gave some excellent elmepxas of the effect of feedback on *things you wanted to do* including exercise and productivity. To mix those with elmepxas of marketing-driven gamification for things people may NOT have actively wanted to do is part of the problem. I am not in the anti-consumer camp but I AM in the don’t-use-operant-conditioning-to-manipulate-purchases-we-don’t-want camp. To justify gamification purely on the grounds of making those manipulated purchases somehow more fun is intellectually dishonest.Badgeville, as with other gamification companies, has a crucial choice to make: to use their platform to enhance behaviors we actively want ( more appropriately called quantification rather than gamification ), or take the low road that makes no distinction between behavior manipulation against the customer’s self-interest (which Skinner techniques excel at) and support for things customers *already wanted.* It amazes me that so many gamification success stories involve ways in which gamification helps fight obesity, while those same companies/consultants/platforms are aggressively used to increase consumption of beer, soft drinks, junk food, and more television watching. It’s your right to take a neutral stance on the moral or ethical issues around gamification-based marketing, but to then hold up only the positive/healthful/non-harmful behaviors as elmepxas of good is a problem.Gamification today is nearly 100% based on operant conditioning using the quadrant of positive reinforcement. This is the same principle underlying slot machines. We already all understand that it is a powerful mechanism and psychological hack for driving behaviors including those we want to do and those we don’t. If Badgeville doesn’t want to be painted with the broad brush of gamification-as-manipulation, it might want to take a stand on how it’s being used. Not saying it needs to, just that it could, and that it is in a position to make a positive difference. If I were a gamification company today, I’d align myself with quantification, not gamification.
On this page several movies of Gabe on gamification can be found….
gave some excellent elmepxas of the effect of feedback on *things you wanted to do* including exercise and productivity. To mix those with elmepxas of marketing-driven gamification for things people may NOT have actively wanted to do is part of the problem. I am not in the anti-consumer camp but I AM in the don’t-use-operant-conditioning-to-manipulate-purchases-we-don’t-want camp. To justify gamification purely on the grounds of making those manipulated purchases somehow more fun is intellectually dishonest.Badgeville, as with other gamification companies, has a crucial choice to make: to use their platform to enhance behaviors we actively want ( more appropriately called quantification rather than gamification ), or take the low road that makes no distinction between behavior manipulation against the customer’s self-interest (which Skinner techniques excel at) and support for things customers *already wanted.* It amazes me that so many gamification success stories involve ways in which gamification helps fight obesity, while those same companies/consultants/platforms are aggressively used to increase consumption of beer, soft drinks, junk food, and more television watching. It’s your right to take a neutral stance on the moral or ethical issues around gamification-based marketing, but to then hold up only the positive/healthful/non-harmful behaviors as elmepxas of good is a problem.Gamification today is nearly 100% based on operant conditioning using the quadrant of positive reinforcement. This is the same principle underlying slot machines. We already all understand that it is a powerful mechanism and psychological hack for driving behaviors including those we want to do and those we don’t. If Badgeville doesn’t want to be painted with the broad brush of gamification-as-manipulation, it might want to take a stand on how it’s being used. Not saying it needs to, just that it could, and that it is in a position to make a positive difference. If I were a gamification company today, I’d align myself with quantification, not gamification.