2. We believe gamification can be applied in 3 different phases of the
research process; (1) during data collection, (2) during analysis and
What to
expect
interpretation and (3) during reporting and presentation of the
results. In this paper, we present an approach to gamification
in online qualitative research. There is already ample research
with respect to using gamification in quantitative research; however,
a comprehensive approach for online qualitative research is
lacking so far.
In this paper we will focus on using gamification during data
collection and will briefly demonstrate how we apply
gamification in the last 2 phases. At InSites Consulting, we
identified 4 levels in an online community at which
gamification can be applied to increase data quality,
participant engagement and impact on the client side. From a
question level to a community level, gamification helps, not only to
increase participant engagement, but also to increase data quality.
4. In the last decade, we saw a tremendous shift in
engagement with brands. Consumers are
looking for brands and companies who
engage with them and offer them an
experience. Brands and companies which do not
Gen Y is used to constant stimulation and having a say
in everything. In order to engage with them, brands
need to fulfill these expectations (Van den Bergh and
Behrer, 2011 for an elaborate discussion on the
characteristics of Generation Y). Finally, the last
decade has been marked by disruptive changes in
interact or offer experiences to their consumers
tend to fade away, while brands that are inclusive
tend to flourish. This has already been showcased
plenty of times in the field of marketing and
marketers have reacted, by changing their
technology, with the rise of social media and
mobile technology evolving at an exponential
rate. Everybody is now connected to everybody
24/7. People have become used to an on-demand
marketing plans by including more engaging
lifestyle where everything is available at their fingertips
anytime.
marketing actions (Van Belleghem, 2010; 2012).
However, the lower consumer engagement
problem has also hit the market research
industry. Response rates only go down while
straight lining and quickly replying to a question
become more and more prevalent. In addition, we
are now also facing a demanding and techsavvy new generation we want to do
research with.
5. The problem of decreasing engagement has been
troubling researchers in the industry for a while now
and money is not the issue, as increasing monetary
Clearly, market research needs to adopt its
incentives has not been able to solve this problem.
The real problem lies within market research
itself and what we offer participants. We know
solution for the problem of waning engagement, some
researchers have suggested adopting gamification in
market research. The reason behind this is that
these people like to be in an interactive environment,
expect anything at their fingertips 24/7 and want to
games are very effective at engaging people
with a certain topic or task. Playing games is
feel empowered. However, our offer towards them
popular with everybody, with gaming being popular in
different age groups and both for men and women.
36% of gamers are over 36 and 45% of gamers are
female (ESA, 2013). However, we believe
consists mainly of surveys which force them to
follow a certain question flow. These questions
are repetitive, not cognitively stimulating and can be
extremely long. With focus groups, people feel more
empowered and the questions are normally more
cognitively stimulating. However, here also,
participants don’t have the opportunity to
interact with the brand or feel like they have a
big impact on the brand. In addition, it is not in
line with the 24/7 availability to which they have
grown accustomed.
offering to participants and, by extension,
clients, in order to keep engagement high. As a
gamification is only part of the solution, as it is
not sufficient to solve the engagement problem.
To structurally solve the engagement problem, market
research needs to empower participants, create a
two-way dialogue with them and offer them a
stimulating (visually appealing & cognitively
stimulating) and 24/7 environment where they can
freely speak their mind. Given the broad scope of
this, we will focus in this paper on increasing
engagement via gamification.
7. Gamification is not the same as turning research into
a game. We at InSites Consulting use the following
definition from Deterding et al. (2011)
“Gamification is the use of game design
elements in non-game contexts.”
The goal of gamification is to improve the data
quality by applying game elements in research,
thus motivating participants to participate longer and
provide richer answers.
Game elements or game mechanics, as explained
by Donato and Link (2013) are actions, tactics or
mechanisms used to create an engaging and
compelling experience for consumers. For
example, by including levels or using challenges,
participants can be stimulated to engage more with
the research at hand. These game mechanics
work because they tap into game dynamics,
which refers to the motivations people have
to engage with a game: (1) achievement, (2)
social and (3) immersion (Yee, 2006).
Achievement relates to wanting to become better
at something, analyzing and solving problems and
outperforming others. Social motivations to engage
with a game relate to meeting and interacting
with new people, making friends, building
relationships and contributing to team
efforts. Finally, immersion relates to discovering
new things, taking on new roles and a form of
escapism.
8. Gamification is not a monolithic concept; it rather is a
Secondly, gamification needs to support the
spectrum with different shades of gamification.
On one hand, we identify gamification of research.
research and promote the desired behavior (e.g.
Jon Pulleston is a pioneer in this type of gamification,
with a plethora of research into the gamification of
surveys. On the other extreme of the spectrum we
answer creatively, give a spontaneous reaction, etc.). It
does not have the purpose to entertain people. By
tapping into game motivations, the research experience
improves for the participant and better data is obtained.
Adamou drew the blueprints for this type of
An improved experience for the participant is a
means, but not an end goal of gamification. It is
gamification. Here, the research is embedded in a
important to ask yourself whether the game mechanics
game environment, immersing participants in a
game which also includes research questions
you want to introduce will enhance your data or not.
Andy Barker, Engage Research and Lisa Hunt, Heinz
(2012) were among thefirstt o explore gamification in
offline qualitative research. They operationalized
identify “researchification” of games. Betty
(Adamou, 2011). Although these represent different
shades of gamification, both methods help to create
more engagement and collect better data. Before
applying gamification to your research, there are two
important caveats which need to be taken into account.
Firstly, applying gamification can be a costly
endeavor. It costs time and money to implement
it and it may not be worthwhile to invest a lot in
gamifying a short survey, as the return would not
outweigh the investment made.
gamification by setting challenges and using game-like
exercises such as making a sentence about soup by
asking each member to say one word that followed on
that stated by the person before them.
9. They concluded that gamification has pros and cons
Participants were more enthusiastic and engaged
while participating. Answers were similar to those
collected on the Heinz Facebook page. On the downside,
Barker noted that the games are not introspective in nature
and mentioned that the games disrupted the group
dynamics. This case highlights the importance of
applying gamification strategically to enhance data
quality. As Barker and Hunt explored gamification more
broadly and put more emphasis on making the research
more game-like (instead of using game motivations to
enhance the quality of the data rather than the experience of
the research) their results show increased engagement, but
not better data. Another example of applying gamification
without focusing on the research questions comes from our
own experiences. At InSites Consulting, we used to have
leader boards on the homepage of a community that
displayed the ranking of the participants. The person
with the most posts was on top and the person with
the least posts at the bottom.
10. They concluded that gamification has pros and cons
What we noticed, however, was that gamification was
not improving the research because of two
problems. Firstly, the leader board encouraged the
more vocal people to become even more vocal while
the more timid participants felt discouraged and became
more silent. Secondly, the leader board was not rewarding
the behavior we wanted to encourage. People posted
more replies, but these posts were not richer or adding
much to the topic. In this case, the gamification
rewarded posting a lot and not posting richer
answers. If you want to benefit from gamification and
collect better data, gamification should not only create a
more engaging research experience, but should stimulate
desired behaviour you want to improve (based on the
research objectives). This could be richer answers
that provide more context, more emotional depth
or more creativity.
12. Typically, gamification in market research has been studied in surveys. However, looking at the concept of
gamification we would like to argue that there are equally many - if not more - reasons to apply
gamification in qualitative research as well.
1
Firstly, from an investment perspective, it makes sense to also focus on
qualitative research. Donato and Link mention that the cost of developing
gamification mechanics in surveys might not be worthwhile given the nonlength of a short survey. However, typically qualitative research tends to be
longer in nature than quantitative research, making the investment more
worthwhile.
2
Secondly, in qualitative research we use projective techniques and
motivational techniques that are akin to gamification. For
example, participants are often challenged to come up with pro and con
arguments. We ask participants to take on a different role and think from
this perspective; we send them on missions (e.g. shopper missions) and
challenge them cognitively by asking analogies. This shows that
gamification is ideally suited to be applied in qualitative research.
13. At InSites Consulting, we believe MROCs - or Consumer Consulting Boards
as we call them (De Wulf & De Ruyck ed., 2013) - are powerful qualitative
research tools which help solve a myriad of business questions.
MROCs are composed of a small group of people, brought together on a
platform to answer and discuss questions from a moderator for a longer period
of time (three weeks or longer). The discussions are organized in different
topics and rooms. As this is the main qualitative research method at
InSites Consulting, we investigated the fit between gamification and
MROCs.
14. Looking at MROCs, there are four reasons why this method is
Especially suited for applying gamification.
1
Firstly, given that MROCs are used for qualitative research and that we just explained how
qualitative research already is a type a gamification, MROCs are well suited for
gamification.
2
Secondly, participants in an MROC need to be engaged for three weeks or longer. As
engagement needs to be built up and maintained, an MROC is more suited than
a 30-minute survey. During three weeks, people can be immersed in the research topic
and are taken on a research journey, providing more context for gamification and different
gamification mechanics can be applied, resulting in more impact.
3
4
Thirdly, the online environment of an MROC makes that some game mechanics can be
automated and hence made more scalable.
Finally, while in surveys a social layer can be added, the social dimension in MROCs
is stronger and more natural. This helps to stimulate the social game dynamics in
people.
16. As there is a high need to research gamification in
qualitative research and there is a high fit between
MROCs and gamification, we decided to invest in
this topic. In order to tap into the different
underlying game motivations (see earlier), we
decided to apply gamification on four levels.
On the lowest level, the question level, we
apply gamification by rephrasing the
questions. For example, to understand what
Generation Y considers to be the cool places in
their city, we posted a challenge. Instead of asking
them to list the cool venues and the reason why
these places are cool, we challenged the
participants to prove their city was the coolest to the
client (MTV). We told them that, by the end of a
given week and based on their answers, MTV
would select the coolest city. This spurred elaborate
reactions from our Gen Y participants who were
fiercely defending their city.
One level higher, on the individual level, we
introduce badges and levels. By answering to
topics posted by the moderator, participants gain
points. Depending on the quality of the post,
participants gain more or less points. Additionally,
participants collect badges (see Figure 1) by
performing certain actions such as posting
very creative replies on a specific topic,
keeping specific topics alive and interactive…
Figure 1. Examples of badges
17. The third level is the group level. This level is
not always applicable, as it requires having at least
Every day, the number of contributions would be
counted and the country with most posts would
two different groups in the research. On this level,
score one point (see Figure 2). The effect of this
gamification can be applied by setting a
challenge for all groups and then compare the
result between them. For example, in a research
was a significant increase in posts by
everybody and people encouraging each other
to answer to the questions and to take part in
the game.
we did with R&D people at Unilever, we split the
entire R&D team in several smaller groups. These
groups could then compete to show who knows the
consumer best. The winning team would then be the
first to get access to new and exclusive content,
namely new products in the pipeline. Another
example of applying gamification on a group level
comes from a community we did for Initial. We had
participants from both the Netherlands and Belgium
on the community, for three weeks. Between both
countries there has always been friendly rivalry. So
during the community we organized a derby between
both countries.
Figure 2. Football derby between The Netherlands and Belgium
18. Finally, gamification can also be applied on a community level,
where the complete group of participants is involved. This is where
we set challenges for the community such as completing a certain task by
the end of a given week or reaching a given amount of posts in a given
timespan. Another example would be the ideation tool which we use to
find new insights. Here, the community searches and thinks together to
come up with new ideas and solutions. Participants can upload ideas as
an answer to a need or problem. Others can rate these ideas and
comment on them to further improve them. This way the community
works together on a need or problem that is close to their heart
and is personally relevant.
20. Looking at MROCs, there are four reasons why this method is
1
Firstly, gamifying a community makes participants think harder. This entails several
results. We receive seven times more on-topic arguments compared to a non-gamified
community (De Ruyck, Knoops, Schillewaert, Coenen & Rogrigues, 2011). In addition,
participants provide us with more context when answering, enabling us to better
understand and frame their answers. Another consequence is that participants give
emotional richer answers which allow us to understand them more completely. Additionally,
in a gamified community, we get more creative answers.
2
Secondly, a gamified community allows us to make people think differently. When
people approach a topic from another perspective, we can again better understand the
topic and come up with different insights. For example, for Chiquita we had to research
the potential of a fruit smoothie with both people who eat healthily and people who eat less
healthily and who don’t eat fruit regularly. In a first phase, we explored the perception and
attitudes towards eating healthily and eating fruit for both groups. In the second
phase, we decided to apply gamification by having the groups switch roles in an activation
deprivation exercise. The group of healthy eaters had to decrease their fruit consumption for
one week and the group of unhealthy eaters had to eat a certain amount of fruit every day, for
one week. Both groups then had to report back to us, providing us in the end with a complete
picture on why people eat fruit and why not.
22. As mentioned in the introduction, the market research world needs to
adopt its offering to both participants and clients. So far, we focused on
applying gamification during data collection to increase participant engagement
to collect better and more data. However, we believe gamification can also
be applied beyond data collection, further increasing participant
engagement and also client engagement. Gamification can be applied
during the analysis phase and the reporting phase as well.
23. Analysis
At InSites Consulting we apply gamification during the analysis phase as well, following the principles of
crowd interpretation (Surowiecki, 2004; Verhaege, 2011). Crowd interpretation helps us understand the data
even better, providing us with initial insights. Imagine for a second that you are doing a research project with
people who have a very rare condition. Even though you might be an experienced and well-trained
qualitative researcher, if you do not have that rare condition yourself, you will always have some knowledge
gaps. This is where crowd interpretation comes into play. By asking our participants who suffer from the
condition to interpret certain observations, they can add a different perspective that we - as researcher - are
unable to spot. In order to make this even more engaging, we developed the crowd
interpretation game which exists of three rounds during
which a selected group of participants (n=10) can collect
points. The different rounds are analogous to the analysis
process in qualitative research, where we go from observation to
interpretation and to interpretation of the interpretation. In a first
round, participants receive answers from other participants and
are asked to interpret these. In a second round, they receive the
same answers, but this time are asked to think deeper and
provide more details.
24. After this, all the interpretations are
collected and sent back to the original
poster of the answer. This person reads how
others interpret his/her answer and then scores
each interpretation on how good it is. Based on
this, a ranking is made with the best participant
researchers. The crowd interpretation game
has two benefits, one on participant level
and one on researcher level. For participants,
the crowd interpretation game is rewarding as
they are more engaged in the game and
because making them part of the analysis makes
them feel more empowered. On a researcher
level, having participants interpret their
answers means we get richer data and are
able to gather 20% to 40% more insights
(Verhaege, 2011).
25. Reporting
During the reporting phase, there is another opportunity to apply
gamification; this time to increase engagement on the client side,
thus creating internal leverage for the research project. The goal of
gamification during this phase is to create positive
disruption at the client side by exposing their knowledge
gaps. Before presenting the report, different stakeholders at the
client side test their knowledge of the topic. They are then given
their score. The lower the score (or the bigger the knowledge gap),
the more eager people are to read and reflect on the report. The
example of the project with the R&D people at Unilever highlights
the benefits (De Ruyck, Knoops, Schillewaert, Coenen & Rogrigues,
2011). The R&D people’s goal was to learn as much as possible
about their consumer. To show they knew their consumer, they
had to play a game about consumers where they could
collect points for each correct answer. There were different
quizzes and after each quiz the scores of the different teams were
advertised in different places throughout the R&D offices.
26. The game increased engagement significantly and the report was not only used more
frequently, but also reflected upon more. This meant that the R&D people spent more
time thinking about the results and their implications. Another example would be the
Heineken Open Design Explorations case (De Ruyck, De Boeck, Eising, Troch & Van Hoff, 2012;
see Figure 3. The Heineken ODE community platform). In this case we collected data and insights
about what going out means to young and trendy people. Heineken’s goal was to take these insights
and use them to build the club of the future with upcoming designers from different fields.
To make sure the designers would use the insights,
we created an interactive app that immersed the
designers in the results, allowing them to interact
with the insights. In addition and to further
stimulate engagement with the results, the
designers had to come up with ideas based on the
results. Every uploaded idea contributed to
the personal score of the designers and the
different scores were displayed on the home
page.
Figure 3. The Heineken ODE community platform
27. Conclusion
As a result of an outdated offering and
changed consumer reality, the market
research industry is faced with a declining
engagement. Part of the solution to increase
engagement is to apply gamification throughout the
research process. Other methods to increase
engagement include: creating a more engaging
environment that is visually appealing and
stimulates exploration, empowering people and
starting a two-way dialogue as well as offering
flexible solutions that bring convenience to
participants. This paper presents a first account
of the effects of gamification in qualitative
research and more specifically in MROCs. In
addition, it also provides a framework on how to
apply gamification beyond data collection. We have
shown that applying gamification to an MROC can
make people think harder (providing more context,
more emotional and creative answers and seven
times more on-topic arguments)
and differently (the ability to get a 360°
perspective on consumers’ perceptions and
attitudes), resulting in better and more data. The
prerequisite for this being that the gamification is
focused on increasing engagement with the
research questions (instead of providing a general
nice environment). In addition, to further increase
the market research offering, we have shown that
gamification can also be applied beyond data
collection, namely during the analysis and
reporting phase.
Finally, because of the nature of MROCs,
we are able to develop a scalable model to
apply gamification that keeps a healthy
balance between the investment made and
the benefits gained.
29. Adamou, B. (2011). The Future of Research Through Gaming. CASRO Journal.
Barker, A. & Hunt, L. (2012). Game on to keep consumers engaged. Marketing
Week.
De Ruyck, T., De Boeck, F., Eising, H., Troch, T., & Van Hoff, C. (2012). Designing the
club of tomorrow. ESOMAR General Congress.
De Ruyck, T., Knoops, S., Schillewaert, N., Coenen, G. & Rogrigues, S. (2011).
Engage, Inspire, Act: 3 Step Stones towards Developing more Impactful
Products. ESOMAR General Congress.
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K. & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification.
using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. CHI '11 Extended Abstracts
on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2425-2428.
De Wulf, K. & De Ruyck, T. (2013). The Consumer Consulting Board: Consumers
shaping your business. Belgium: InSites Consulting.
.
30. Donato, P. & Link, M. W. (2013). The gamification of marketing research.
Marketing News. 38-42.Enterntainment Software Association (2013). Essential facts
about the computer and video game industry. (source:
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf)
Van Belleghem, S. (2010). The Conversation Manager. Belgium: Lannoo.
Van Belleghem, S. (2012). The Conversation Company: Boost Your Business
Through Culture, People and Social Media. London: Kogan Page.
Van den Bergh, J. & Behrer, M. (2011). How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Branding to
Generation Y. London: Kogan Page.
Verhaege, A. et al. (2011). Crowd Interpretation: are participants the researchers
of the future? ESOMAR, General Congress.
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations of Play in MMORPGs: results from a Factor Analytic
Approach. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6): 772-775.
31. Sébastien Van Laere
Tom De Ruyck
Anouk Willems
Research Consultant
InSites Consulting
Head of Consumer Consulting Boards
InSites Consulting
Research Innovation Manager
InSites Consulting
