When Rewards Become Sarcasm

Very often, doing the right thing in the wrong way can completely undermine its value.  Case in point, the present fascination with "gamification" by those who do not have a firm understanding of the concept is leading to some very awkward and even offensive practices in online experiences.   I'm most concerned of late with the notion of "badges" and "social rewards" with which retailers wish to encourage shoppers to give them more business - I have a sense there is some potential, but its present misuse may be damaging the potential of the practice.

In the context of a game, a badge is an icon or emblem granted to a player for completing a significant or unusual accomplishment.   "Significant or unusual" is critical, because a reward loses its value if the act it represents is common or of little significance.

To be granted a badge for completing the first and easiest level of the game on the lowest difficulty setting is not of value to a player because it's something anyone can do with very little effort.   It's tantamount to getting a diploma for completing kindergarten - which, ironically, is something that is actually done at some schools nowadays.  A trivial reward such as this is a nice gesture for the kids because they are not particularly intelligent or sophisticated at that age - but I've never heard a parent brag about their child "graduating" from kindergarten.

And therein lies the problem with granting rewards to adults, who are usually intelligent and sophisticated, for trivial accomplishments.  An adult studying a foreign language places little value in a photocopied certificate awarded to them for completing the first week of lessons.   If anything, such trivial gestures become a form of insult.   "Good for you, you've learned to tie your shoes" is not a compliment, but sarcasm to anyone beyond the age of five.

The same is true of retail rewards and badges for creating an account on a merchant's website, or purchasing an item, or successfully entering a delivery address.    Obtaining the product is the only reward that is necessary for the completion of such a trivial action, and any "extra" reward is unnecessary and a bit perplexing.

The retailer's self-serving agenda is further revealed when it is suggested that the customer should announce a trivial reward to others they know in social media - it is clear that the retailer does not mean to reward the customer, but merely to connive a way to get them to promote the store to their social network.   This fails miserably because a reward that takes the tone of a sarcastic insult is not something most individuals would care to announce to their friends and colleagues.

Moreover, this practice is damaging not only to the retailer whose reward system is poorly conceived, but to all retailers that might wish to leverage a social media reward system - much in the way that some advertisers' indiscreet use of email marketing has caused all commercial email to be disregarded as spam, even those that are the product of carefully targeted and thoughtfully planned advertising campaigns.

Thus considered, it may already be too late for retailers to leverage social media rewards programs because poor use by some has poisoned the well for all: the prevalence of trivial emblems is so great that every emblem is regarded as trivial, even those that represent a unusual or significant action.

When Games Invade Real Life

I just watched Jesse Schell's presentation "When Games Invade Real Life" from DICE 2010. It caught my attention because I recognized the name, having read his book on game design, and because a number of comments and responses were from people who either dismissed him as a paranoid nut, or joined in the chorus of panic at the dystopian vision he presented.

If you can spare half an hour, the presentation is available online at http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/dice-2010-design-outside-the-box-presentation/

If you can't, the thrust of it was this: that more and more, companies are using "point" and "reward" systems as a method to motivate behavior, and Schell spoke of a future vision where technology, though use of sensors, enables commercial and political entities to monitor the behavior of the average citizen in detail and provide "points" as a way to motivate behavior.

In the end, I'd agree that it's a dystopian vision - but it's based on a handful of misconceptions:

• First, using the promise of rewards to motivate behavior didn't originate in computer gaming. The concept is central to virtually every human relationship, but technology merely provides a more precise method for monitoring the behavior and keeping score. I'd even go so far as to suggest that a more obvious and systematic method for rewarding behavior might be a good thing in the end, as compared to the vague and subjective way it is typically done.

• Second, Schell seems to assume that people will get lost in the game - that they are so motivated to earn points that they will fail to consider whether what they're being asked to do is worth the effort, inconvenience, and abdication of autonomy that is demanded in return. It's rather a dim view of humanity that doesn't hold much water, given that marketing efforts based on this premise have been dismal failures (S&H Green Stamps, frequent flyer miles, Camel Cash, etc. did not alter behavior to an appreciable degree, but merely rewarded existing behavior).

• Third, and most important of all, is that in any situation in which reward is offered for behavior, the individual or institution offering the reward is in a disempowered position. If they had power over the other party, they would not need to resort to offering rewards, but would merely command obedience. It is only because they have no power that they must offer the other party something in exchange for their voluntary cooperation.

Those things considered, I have the sense that Schell is onto something here, though perhaps he presents his ideas in a manner that is too exaggerated and silly to get his point across. But at the same time, I can't entirely agree with his detractors either: the desire of institutions to control behavior is real, and the tactics he describes are not at all unreasonable (again, it's applying technology to "improve" a practice that's as old as humanity itself) ... but there is little likelihood that people, in large numbers, will abdicate autonomy and self-interest to earn "points" toward some trivial credit or reward.