Venture Lab Gamification Panel

September 18, 2012, MIT-Stanford Venture Lab, Stanford, CA—A panel of game experts discussed the ramifications and requirements for making work into games. Margaret Wallace moderated the panel. Panel members included Courtney Guertin, CTO from Kiip, Rajat Paharia, chief product officer from Bunchball, Amy Jo Kim, CEO from Shufflebrain, Joshua Williams, senior software design engineer from Microsoft, and Andrew Trader, venture partner from Maveron.

Wallace opened with gamify everything. Innovation, imagination, and adaptation are the key skills needed to change basic functions into games. Over time, games have been used in education with good results. The basic definition is that gamification is the process of applying game dynamics to non-gaming functions. To have value, the games must fit with current activities.

Game types can be like social games, with easy progressions from novice to power player to whale. The total value of games in enterprises will be about $3B by ’16 according to M2 Associates. This revenue will be spread across many segments, and will require a complete ecosystem of game platforms, monetization, problem solving, and game dynamics. A great number of applications will be games used to develop strategy, recruitment, budgeting, and other collaborative problem-solving issues.

Guertin proposed the need for a rewards layer. Kiip generates rewards in mobile apps, and tries to tie a rewards to achievement moments. These are measurable functions that occur during pauses in natural game play. At an achievement moment, it’s possible to raise the reward, but only if it makes sense.

People want to be rewarded for accomplishment, and not for perseverance. The intent of timing rewards with pauses in play is to develop long-term relationships and recognizing the players’ investment of time and energy into game. The rewards are thanks and also indicators of achievement, since these behaviors are more human, and non-obtrusive.

The rewards are also structured so people can choose to interact. The business model for Kiip is to charge brands for hits, and share this income with the app developers. This reward structure is not just in games, but can be used in any interactive setting.

Traitor approved of the company side making money. Companies approach games from different identities, ways, and desired outcomes. So far, games are mostly in the consumer area, which is good, and these people are now looking for similar environments in their work. Most casual games are built upon relationship capital, and the social games are compelling, have reach, retention, and also can create revenue streams. Applying these principles to a corporate environment allows the company to incentivize a behavior.

Williams acknowledged the difficulty in linking the group games. Although not part of their original business, the changes in jobs increased interest in performing the jobs. The first group game was a “bug bash”, a software development game that tracked bug identification and fixes in a new environment. They added game elements to the basic function of software development to increase engagement and fun.

This game and other productivity games reduce the pain and boredom of doing work. The whole game structure, however, needs work two to the number of challenges in designing these types of games. Gamification is a double-edged sword. It can make work more interesting but can also be a distraction.

Kim finds design to be compelling as they move more products and services into a game environment. There are psychological and financial rewards in implementing and tuning social and mobile products. Game elements like external progress markers can provide nukes. Susan keep people engaged, but have the connotation of no correlation with experience.

As a result, system design is very important. Users are always expecting more sophisticated and dynamic games, because they’re all available. Non-zero-sum gaming has high potential in a corporate environment, because it allows games to be played with partners rather than opponents. As people become more accustomed to the diversity of game styles on their mobile devices, they are diversifying the gaming population to include both genders and social interactions. The time is ripe for change especially in companies.

Paharia described the evolution of game mechanics. In ’09, the term took off and enabled developers to measure and motivate players. Now games also strive for loyalty and, in a corporate environment, guiding behaviors. Earlier games develop technologies and data generation capabilities to motivate people.

The increases in data are driving requirements for analytics platforms. Developers are using all features of the games to drive loyalty, and increase engagement. For game developers by extension of their games become partners with the employees in developing and improving training and collaboration.

Moment of achievement and reward? How do brands adapt?
Guertin answered that at the beginning they had to do a lot of missionary sales. The good thing is that all people play something. The game developers design games and add goals to get points for rewards. The intent of the rewards is to surprise and delight the player, and put a thank you note into the application. Game players increase their knowledge of the sponsoring companies through engagement and interaction with the rewards. Earlier versions of rewards were not well thought out. The game developers did not know how to make it fun. Now there are resources such as www.funtheory.org to promote the concepts of fun.

Adding game features? The worst things they’ve seen in games?
Paharia noted that the core game structure needs value. The value of the end-user and his or her participation has to be at knowledge to. In general, rewards are not correlated to the game itself. Insider access and other game specific functions or more valuable in context.

The worst thing was foursquare. On a board is a good game, but it’s bad for retention, and has no value for the data generated.
Kim suggested using the game as a data collector
Paharia added monetization of data.

Collaboration and problem solving? How to get play out?
Kim suggested there a lots of ways. Rock Band includes social design, social systems to form bonds etc. These factors make the game fun and create strong bonds. MMOs develop team commitment even though the player is tired of the game. People have increased loyalty and engagement with a team.

The relationship with points and the opportunities for collaboration are an alternative to competition. Personal progress metrics are equated with competition, and are similar in function to leader boards. World of Warcraft demonstrates scaling teams to guild levels. Developing social metrics such as contributions, number of groups joined, activities are better than personal metrics. Starting with a social focus opens opportunities for interactions.
Williams mentioned that they experimented with bonuses as indicators for individual and team progress. This is a mechanism for group management, and reduces the need for a game master to run the game.
Trader looked at the social context. The origins of social gaming on a large scale was in ’06. Zynga brought games to the mass market. These games were fun, quick, and easy to learn and play. The social aspects allowed people to express themselves in a game.

The ways to apply these features is to capture the underlying emotions from the user and apply them to every day functions. for example, Groupon has no loyalty to any brand because customers want to deal with merchants directly. As a result, they offer new types of rewards as a motivation for users to customize their profiles and increase sharing with friends.

Do companies get it?
Trader declared that a company has to offer a valuable product or service to start. They can add the game features later to lengthen retention and extract more value from the user. It is not interesting to just add a game. Areas of high potential include health and medical, education, and e-commerce. For example, a game for language learning might use native speakers as a part of network sharing. Coins for the game would reward goal achievements, levels, and helping others.
Williams offered surprises. Leader boards are tricky because aggressive people want to get to the top, but a big difference between the top and your own score can be a turn off. A change might be to have a drawing for the top 20 players and not just of the #1. add layers of abstraction so you just compete with yourself. Normalize levels of effort and flatten the playing field.

Abstracting points, is fun necessary?
Kim asserted that engagement is more important than fun. People have different drivers. Loyalty, tutorials, etc. and over time the game has to be satisfying. Education and games are a good fit, but games in the enterprise are different.
Williams added a compelling experience is necessary, so fun is not needed. On-line universities and education to the poor are important needs. Education leads to better jobs, but the basic tools for learning are not fun. Instead, the programs need to provide a sense of progress, manageable goals, and feedback. Fun is key only in some segments.

Examples of key performance indicators?
Paharia explained that it depends upon use. For companies, the key business objectives and company mission are important. The game developer has to determine what to do to change behaviors and drive people to the desired goals. Users get points for an exercise while the company uses a measurement plan to capture all the data.
Wallace agreed. Meaningful rewards come in many forms. In a vertical like health and fitness, you need the demographics of the target audience and provide feedback. You need to ask questions to refine user profiles.

First you need to survey 57 percent of the participants, then match rewards to the goals. Change the triggers so the end goal gets the right reward for the concluded actions. You need to measure personal changes.

IRS becoming a game?
Paharia quipped that it is possible, and may not be bad. For example, Adobe Photoshop is too complex for most users. Even the tutorials are complex. They gamified the tutorials with the result that the conversion rate from trials to purchases increased and users indicated an increased sense of mastery. A user game is not the same as a teaching game.
Trader proposed game-like tools for audits of government and NGOs. One company has experience in local school fundraising. They set up teams and compete between teams and schools. The game provides a walk-through on boarding, encouragement, and generates money. A cut goes to the schools and a smaller cut goes to the site.
Wallace suggested that they would be changing their brands for better engagement.
Paharia appended that enterprises have a large number of users, a challenge in developing a new game that can scale instantly.
Williams concluded that they might make games only for internal use.

Sense of achievement, end of game?
Williams said that the end point should be time based. People lose interest in a game over time, so you need to refresh the game. You can unlock other features as the group advances. You can end with no boss to defeat.
Trader declared that games can leverage the social game mechanics by adding gamification and social functions to encourage collaborative or competitive behaviors. The mechanics drive engagement and are powerful, by including social features in a deeper way. The industry needs a second generation of social services.

Powerful and innovative in health?
Paharia noted that this is really hard. Health participation drops off quickly, because the behavior changes for healthy living get low quality and slow feedback. The game and its participants need to have a long term horizon. Devices and other components all don’t work well over time.
Williams commented that feedback lops can change behaviors, but you need a short loop. One possibility is to set up comparisons to others.
Trader added you also have to deeply integrate with outside agencies like insurance or company policies to reward users for better health practices. You need a support community and network to achieve success. Health games might be integrated with carriers for the social aspects.

Next?
Guertin mentioned personal and mobile to reduce feedback loops.
Paharia offered changing the nature of work
Kim proposed embedded everywhere, but not called gamification. Inventions
Williams suggested the future of work versus play is changing with increased communications and collaboration.
Trader anticipated a combination of social, mobile, and platforms to connect in a meaningful social 2.0