Games and research have a lot in common - because at their heart they are about problem solving. The main difference is surveys make no attempt at trying to engage the respondent and typically result in a boring experience for the respondent - which is why a 'good' survey is typically a short one. Perhaps instead of asking if gamifying surveys will deter a certain audience, we should actually be asking do non-gamified ...more »
One of the big issues survey research faces is that the contexts in which questions are asked often bear no resemblance to the context someone reaches a decision in. I want to know if the panel think gamification can solve this, and what needs to happen for it to work.
Ever play a game too many times? First time was "fun." Second was OK. Third was time consuming. How will gamification sustain the novelty? Online surveys were fun the first time using the internet. Second time?... 100th time??? 1000th time?
Surveys have straightliners; qual groups have professional respondents; what do the panel think gamification's nemesis will be?
Profitable games have two key ingredients: they are scalable (low marginal cost to support additional players) and sticky (those players play long enough to provide value to other players in the form of an active community). In a research context, how do you simultaneously solve for both?
Won't the inherent and diverse game incentives affect the recruitment, retention and attrition of players? That is, won't the the type of incentive determine or at least affect the research outcome?
Is gamification doomed by research buyers' reliance on existing norms, which new methods will invariably distort?
I'd ask you to watch Gabe Zichermann's Google Tech Talk - from 8:00 min to 8:40 - to understand my question: When Gabe says "parents and teachers got involved" - I can't help but hearing "researchers got involved". In other words, my question is: How do we avoid the edutainment trap? Applying game mechanics is one thing - applying them in a way that actually works however, ...more »
Is the study of gamification and it's application really a study in human engagement? Whether looking at Bartle's player types, Wu's player behavoiurs or other groupings and studies of how to get people to play, it seems that this is all a study of engagement. Almost a codificaiton of the very principles of what drives the consumer market. If so this should become a pillar of market research or at the very least "player ...more »
The term "gamification" seems to appear most often in the context of boring survey experiences. Quant providers seeking to liberate themselves and their participants from this drudgery might benefit from partnering with good qualitative research designers. We've had to make our research engaging, intriguing, challenging, and rewarding (in more ways than money) for a long time -- for participants as well as clients ...more »
Let's take resistance to change, norms, etc, aside for a moment and focus on the pure economics of gamification. As research vendors, we're asked to produce better, quicker, cheaper research. Programming a survey can be done in minutes/hours at a low cost. Producing a good game can cost millions and take years in the making (which sometimes ends up with massive commercial failures...). What kind of costs are we talking ...more »
Why should market research care about gamification?