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

2. Scott Dodson
COO, Product Owner
Bobber Interactive, Inc.

3. ROI workshop real-time game layer!
 http://bit.ly/MMaccess360
 @Gamebiz mentions
 @RochelleGrayson mentions
 #MMAccess360 mentions
 To View: http://bit.ly/MM360

4. Me Me

5. Me
 Chronic Entrepreneur

6. 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.
 Weren't manipulation

7. OMFG

11. Choco-fication!
Credit: Jesse Schell: The
Pleasure Revolution

12. Credit: Jesse Schell: The
Pleasure Revolution

13. Credit: Jesse Schell: The
Pleasure Revolution

14. Credit: Jesse Schell: The
Pleasure Revolution

15. Credit: Jesse Schell: The
Pleasure Revolution

16. Unicorn poop is still poop

17. Rewards can Backfire

21. You’re doing it wrong

22. The Right Road…

23. Becoming Ninja Gamifiers
 <Ninja Level 11: Cat>

24. Pleasure is…
CONTEXTUAL
Credit: Jesse Schell: The
Pleasure Revolution

25. Pleasure is…
CONTEXTUAL
Credit: Jesse Schell: The
Pleasure Revolution

26. Concrete : Explicit
Extrinsic Engagement Layer Intrinsic
Continuum
Creative : Imaginative : Abstract

27. Copernican Turn

28. Copernican Turn

29. Copernican Turn

30. Copernican Turn
 The Media/Brand set the terms of engagement
User
Viewer
Customer
Media/Brand
Viewer
Customer
User

31. Copernican Turn
 New engagement methods are needed
User, Viewer,
Customer
Brand App
Property Media
Site Service

32. 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”

33. Design for sustained engagement

34. “Playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome
unnecessary obstacles” – Bernard Suits
Rules
A Goal
Voluntary
Obstacles
A Feedback
System
Credit: Jane McGonigal:
Reality is Broken

35. Designing for Sustained Engagement
 I. Establish a different user “contract”
 A game is voluntary framework for the user experience
 Obstacles desirable!

36. Eustress / Satisfying Work

38. Designing for Sustained Engagement
 II. Design for flow; segment the experience
Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi
Amy Jo Kim

39. “Domain Resonant” Implementation
1 2
+
66% more people than normal chose
3 the stairs over the escalator.
=

40. “Domain Resonant” Implementation

41. Designing for Sustained Engagement
 III. Embrace the Domain; know the Audience
 Corollary: Build the right team

42. 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.

43. 3 Drivers of Intrinsic Motivation
Scott Rigby - Immersyve
C 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.

44. Competence, Autonomy & Relatedness: most
reliable predictors of engagement
(PENS) Methodology: Personal Experience of Needs Satisfaction
Approach 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

45. Month 1 Month 12

46. PENS design: Competence
 Scaled challenges (flow)
 Clear & juicy feedback
 Level=expanded capabilities

47. PENS design: Autonomy
 Mechanics of Choice and Opportunity
 Open Environment - Playground
 Progression choices (focus, tree-structure)
 Sense of purpose/volition

48. 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!”

49. Framework/Context Critical

50. Pitfalls of Behavioral AB testing
 Why we take action is as important as that
we take action

51. Discomfort ≠ Sustained Engagement
Kill the puppy
Spam my friends

52. 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

53. 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 work
function of coaching performance and adjustment:
climate and motivation Even on Wall Street
Intrinsic
.44 Motivation
Manager’s Work
Autonomy .48 Autonomy Performance
Support .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)
Regulation
Control -.67
-78
-.87
.28 Amotivation

54. 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

55. Designing for Sustained Engagement
 IV. Motivational Psychology
 Intrinsic needs satisfaction

56. 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

57. Concrete : Explicit
Extrinsic Engagement Layer Intrinsic
Continuum
Creative : Imaginative : Abstract

58. Concrete : Explicit
Extrinsic Engagement Layer Intrinsic
Continuum
Creative : Imaginative : Abstract

59. Laughter
Discovery Thrill
Fantasy Story Triumph
Credit: Jesse Schell: The
Pleasure Revolution
Expression Challenge Sensation

60. You CAN make your experiences
better
 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

61. ROI

63. ROI- Definition
 Return/Investment
 expanded
 marketing
 factoring “intangibles”

64. 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

65. 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

66. 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.

67. CPC- sample rates
 “Buy side”
 Our Facebook experience $.50-$2.50
 Average ~$1.00

68. Gamification is working:
Bunchball, BigDoor, Badgeville
 150mm users
 Views 2x
 Time 2x
 Virality 30%
 $ +50-250%

69. 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

70. Implementations & Case Studies
 Anybody?
 LeaderBoarded
 Bunchball
 Big Door
 Badgeville
 LeaderBoarded
 Bobber

71. LeaderBoarded

72. 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)

73. BigDoor
 Big Brother
 http://www.wetpaint.com/
 http://www.bigkrit.com?bd_cohort=true

74. Badgeville
 Beat the GMAT

75. Badgeville

76. Badgeville
 Samsung

77. Bobber
 GoalCard: Debit card rewards
 “PFM (personal financial management) light”

78. Bobber
Metric: Repeat engagement Metric: Wallet share Metric: Viral sharing / referrals Metric: Financial education
Virtuous cycle between financial behavior & literacy and
extrinsic rewards

79. 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!

80. 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

81. Small Group Gamification Exercise
 Curveball #2
 “Great News!”
 “We’re getting a new “expert” to lead the
team!”

82. Thank You!
 /scottcdodson
 First Name at bobberinteractive.com
 @Gamebiz

83. 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: http://slidesha.re/gg49nb
 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 http://gamebasedmarketing.com/
Chair of Gamification.co
 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:
http://tiny.cc/TebRw The pleasure revolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PkUgCiHuH8
 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.

84. More Domain Specificity

85. More from thefuntheory.com

86. Thanks again!
 /scottcdodson
 First Name at bobberinteractive.com
 @Gamebiz