Epic Win! Successful Gamification in Marketing Research by Briana Brownell and Carl Gutwin #MRIA14 #MRX


Live blogging from the #MRIA national conference in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Any errors or bad jokes are my own.saskatoon

Epic Win! Successful Gamification in Marketing Research
Briana Brownell, Manager, Analytics, Insightrix Research Inc.

Carl Gutwin,  Professor of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan

  • 1- gamify to increase engagement, encourage people to do things they wouldn’t necessarily do otherwise
  • 2 – get something new, get more information from each person, information that wasn’t available via a survey
  • 3- reach the unreachable, people who might not take a survey
  • spent half the time of the project just coming up with a good idea to turn into a game
  • what is the core task – fundamental action you want the user to perform – their age, count the light bulbs in their house, need to match that action with the survey and the game
  • add around that some game mechanics – the process of playing the game, and the game itself
  • most game mechanics aren’t compatible with surveys – points and scores work. but survey needs a truth, a valid answer not an imagined outcome. you can’t let people choose which questions they want and in what order.
  • Game 1: research game show for an ad test. could they identify the sponsor, identify slogans and products, did they understand the purpose of the ad [makes me wonder – if we’re encourage people to pay attention to an but they never actually pay attention to ads, what exactly are we measuring]
  • Briana Brownelladded time pressure, cheers and jeers for correct and incorrect answers, music
  • where is the barrier between survey and game?
  • found two mistakes – in the full game, more people were getting it right, the feedback mechanism caused people to learn when they were getting right and wrong answers, refielded without the problematic feedback. smaller difference found for a time pressure section which made people give shorter responses, an undesirable outcome.
  • it was motivating. people were asked if they wanted to quit or continue. Difference of 12 vs 21 “would you like to continue, traditional vs gamified version.
  • no differences by gender, age, tenure, or gaming experience
  • Game 2: shopkeeper for a choice based conjoint. Game was little people coming in your shop and you need to help them pick a product. Also tried to do it with a little alien man on another planet – spacemonsters.
  • major questions – was the data different, was the game motivating, was the possibility of getting incorrect answers motivating, did the games realism affect the results. There ISN’T a correct answer to a survey question so need to work this out.
  • The data was not different at all – when people pick the best value, it doesn’t matter if they pick for themselves, for other people, or for aliens
  • The realism did not affect the results. equally motivated in all scenarios.
  • The possibility of getting incorrect answers didn’t affect it.
  • Was the game motivating? actually, it was demotivating. They did 47 extra games the traditional way but only 37 with the game version. It was too different from reality.
  • is it worth it too add gamification? make sure you match the task with the game mechanism first.
  • don’t make the game too gamey
  • think about auxiliary data – what can i get that I can’t get elsewhere

Other Posts

%d bloggers like this: