Merging media access 360 roi workshop gamification 3.0


Published on

Main Deck for the Gamification half of Merging Media's Access 360 Workshop on ROI. 23rd of March, 2012.

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Merging media access 360 roi workshop gamification 3.0

  1. 1. Scott Dodson COO, Product OwnerBobber Interactive, Inc.
  2. 2. ROI workshop real-time game layer! @Gamebiz mentions @RochelleGrayson mentions #MMAccess360 mentions To View:
  3. 3. Me Me
  4. 4. Me Chronic Entrepreneur
  5. 5. Used a Game Layer/Layer of Abstraction Playful Perception Mind numbing jobs Dating Holding a conversation Sales – Cold Calling Raising Angel/VCMoney Game layers worked. Werent manipulation
  6. 6. OMFG
  7. 7. Choco-fication! Credit: Jesse Schell: The Pleasure Revolution
  8. 8. Credit: Jesse Schell: ThePleasure Revolution
  9. 9. Credit: Jesse Schell: ThePleasure Revolution
  10. 10. Credit: Jesse Schell: ThePleasure Revolution
  11. 11. Credit: Jesse Schell: ThePleasure Revolution
  12. 12. Unicorn poop is still poop
  13. 13. Rewards can Backfire
  14. 14. You’re doing it wrong
  15. 15. The Right Road…
  16. 16. Becoming Ninja Gamifiers <Ninja Level 11: Cat>
  17. 17. Pleasure is…CONTEXTUAL Credit: Jesse Schell: The Pleasure Revolution
  18. 18. Pleasure is…CONTEXTUAL Credit: Jesse Schell: The Pleasure Revolution
  19. 19. Concrete : ExplicitExtrinsic Engagement Layer Intrinsic Continuum Creative : Imaginative : Abstract
  20. 20. Copernican Turn
  21. 21. Copernican Turn
  22. 22. Copernican Turn
  23. 23. Copernican Turn The Media/Brand set the terms of engagement User Viewer Customer Media/Brand Viewer Customer User
  24. 24. Copernican Turn New engagement methods are needed User, Viewer, Customer Brand App Property Media Site Service
  25. 25. The Challenge Great games are hard enough:  Only 4% of games that go into production are profitable Add a “real world” activity and you multiply the difficulty of success Often not enough just to have the “form of a game”
  26. 26. Design for sustained engagement
  27. 27. “Playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcomeunnecessary obstacles” – Bernard Suits Rules A Goal Voluntary Obstacles A Feedback System Credit: Jane McGonigal: Reality is Broken
  28. 28. Designing for Sustained Engagement  I. Establish a different user “contract”  A game is voluntary framework for the user experience  Obstacles desirable!
  29. 29. Eustress / Satisfying Work
  30. 30. Designing for Sustained Engagement  II. Design for flow; segment the experience Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi Amy Jo Kim
  31. 31. “Domain Resonant” Implementation 1 2 + 66% more people than normal chose 3 the stairs over the escalator. =
  32. 32. “Domain Resonant” Implementation
  33. 33. Designing for Sustained Engagement  III. Embrace the Domain; know the Audience  Corollary: Build the right team
  34. 34. Two Types of Motivation Extrinsic Motivation – Behavior that is motivated by contingencies (rewards, punishments) that are separate from the enjoyment of the activity itself Intrinsic Motivation – The activity itself is its own reward because it is inherently satisfying. In particular, humans have specific intrinsic needs that motivate.
  35. 35. 3 Drivers of Intrinsic Motivation Scott Rigby - ImmersyveC COMPETENCE A AUTONOMY R RELATEDNESS• Feeling “good at” • Freedom and agency • You matter to others ,they • Exercising volition matter to you• Expanding capability • Meaningful connections• Learning • Choosing • Competitive, cooperative,• Mastery • Many opportunities for • Even removed: characters in action a book or movie, developers of an app.
  36. 36. Competence, Autonomy & Relatedness: most reliable predictors of engagement (PENS) Methodology: Personal Experience of Needs SatisfactionApproach uses statistical regression analysis to predict long-term engagement • Multiple longitudinal studies with 20,000+ subjects PENS predicts • Underlying psychological causality sustained engagement... vs. solely outcome metrics (e.g., “clicks” or “fun”) “Fun” does not. Competence, Autonomy, Relatedness Predictive power with p values <.01
  37. 37. Month 1 Month 12
  38. 38. PENS design: Competence Scaled challenges (flow) Clear & juicy feedback Level=expanded capabilities
  39. 39. PENS design: Autonomy Mechanics of Choice and Opportunity Open Environment - Playground Progression choices (focus, tree-structure) Sense of purpose/volition
  40. 40. PENS design: Relatedness You matter to others, they matter to you  Competitive cooperative Reciprocity awesome; synchronicity, meh Player to Player; P2NPCs; P2Dev; P2Brand Clear effort applied on my behalf=Relatedness “…Brave, brave Sir Hey! It’s the Robin…” Hero of Kvatch! I can’t believe it! Wow!”
  41. 41. Framework/Context Critical
  42. 42. Pitfalls of Behavioral AB testing Why we take action is as important as that we take action
  43. 43. Discomfort ≠ Sustained Engagement Kill the puppy Spam my friends
  44. 44. Effectively balancing user experiences across the motivation continuum can further reinforce sustained engagement Motivation Continuum REGULATORY STYLES Extrinsic Intrinsic Amotivation Motivation Motivation External Introjection Identification Integration Regulation ASSOCIATED PROCESSES:• Perceived non- • Salience of • Ego • Conscious valuing • Hierarchical • Interest and contingency extrinsic rewards • Involvement of activity synthesis of enjoyment• Low perceived or punishments • Focus on approval • Self-endorsement goals • Inherent competence • Compliance / from self and of goals • Congruence satisfaction• Non-relevance reactance others• Non-intentionality PERCEIVED LOCUS OF CAUSALITY: Impersonal External Somewhat Somewhat Internal Internal External Internal
  45. 45. Autonomy supportive environments are consistently associated with persistence over sustained periods of time Case Examples: Coaching and Wall Street Analysis of intrinsic-need-Persistence as a satisfaction model of workfunction of coaching performance and adjustment:climate and motivation Even on Wall Street Intrinsic .44 Motivation Manager’s WorkAutonomy .48 Autonomy PerformanceSupport .54 .43 Supportiveness Evaluation .57 Identified .24 .28 Regulation Work-Related -.41 Autonomy .25 .35 Competence Relatedness .57 -.38 Introjected Persistence Persistence .14 Regulation 10 mo. 22 mo. Autonomy Orientation .21 Well-Being (Individual Differences) and Mental Health -.28 .34 External (N=495; Baard, Deci & Ryan, 2004) RegulationControl -.67 -78 -.87 .28 Amotivation
  46. 46. How goal messages are framed – intrinsic vs. extrinsic – makes a significant difference in desired outcome Case Example: Healthy Behavior Change Impact Interaction effect of Goal Framing (Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic) by Social Context (Autonomy Support vs. Control) in the Prediction of Maintained Fruit Eating After Controlling For Baseline Levels in Fruit Eating• Controlling versus autonomy supportive language 20 Autonomy-• Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal focus / framing 18 support 16 - Intrinsic Goal Frame: 14 Fruit Eating 12 “Adolescents who eat well, are more likely 10 to be fit and remain healthy at later age.” 8 6 - Extrinsic Goal Frame: Internal 4 control “Adolescents who do eat well are more 2 likely to be physically appealing and look 0 younger at later age.” Extrinsic goal Intrinsic goal
  47. 47. Designing for Sustained Engagement  IV. Motivational Psychology  Intrinsic needs satisfaction
  48. 48. Summary for sustainability I. Establish “Game” as the user framework (voluntary) II. Design for Eustress & flow; segment the experience III. Game designer must embrace the domain IV. Focus on satisfying Intrinsic needs
  49. 49. Concrete : ExplicitExtrinsic Engagement Layer Intrinsic Continuum Creative : Imaginative : Abstract
  50. 50. Concrete : ExplicitExtrinsic Engagement Layer Intrinsic Continuum Creative : Imaginative : Abstract
  51. 51. LaughterDiscovery Thrill Fantasy Story Triumph Credit: Jesse Schell: The Pleasure RevolutionExpression Challenge Sensation
  52. 52. You CAN make your experiencesbetter Ask yourself these simple questions:  Given what I know about my guests…  Why will they like this experience?  How can I get them to like it more? Credit: Jesse Schell: The Pleasure Revolution
  53. 53. ROI
  54. 54. ROI- Definition Return/Investment expanded marketing factoring “intangibles”
  55. 55. ROI- Broad Definition Driving any metric the business or client is willing to assign (or can calculate) a specific monetary value Challenges in calculating value:  Image Labeler (Google)  The Fun Theory (VW) ($250-$500K)  Bobber examples (401K provider, C.C. comp) Goal is to understand and move critical business metric(s)  Specific value calculation not in the scope of this workshop
  56. 56. Value of Traffic Page Views: how many people visited pages with ads, and saw ads on them. Page CTR: Clicks ÷ Page Views (%).  How good & well placed your ads CPC/CPA: Avg. amount of money you are earning (or paying) per click/action. Page RPM : the average amount of money you are earning per 1000 Page Views  $1.00 not bad. 1% conversion (10 clicks)*$0.10/click
  57. 57. CPC- Cost & Revenue CPC : As cost: when trying to acquire users  Reducing CPC increases ROI  Increasing conversion (after click) increases ROI CPC As revenue: Avg. amount of money you are earning per click.  Increasing CPC increases ROI  So does increasing clicks- duh  Rates depend on what advertisers are paying.  Factors include: ○ Topic of your site ○ Demand Sometimes goes up wildly, but only rarely.
  58. 58. CPC- sample rates “Buy side” Our Facebook experience $.50-$2.50  Average ~$1.00
  59. 59. Gamification is working:Bunchball, BigDoor, Badgeville 150mm users Views 2x Time 2x Virality 30% $ +50-250%
  60. 60. Some simple calculations High variance in Conversion metrics  Impact of relevance (site content & offers) is huge Page Views & Time on site while not identical track together (and have similar impact).  2X either (but only count one) ≈ 50%-100% increase in conversion (don’t get full credit) Virality “full credit” or better.  Peer recommendations much more effective  “Viral” users group together  30% virality ≈ 30%+ incremental revenue  30% virality = 43% more users for same cost
  61. 61. Implementations & Case Studies Anybody? LeaderBoarded Bunchball Big Door Badgeville LeaderBoarded Bobber
  62. 62. LeaderBoarded
  63. 63. Bunchball Live Ops  Call center tying achievements to skills  Reinforcing competence  90% participation  15% Call time reduction & 8-12% sales Increase Photoshop Trial users into purchasers Salesforce (optional)
  64. 64. BigDoor Big Brother
  65. 65. Badgeville Beat the GMAT
  66. 66. Badgeville
  67. 67. Badgeville Samsung
  68. 68. Bobber GoalCard: Debit card rewards  “PFM (personal financial management) light”
  69. 69. BobberMetric: Repeat engagement Metric: Wallet share Metric: Viral sharing / referrals Metric: Financial education Virtuous cycle between financial behavior & literacy and extrinsic rewards
  70. 70. Small Group Gamification Exercise Gamify our TV & Web property “Agri-court” a reality based show where residents of a rural farming community get their disputes resolved by a colorful mediator Objectives  Drive viewership  Generate virality / sharing on social media Deliverable:  Group lead will present one to three ideas for implementation Challenge: Curveballs Ahead!
  71. 71. Small Group Gamification Exercise Curveball #1 “’Great News!’ We got a huge sponsor” New Objective: Drive increased pomegranate juice consumption & sales by the viewers of the show
  72. 72. Small Group Gamification Exercise Curveball #2 “Great News!” “We’re getting a new “expert” to lead the team!”
  73. 73. Thank You! /scottcdodson First Name at @Gamebiz
  74. 74. Credits Scott Rigby- CEO Immersyve, author, Glued to Games (with Richard Ryan) Jane McGonigal- Creative Director, Social Chocolate, author, Reality Is Broken, Ph.D. Berkeley Sebastian Deterding-PhD at the Research Center for Media and Communication at Hamburg University Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Claremont Graduate University, former head of psychology at the University of Chicago Amy Jo Kim- designer of social gaming systems, PHD University of Washington Wanda Meloni, M2 Research: Dr. Byron Reeves of the Department of Communication at Stanford & J. Leighton Read, Executive Chairman, Seriosity, Inc., authors of Total Engagement David Edery Principal, Fuzbi co-author with Ethan Mollick of Changing the Game: How Video Games Are Transforming the Future of Business Gabe Zichermann and Joselin Linder authors of Game Based Marketing Chair of James Currier of Ooga Labs who also credits Clay Shirky and Bret Terrill Jesse Schell, Professor of Entertainment Technology CMU, CEO Schell Games. Jesse’s talk from DICE: The pleasure revolution: Keith Smith, & Carrie Peters of BigDoor. Rajat Paharia & Mike Earhart of Bunchball Scott Schnaars & MattHart of Badgeville Eric Eastman, John Bito, Nathan Affolter, Jason Griffith, Jimmer Sivertsen, Julie Hill & Mike Kerr of Bobber My sincere apologies to anyone on this list or otherwise who feels they were not properly credited. Kindly point out my error and I will edit accordingly.
  75. 75. More Domain Specificity
  76. 76. More from
  77. 77. Thanks again! /scottcdodson First Name at @Gamebiz