Category: Strategy

  • Gamification – Level 2

    I’ve spent quite some in the last week exploring gamification – going through documentation and perspectives that have been shared online. While there’s a simplicity in the basic concept, application is a totally different story. So as with all games, I’m going to navigate step by step, until a larger picture reveals itself over a few posts.

    One of the things that I have thought about is where one would start. Since I’ve operated mostly on consumer brands, my thoughts were skewed in that direction. Most of the white papers outline a fairly simple approach that consists of defining goals, identifying users and rewarding engagement. Of course, it’s only the outline that’s simple, and application design is the real challenge. As games designer Sebastian Deterding (creator of the ‘Gamification and its Discontents’ presentation I shared last week) has written “Games are not fun because they’re games, but when they are well-designed”

    One of my favourite posts on the subject is Kathy Sierra’s “Pixie Dust and the mountain of mediocrity” (this is the original post, for some reason it wasn’t opening, hence the FB link) It underlines the point about putting lipstick on a pig, and is applicable to every buzzword that appears on the horizon. Marketers (I generalise here) have been guilty of taking the easy path and focusing on the what (tools and frills) and not focusing on digging deeper and understanding the why. That probably explains why Kathy is “passionately against ‘gamification’”

    Every brand – consumer or enterprise, serves a purpose for its user. In Kathy’s words, “make people better at something they want to be better at.” If they don’t do that yet, then they might want to get around to doing it. Brands wants users to do certain things, and it invariably boils down to a sale, and repeat sales. Every interaction in a marketing funnel is most likely a step towards pushing the user in this direction. Once upon a time, brands achieved this through one way communication on mass media, and other available means like Direct Mails and Ground promotions. The rise of social platforms allowed brands to listen more closely and gave them an avenue for understanding user motivations, reacting accordingly, having a conversation with consumers and taking word-of-mouth to levels hitherto unexplored. But rewarding this, especially if working on monetary premises, is not likely to be economical. Nor is ‘share with friends’ a great ploy because it does amount to spam. I think what gamification does is help marketers link the brand’s purpose in the life of the user to his journey in getting there, all the while utilising user motivations to create a different ecosystem of rewards that help the brand as well as the user. It then continues to give the marketer means to make the user ‘stick’ – retention.

    Just like the previous season’s buzzword – social media – this too cannot afford a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Nor can it work by adding meaningless points and badges to an ill conceived process/product. Brands would have to align their own purpose, the role it plays in users’ lives, understand personal, group and social motivations and make their own game mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics that accommodates instant gratification as well as long term purposes.

    until next time, level up

  • Gamification – Level 1

    Yes, it is quite the shiny new object in the marketing/enterprise conversations around the web. One of the positives is that there are always new and updated resources in addition to some well thought out perspectives from advocates as well as naysayers on its applications on the consumer facing side, as well as the business side. For starters, I quite liked this ‘Gamification and its discontents’ deck (via Tom Fishburne’s post on gamification) that is meant to serve as a primer before marketers set out to apply ‘gamification’.

    But though it’s very early days in terms of a structured approach to the concept of gamification, I’m quite upbeat on it. One of the primary reasons for that is its inherent application that has been happening throughout my life so far. The education system’s ranks and grades (performing x task well earns you y points) not only decide entry into schools, colleges, universities and the progression there abut also gets to dictate a lot of ‘real’ social experiences within (standing among peers, popularity) as well as without. (the varying reactions to the answers to ‘Where/what do you study’? in a social gathering) Many systems have even learned how to factor in different kinds of activities – say, sports and academics, as well as types of pedagogy. A constantly evolving ‘rank’ is built over time and the badges earned and the places they’ve been earned at also have a hand in the work stage that happens immediately after education.

    From landing the first job to designations that happen later, we continue living in a world of points and badges. In fact, I had tweeted some time ago that gamification already existed in the enterprise in the form of designations. The badges also continue to affect real life through the other reward -the salary we get, which is a function of what we have done so far as well as what we are doing. Other acquisitions from that (car, house, vacations, contacts in the phonebook) decide social standing and open further ‘game’ opportunities. I can visualise life as one gigantic gameplay with said and unsaid rules. The badges and rewards were a system unto itself, until our own evolution made us rethink this. The result has been a linkage to a larger life purpose for many of us. Some of us do this within the existing structures, while others make their own niche/walled structures and rules. But that’s a different post. Meanwhile, unlike most other games, there’s only one life, and that’s what probably makes it more exciting. 🙂

    When social networks came into our lives, we first had fun connecting with friends and potential friends, and then immediately sought to apply gamification by comparing number of friends and followers, #ff, recommendations, lists, circles and so on. Also arrived continually evolving systems to measure our activities – as a factor of presence, reach and credibility across networks – Klout, PeerIndex and Kred, for example. Increasingly, they will impact and even integrate with our ‘real’ game. My point is that we seem to inherently understand gamification and more often than not accept this. Hence, my belief that well thought out applications – consumer or enterprise, have a good chance of succeeding.

    I just realised that the ‘introduction’ itself has been a long drawn one. So I’ll wait till next week to share my thoughts on application.

    until next time, game on

  • Idea Maturity Models

    One of the blogs which almost always manages to give me fresh and interesting perspectives is Ribbonfarm. A recent post which caught my attention was ‘The Milo Criterion‘. Though not well versed in Lean Startup principles, I think I managed to get the gist of the post. (The comments were a completely different ballgame though!) So, Venkat’s Milo Criterion states that products must mature no faster than the rate at which users can adapt.

    Though it did remind me of the product life cycle – consumer life cycle thought from sometime back, I thought it also served as a good filter in another, probably simpler, line of thought – the adoption of social media by brands and enterprises. As a reasonably early adopter of services, there are several times when I have wondered how organisations could allow themselves to miss out on obvious potential. As I worked more with brands and clients, I became more objective (or probably pragmatic) and realised that it wasn’t always a lack of understanding or perspective that held brand custodians back.

    This is not just for consumer facing applications, but internal ones too. So I wondered whether organisations had somehow internalised the Milo criterion and the attitude towards social media was just a manifestation. I somehow couldn’t digest that though. Meanwhile, my recent experiences have pointed me to another factor – effective communication. I’m wondering if the Milo criterion would still apply if the ‘audience’ is always appraised of the intent and is constantly educated on the ‘why’ of the intent. Thankfully, my current line of work allows me abundant testing opportunities, and I intend to make full use of it.

    until next time, Milo’s and my highs 🙂

    Bonus Read : Will you become Irrelevant?

  • A Brand’s new story

    Brands have always been storytellers, but new platforms bring with them opportunities and complexities that warrant a tweaking of the craft. Welcome to transmedia storytelling. And you can read the rest of my article on afaqs.  (Just this once, don’t mind) 🙂

  • Social : Means or Outcome?

    In the last few weeks, I have had several interesting conversations on the subject of social’s utility to brand building. I realised that I often veered towards building the product/service ground up with social inherent in it. I was trying to understand why and that took me back to the ‘aligning business to social’ vs ‘aligning social to business’ perspectives. (earlier post and source)

    Though fundamentally the same concept, its application brought about the title of the post. With a pragmatic approach, I realise it is impossible for existing organisations to suddenly transform one day and change/align their business to a socially relevant purpose. It requires evolution. So once they identify the need for this evolution, their challenge is two fold – to build social into existing products/services and simultaneously look at identifying need gaps (of the users) in their domain which have the potential for social resonance. (either by giving the individual user such an excellent experience that he shares it in his circle willingly, or by delivering a utility by using his social connections on other platforms) The first is using social as just another means to meeting an existing objective, and the second is building something that by its inherent nature will have a social outcome that also delivers business results.

    They differ not only in approach and design, but also in terms of gestation, returns and time frames. Depending on the organisation’s evolution appetite, they will have to choose how much they would like to focus on each.

    until next time, social output is where buttons come in 😉