonder, andpersonal triumph over adversity. While fun shouldbe part of the experience, a mix of emotions is oftenfelt by the players. This could include negativefeelings, such as disappointment at losing or sadnessat not achieving a reward.

In sum, the MDE framework outlines the interde-pendent relationship of the gamification principles ofmechanics, dynamics, and emotions (Figure 1) andillustrates how these principles can be applied to-gether to create and extend the player experience. It

also shows how small changes in one principle canimpact the other two and create different experi-ences. Furthermore, the MDE framework helps clarifyhow designers and players perceive gamified expe-riences differently (LeBlanc, 2004). Specifically, ga-mification designers’ foremost focus is on selectingappropriate mechanics in order to retain control overthe experience, followed by a focus on dynamics, andlastly on players’ emotions. For players, on the otherhand, emotions are key. The adrenaline rush resultingfrom surviving a vicarious adventure or mastering amental challenge and the associated dynamicsis more important than the rules that make thempossible (Lazzaro, 2004). In optimized gamifiedexperiences, players’ emotional responses andthe dynamics that emerge during play shape themechanics that govern play and vice versa. Asa result, understanding gamification mechanics,dynamics, and emotions and how these principlesrelate to one another is key for successfully gamifyingan experience.

5. Gamification at work: The case ofAmerican Idol

In what follows, we use a very well-known andratings-busting TV show in America, American Idol,to illustrate how the different gamification princi-ples can motivate desired behavior changes amongemployees and customers. We use American Idol forthree reasons: (1) it exemplifies how to increaseengagement and change behavior through gamifica-tion, (2) it demonstrates how to improve bothcustomer and employee engagement, and (3) itillustrates how gamification can become a successstory.

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

First, American Idol is not just an entertainingshow, but also an excellent example of how toincrease the engagement and change the behaviorof both employees (i.e., the artists who hope tosecure record deals) and customers (i.e., viewerswho watch and vote) through gamification. Tradi-tional talent searches were much less engagingbecause they relied on individual talent scouts tobring their discoveries to recording companies inhopes of securing a contract. Likewise, the oldermodel of engaging audience members was based onthe weekly popularity of songs as measured by radioairplay and Billboard Charts–—which stimulatedsales. Simon Fuller and his team, the designers ofAmerican Idol, cleverly gamified these two verytraditional practices, which we argue are not unlikemany other business processes. For instance,American Idol is an example of gamifying traditionalhuman resource management: All contestants enterinto a contractual agreement with 19 Entertain-ment, the production company behind AmericanIdol, before they ever set foot on a stage. Much likeother employees, they work on a probationary peri-od before some of them receive continuing con-tracts. As regards audience experience, we arguethat American Idol illustrates how traditional prod-uct development and sales experiences can be ga-mified. Firms often solicit the input of customersduring 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 andhighly engaged focus group where the opinions ofcustomers are collected to select and improve thefirm’s offerings.

Second, most gamification activities are focusedon improving either customer or employee engage-ment. By including the talent search (i.e., engagingpotential new employees) and record sales (i.e.,engaging customers) in one show, American Idoldemonstrates that these two can be combined.The result is a two-sided gamified experience thatincreases the engagement and changes the behaviorof employees and customers at the same time. Thisis particularly interesting in the context of managerslooking to grow their engagement with communitiesinside and outside the firm simultaneously to buildvalue for the brand internally and externally.

Lastly, American Idol illustrates how the resultinggamified experience can become a success story in itsown right. American Idol has not only produced suchhugely successful entertainers as Carrie Underwood,Kelly Clarkson, and Jennifer Hudson–—throughgamified employee engagement during the talentsearch–—and sold millions of albums–—through gami-fied customer engagement leading to sales–—but ithas also created a highly profitable TV show by

aligning the mechanics, dynamics, and emotions itdeveloped for contestants with those developed foraudience 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 variouscities in the U.S., takes place in front of a live studioaudience of more than 7,000 members, and is broad-cast to millions via television and the Internet.Temporal mechanics are employed such that oncea week, for an average of 10 weeks, American Idolcontestants take turns performing songs based on aweekly theme (e.g., Motown, Elvis, Number 1 hits).Regarding player structure, American Idol creativelycombines some of the choices involving both con-testants and their supporters (i.e., observers andspectators) in the experience. Spectators includemembers of the live studio audience and individualsat home watching on their television who vote viavoice calls, SMS texts, or the American Idol website(Amegashie, 2009; Ciulla et al., 2012). Observersare those fans who are not part of the studio audi-ence and who do not participate in the experienceby voting, but merely view the show for personalenjoyment. The players, spectators, and observersall consent to be involved in American Idol. This isimportant, because when consent to participatein 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 mechanicsare plentiful and varied, and any number of com-binations is possible. However, what these me-chanics have in common is that they are alldecisions that influence the experience before itcommences. One of the most basic rule mechanicsfor American Idol is that the popularity of contest-ants is highly dependent on comparisons with othercontestants (Amegashie, 2009). Time-based rulemechanics in American Idol spell out whether play-ers have to act within a time period (e.g., whenspectators can vote, again and again, for theirfavorite contestants on American Idol) and howresources build up or deplete over time (e.g., votescollected by each contestant cannot be carriedforward into the next round, and the score is reseteach week). Contestants at the top of the popu-larity scale will move forward, making popularityand votes from spectators key to the progressionmechanics of American Idol. The ultimate rewardin American Idol is being the finalist–—as voted byspectators–—and thus receiving a lucrative record-ing contract and fame.

418 K. Robson et al.

5.2. American Idol dynamics

American Idol primarily leverages the contestants’desire to win and spectators’ desire to see theirfavorites succeed. For the contestants, time pres-sure and opponent play are included to rewardcompetitive dynamics and motivate individual con-testants to perform at their best in solo perfor-mances. In other cases, winning conditions thatrequire working with other players (e.g., duets orgroup performances) are included to drive collabo-rative dynamics. Audience members as spectatorscheer on singers; their role is significant because theaudience contributes to dynamics of the experi-ence.

5.3. American Idol emotions

Participants in American Idol undergo a number ofemotional responses. For contestants, emotions areeven more powerful–—often visible through the tearsof joy and sorrow–—and include nervousness, exhil-aration, pride, and euphoria–—even frustration.Spectators experience anxiety as the time to castvotes runs out, and both spectators and observersexperience excitement when the winners are an-nounced, followed by happiness and relief or sad-ness, depending on the outcome of their favoritecontestant (Ciulla et al., 2012). Aspirations forthe emotions associated with a big win help over-come smaller emotional disappointments that play-ers experience–—which helps explain why peoplecontinue to play even when they lose most ofthe time. These desired and aspired mental statesare the reasons why players start and continue toparticipate. But, of course, these emotions do notemerge by themselves: They are shaped by theinterplay of mechanics and dynamics.

American Idol is a successful example of how agamified talent search can motivate people–—sing-ers and numerous fans–—to participate actively inthe 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 arerule mechanics (jury member voting, viewer phone-in balloting, and performers singing for survival orelimination) and progress mechanics (posting thevoting tally in real time). Together these mechanicsfundamentally support the collaborative and com-petitive nature of the talent search competition,and in turn give rise to the powerful emotionalattachment felt by contestants and members ofthe audience alike. The MDE alignment has resultedin 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 popularcontestants. As of 2012, over 59 million albums and110 million singles and digital tracks have sold in theUnited States alone (Ciulla et al., 2012).

6. Game on! The value of gamification

All organizations need to motivate and engagestakeholders, whether these stakeholders are vot-ers, students, patients, employees, or consumers.Gamification is an approach to achieving this: Itemploys lessons from the gaming domain to createexperiences that motivate and engage individuals innon-game settings. The goal of our article has beento advance the understanding of gamification con-cepts, applications, and impacts. To do this we haveprovided three contributions. First, we defined ga-mification and explained how it has been used todesign highly engaging processes in a range of ser-vice industries. Second, we introduced the MDEframework to show how gamification mechanics,dynamics, and emotions are used to create gamifiedexperiences. Third, using the case of American Idol,we illustrated how MDE was used to transition atraditional talent search to an important culturalphenomenon that engaged not only the contestantsbut also a whole nation of viewers. From thesecontributions we present five summary guidelinesto help firms capture value using our gamificationframework:

1. What’s the goal of the game? A process shouldnot be gamified simply for the sake of gamifica-tion itself. It should be driven by goals that canbe financial, social, or environmental. Firmsshould assess the potential to use gamificationto produce and adjust behaviors and outcomesneeded to attain those goals. Focusing on onegoal, not two or three, minimizes complexity andensures that mechanics, dynamics, and emotionsdo not conflict or offset each other (Kelly,2012a). Firms should also identify different ga-mification measures and targets and understandhow the intended mechanics, dynamics, andemotions would drive and moderate these mea-sures. It is important to determine the causalitybetween 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 isimportant because it promotes an in-depth under-standing of the links between mechanics, dynam-ics, emotions, and player-related outcomes.

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

However, it is also important to understand whento incorporate spectators and/or observers andhow their participation can energize and directdifferent behaviors and outcomes in a process.Spectators and observers played a very significantrole in the success of American Idol.

3. Gaming the game. People will want to try andcheat a gamified process. There will be players,observers, and spectators who will try to gamethe game by colluding and breaking the rules. It isimportant to understand both the positives andnegatives of this human endeavor. On the onehand, it can create dynamics that lead to unde-sirable emotions (i.e., perceived injustice) thatcould put off other players, observers, and spec-tators. Furthermore, individuals might extractexcessive rewards that outweigh any benefits tothe firm using the gamification. However, therecan be positive learning and change that comefrom rule breaking. For example, these behav-iors can be the basis for modifying the mechanicsof a gamified process so as to attain deeperloyalty engagement and improve the outcomes,because when an innovation is produced by acreative individual rather than the firm, theadoption and use of that innovation is moreimpactful and enduring (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy,& Kates, 2007).

4. Adjust and transition the experience. It is un-likely that an organization will stand still onceplayers start playing, or that organizational de-sires to transform behavior will remain the sameover time. As other aspects of the organizationchange, so too should the gamified experience.As in any strategic investment, keeping focus onthe managerial goals and strategic objectives isimportant. This means that the gamified experi-ence will constantly need to be monitored, bothinternally (Does it still make sense?) and exter-nally (Are players, observers, and spectators stillexcited and engaged?). Mechanics should beadjusted accordingly so that individuals willcontinue playing and not move on to somethingthat is more exciting (in terms of emotions) ormore 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 willprolong its usefulness to the organization; how-ever, managers should watch out for signs thatthe experience has simply lost its appeal toplayers. The endgame is the final phase in the

life of a gamified process. Designers must rec-ognize that this phase exists, and they must beable to adjust and conclude the process so thatplayers, spectators, and observers will be will-ing to return and engage with new gamifiedprocesses.

References

Amegashie, J. (2009). American Idol: Should it be a singingcontest 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 dealingwith creative consumers. Business Horizons, 50(1), 39—47.

Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the laborprocess under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments instrategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Ciulla, F., Mocanu, D., Baronchelli, A., Goncalves, B., Perra, N., &Vespignani, A. (2012). Beating the news using social media:The case study of American Idol. EPJ Data Science, 1(1), 1—11.

Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit: Why we do what we do inlife and business. New York: Random House LLC.

Elverdam, C., & Aarseth, E. (2007). Game classification and gamedesign construction through critical analysis. Games and Cul-ture, 2(1), 3—22.

Gartner. (2011, November 9). Gartner predicts over 70 percent ofglobal 2000 organisations will have at least one gamifiedapplication by 2014. Available at http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1844115

Gartner. (2012, November 27). Gartner says by 2014, 80 percentof current gamified applications will fail to meet businessobjectives primarily due to poor design. Available fromhttp://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2251015

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engage-ment. Psychological Review, 113(3), 439—460.

Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formalapproach to game design and game research. Paper presentedat the Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges inGame AI, San Jose, CA.

Kelly, T. (2012a, November 17). Everything you’ll ever need toknow about gamification. Available at http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/17/everything-youll-ever-need-to-know-about-gamification/

Kelly, T. (2012b, December 8). Real gamification mechanicsrequire simplicity and, yes, game designers can doit. Available at http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/08/real-vs-fake-gamification-mechanics/

Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games andsimulations in education and research. Journal of Manage-ment, 16(2), 307—336.

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S.(2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the func-tional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons,54(3), 241—251.

Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why we play games: Four keys to moreemotion without story. Oakland, CA: XEODesign.

LeBlanc, M. (2004). Game design and tuning workshop materials.Presentation at the Game Developers Conference: San Jose,CA.

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2014). Negotiation.New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

420 K. Robson et al.

McCarthy, I. P., & Gordon, B. R. (2011). Achieving contextualambidexterity in R&D organizations: A management controlsystem approach. R&D Management, 41(3), 240—258.

Meizel, K. (2011). Idolized: Music, media, and identity inAmerican Idol. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Mollick, E. R., & Rothbard, N. (2014, September 30). Mandatoryfun: Consent, gamification, and the impact of games atwork. The Wharton School Research Paper Series. Availableat http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2277103

Pine, B. J., II, & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experienceeconomy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97—105.

Rothschild, M. L., & Gaidis, W. C. (1981). Behavioral learningtheory: Its relevance to marketing and promotions. Journal ofMarketing, 45(2), 70—78.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimentalanalysis. New York: Appleton-Century.

Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evalu-ating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertain-ment (CIE), 3(3), 1—24.

Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York:AG Seiler.

Wingfield, C. (2012, December 23). All the world’s a game,and business is a player. The New York Times. Available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/technology/all-the-worlds-a-game-and-business-is-a-player.html?_r=0

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification bydesign: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobileapps. San Francisco: O’Reilly Media.