Playing the game:
Gamification as a marketing tool? Exploratory study of gamification mechanics and if
customer involvement, engagement and loyalty can result?
Scott Phillip Jones
2
ABSTRACT
As digital marketing presence has continued to rise in the last ten years, the concept
of using video game elements in marketing has gained the term gamification.
Despite the extensive use of the term gamification in the context of providing
marketers with a ‘new’ tool for customer engagement, involvement and loyalty, the
theoretical meaning and implications of gamification to deliver these variables
remains underexplored. Drawing on a literature review, this exploratory study adopts
netnographic and an autonetnographic methodology to explore the nature of
gamification and the scope of customer involvement, engagement and loyalty that
could derive from the branded gamified platforms. The paper concludes with a
discussion of implications for practice and further research.
3
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This is an exploratory research study examining the concept of gamification,
Exploratory in its nature as the researcher intends to consider gamifications current
use as a concept for the purpose of marketing and develop a study to review how
marketers currently use gamification and its potential from the consideration of:

Who is integrating with and consuming the brand generated and similarly the
consumer generated content derived as part of the gamified platform? Is it the
audience who marketers want to consume the content?
Drawing comparisons with the loyalty ladder (Payne, 1991) can consumers of
gamified platforms be classified through their loyalty and engagement and what of
brand advocates for example? Are the consumers engaged with platform (the game)
and can that engagement and loyalty be extended to the brand?

What is the level of involvement, engagement and integration with the brand
generated platform (gamified mechanic) and the consumer-generated
content?
Does it allow digital marketers to increase the level of involvement and through
social media metrics how is this to be measured? Does the duration of involvement,
play and engagement create, foster, nurture and instil positive or negative perception
of the brand?

At which rate are those engaged and involved with the organisations branded
gamified platforms and messages sharing the content with others and to what
consequence? What is engagement comprised of with a gamified branded
platform?
The term ‘gamification’ first arose in 2002, coined by Nick Pelling (Marczewski, A,
2002). A concurrent search of academic databases using a broader search for
gamification resulted in some varying interpretation of when gamification first gained
popularity. (See appendix one) It wasn’t until later in the 2000’s when the word
started to gain more attention in the realm of marketing. It was 2010 when online
interest in gamification began to grow –
4

Figure 1 – Google Trends – Gamification Interest (www.googletrends.com)
Gamification has gained significant attention amongst the marketing fertility and
marketing practitioners in recent years (Huotari, K, 2011, Hamari, J, 2011,
Zichermann, G and Cunningham, C, 2011, 2013 and Boone, L, 2011). The current
understanding of gamification has revolved around the act of adding systematic
game design elements in non-game contexts. Central to discussions about how
gamification is used and implemented in a marketing context draws on its supposed
ability to motivate users, to increase activity; engagement and customer loyalty.
Currently, a review of Marketing CEO’s appear to relate the successfulness of
gamification in marketing contexts through the measurement of sales figures, “clicks”
and general retention of users (See appendix two). Nike’s president of digital
marketing services, Stefan Olander commented, “Nike Plus’s gamification is solving
things for people. When you have millions of people that come back and reconnect
with your brand multiple times a week, you realise that that connection is more
valuable and powerful than any traditional, pushed marketing message”. (Marketing
Week, June 2012). This way, the brand experience has become more “sticky” for the
consumers and the community has grown to approximately seven million members
since its launch in 2006 states Olander (Marketing Week, 2012). A focus of the
exploratory research will comprise of the metrics used to measure and evaluate the
use of gamified systems. Social media marketers up until the last five years felt there
5
was no standard metrics we could apply to social media marketing campaigns
(Tuten and Solomon, 2013). Metrics such as number of visitors, users, time played,
frequency of played visits, average visit length time and click through rates are
crucially important but this study wants to begin to un-pick the community members
involved in brand-related conversations (who are they?) and the degree of
engagement consumers feel during and after their interaction with branded gamified
platforms, and how these exposures influence their feelings about the brand and the
potential brand loyalty.
However, if we accept that gamification aims to create “gameful” experiences, then
could the successfulness of gamification be also measured through same
measurement instruments as games are?
Since the revolution of the gamification industry in 2010, over 350 companies have
launched major gamification projects, including consumer brands like eBay,
Domino’s Pizza, Deloitte and McDonalds. These organisations have been attracted
by gamification's supposed ability to raise engagement and loyalty; measured in time
on websites, repeat visits, and viral distribution, by an average of 30 percent
(Huffington Post, 3rd August 2013). What these metrics simply fail to analyse is the
quality of these touch points. It fails to inform a marketer how a target audience feels
about an experience or a brand. Without context, it is merely a number (Tuten and
Solomon, 2013).
6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The word gamification is an English noun, “gam (e) + -ification, that is derived from
the verb ‘to gamify’ (Werbach and Hunter, 2012, p.8) to turn something into a game.
According to gamification.org, the word “gamification” has been first used in March
2002. Although this etymological definition, gamification does not only mean making
a game. Gamification is frequently cited as “the use of game-thinking and game
mechanics in non-game contexts in order to engage users and solve problems”
(Zichermann, G, and Cunningham, C, 2011, p.7).
The review will focus on the concept of consumer relationship marketing, considering
the Six Markets model (Christopher, Payne and Ballantyne, 1991) and if gamification
has the potential to forge a synthesis between customer engagement and marketing.
The points and badges aspect of gamification bears more resemblance to loyalty
programmes than to games and the application of the loyalty ladder (Christopher et
al 1991 and Brown, 2000). Central to marketing gamification is the notion of
interesting and appropriate challenges, and the level of involvement, central to the
idea of ‘flow’ (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s, 1990). The study will review consumer
involvement with branded gamification sources. The review will seek to explore the
merits and drawbacks of these methods through the opinions of different authorities.
Finally, the review will provide the basis for the investigation into applied gamification
integral to the marketing strategy at Starbucks.
7
2.2 Themes Identified
2.2.1 Consumer Involvement
Involvement is an individual difference variable found to influence consumers’
decision making processes and behaviours. The concept of involvement had origins
in marketing following Krugman’s (1967) measurement of involvement with
advertising. Involvement ever since has been analysed and measured in multiple
contexts, including purchasing decisions (Mittal, 1989 and Smith and Bristor, 1994),
involvement with products (Kapferer and Laurent, 1983 and Michaelidou and Dibb,
2006) and advertising (Andrews, 1990 and Zaichowsky, 1994). Involvement has
revealed multiple facets of consumer behaviour and problems and surrounding
involvement remains prominent in the marketing domain.
2.2.2 The use of the concept
Houston and Rothschild (1977) made three distinctions in involvement; enduring,
situational and emotional involvement. Enduring involvement reflects a general and
permanent concern with the brand or product. For example, a consumer may choose
to play a gamified Starbucks platform because of the enduring prior involvement with
the brand. It is interesting to note that the researcher has carried out a separate
investigation into the 100 firms in the Times Top 100 category and identified it is
mature brands and longstanding organisations or 10 years plus that have created
gamified platforms (over 30 organisations in the list have used some element of
gamifcation are all mature organisations) and may relate to enduring involvement
with the brand or product class.
Secondly, is situational involvement, concerning a specific situation such as a
purchase occasion. A consumer may access, play or become involved in a gamified
platform in a particular situation. Again, the researcher noted the availability of free
wireless connection in Starbucks coupled with the promotion of Starbucks My
Rewards (gamified system) and suggests this as an example of situational
involvement. However the level of involvement between the two concepts is much
8
debated and usually enduring involvement derives from the perception of a product
related to held consumer values (Arora, 1982) and stronger levels of involvement are
evoked. The example cited with Starbucks could be a coupling of the two concepts
as consumers drinking Starbucks may have enduring involvement, especially as
Starbucks has intense brand loyalty; 40% of 2,000 respondents said they were brand
loyal to Starbucks, compared to the combined 21% who were loyal at smaller chains
or independent stores (Mintel, 2012) and in a solo situation of drinking or visiting a
coffee in a Starbucks store, as one third of mobile users access Wi-Fi when in public
locations (cisco communities, 2013).
Emotional involvement is a process where the consumer has an emotional or
affective reaction to a product, service or brand. This concept remains contentious
as to what emotional involvement constitutes and significant differences in product
emotional perceptions has been found in males and females and product ranges
(Zaichkowsky, 1994).
Also, one may consider that the more the branded gamified platform becomes
integrated or acts as an extension of the consumers own values, the higher the level
of involvement (Mitchell, 1979). The growth of social campaigns such as ‘Drink
Awareness’ and ‘Road Safety’ campaigns are two recent examples that have
gamified their communications message and both could be argued derive around
consumers who have strong values and attitudes to the subject.
It may be that the choice of the gamified platform by consumers may moderate the
level of brand and purchase involvement. Therefore, deciding which gamified
platform to involve and engage with could be considered to aggravate situational
variances influencing motivation and behaviour and thus influencing the degree of
brand choice. Why do some people spend more time playing the game (spending
more time with the brand) and creating consumer generated content?
There are a number of considerations that arise from gamified involvement. Does
gamification constitute and lead to an increased involvement with the brand? What
does involvement on a gamified platform result in or actually equate to? For
instance, how does involvement on a gamified marketing platform affect purchase
behaviour? What is the scale for measuring involvement on a gamified platform?
Most of the research is rooted in involvement with particular brands or product
9
classes. Second, what is the relationship between involvement and other concepts in
consumer behaviour such as perception? Also, how much variance is there between
what constitutes involvement on different gamified platforms and brands?
Gamification has the power to improve consumers’ engagement and enhance the
brand perception through engagement and involvement, flow experience and
gamified mechanics (content, social influence). Besides, gamification’s own distinct
characteristics (fun, multi-media combination and interaction) which are considered
important for brand involvement as they appeal to fundamental human desires such
as recognition, rewards, status, achievement, competition, collaboration, selfexpression and altruism.
10
2.3 The level of flow
Games are regarded as systems that require an active involvement by the player
(Nintendo, 2012). Games are thus co-produced by the game developer and the
player(s). The game developer’s part of the co-production takes place when the
game’s storyline is created, rules invented, game design patterns chosen and
structure, sound and visuals added. The player(s)’s part of the co-production and of
the value-creation takes place each time the game is played or otherwise interacted
with. The game can also be solely or partly developed by the player. The core
service of the game is to provide hedonic, challenging and suspenseful experiences
for the player(s) (Kim, A.J, 2008) or gameful experiences (McGonigal, J. 2011) the
quality of such a “game service” is strongly determined by the functional quality of
the service or game experience, which is often referred to as flow (Csikszentmihalyi,
M. 1990).
Figure 2 – Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s idea of ‘flow’ as discussed in Flow: The
Psychology of Optimal Experience, 1990.
Flow results when the challenge is equal to your ability; if something is too easy,
boredom results. Too challenging and people become overwhelmed. Researchers
generally agree on the conceptual definition of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and
flow is something most individuals have experienced in various contexts. Hoffman
and Novak (1996) propose that flow has a number of positive consequences from a
11
marketing perspective, including increased consumer learning, exploratory
behaviour, and positive subjective experience. Hoffman and Novak’s proposal in
1996 that the internet should be thought of as something unique and special, more
than “just another marketing channel” which was met with scepticism. The key
insight from Hoffman and Novak (1996) was a conceptual model of the network
navigation process for Web users and the development of flow (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990) to complete engagement with and immersion in an online activity. The model
provided insight into the nature of a compelling flow experience, outcomes of the
flow experience and what creates a compelling online experience. Novak, Hoffman,
and Yung (2000) produced a revised model validating most of the relationships in
Hoffman and Novak (1996). They noted skill and importance increased with web
experience. As consumers use the web longer, they use it for skill-based, goal
directed purposes and it was demonstrated that flow occurs for both goal directed
and experiential shopping behaviours (Novak, Hoffman, and Duhachek, 2003). It
was found that reported flow experiences were actually more prevalent among those
who use the Web for goal-directed activities, rather than just fun. The impact on
gamified applications and usage, in-particular the Nike+ gamified platform could
support this research, as consumers presumably here are goal orientated (sharing
updates on fitness in exchange for recognition and reward), hence its continued
growth and success.
Approaches to measuring flow are wide ranging, Mathwick and Rigdon (2004) use a
four channel model defined by skill and challenge, while Senecal, Gharbi and Nantel
(2002) derive measurement comprised of concentration, control, challenge and
enjoyment online. Jiang and Benbasat (2005) aggregate items measuring control,
attention and enjoyment. Choi, Kim and Kim (2000) use a six item scale for flow
measurement while playing online games that could be adapted to gamification,
comprising of two questions for intrinsic interest, two for curiosity and one for
attention and one for control. Whereas Koufaris (2002) ignores measurements of
flow and opts for associated constructs of flow, including; control, enjoyment,
concentration, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Chou and Ting
(2003) conceptualise flow as, concentration, time, playfulness and exploratory
behaviour. Hoffman and Novak (2009) recommend that with the wide disparities on
flow measurement existing, multiple measures of flow should be adopted.
12
Flow research suggests it can influence attitude towards online purchasing (Korzaan,
2003), Web and brand attitudes (Mathwick and Rigdon, 2004) and attitudes towards
playing web based games (Hsu and Lu, 2003). Yee (2007) indicates immersion,
social behaviours and achievement and status are likely to be prevalent then
involvement by the ‘player’ is greater.
From a gamified marketing perspective, with the evolution of the Internet to Web 2.0
applications and sites have given consumers more control of their gamified
experience and environments and online check in status updates can be installed by
customers and used at a time or place convenient to them. Social influence is
gaining more powerful in making decisions and the effects on consumer behaviour
and subsequently, in the case of Nike+ the content that exists on this platform has
greater meaning when linked to other content and consumers in that gamified
network whom have reputations and are trusted. There is a potential impact on the
Nike brand through the gamified actions of users.
What follows is that value of a game service, be it ‘adventure’, ‘reward’, ‘suspense’,
‘mastery’ or ‘gamefulness’, is always determined by a player’s individual perception.
It is possible that the use of a game service marketing platform leads to gameful
experiences with one user but does not do so with another user (affecting the level of
flow). This difference in outcomes may be due, for example, to differences in skills of
the two users/players (Tuunanen, J., and Hamari, J. 2012).
13
2.4 Customer Engagement
Engaging customers in gamification remains an area of further and academic
interest. According to Carse (1987), a key ingredient to play is that it be voluntary
otherwise it is not play. McGonigal (2011) echoes this concept when she argues that
“voluntary participation requires that everyone who is playing the game knowingly
and willingly accepts the goal, the rules, and the feedback” (p. 21). Bogost (2011)
asserted that “game developers and players have critiqued gamification on the
grounds that it gets games wrong, mistaking incidental properties like points and
levels for primary features like interactions with behavioural complexity” (para. 11).
Furthermore, gamfication is not a quick fix; adding points may not necessarily save a
website or instantly create interest. From the examples of gamified sites and
platforms visited, this researcher believes that gamification has the potential to be
successful when it is well thought out, the mechanics heavily consider the audience
that you are trying to work with, and most importantly the people want to engage and
participate (regularly).
Customer engagement on social media platforms is typically registered by followers,
likes, comments and shares. Many companies have focused their social media
efforts on attracting as many fans and followers as possible. (Porter, C et.al, 2011).
However one could healthily question if metrics such as likes, followers and visitors
are meaningful measures of engagement. Surely, these metrics are only relevant if
those behaviours relate to the objectives of the brand’s social media activity.
Sterne (2013) suggests equivalence would be a respectable measure for social
media platforms to monetise engagement activity. Rather than focus on number of
followers, Sterne makes a case for attempting to put a value on a visitor, and if
organisations can identify the equivalent number of visitors a fan is worth,
organisations can monetise their social media marketing values. For example, if a
visitor on Starbucks gamified zone actively engaged and was heavily involved with
the brand and the platform and calculations of that one visitor was equivalent to 25
other visitors (less involved and engaged) and that visitor has a large number of
followers and was endorsing and being a ‘brand advocate’ (Payne, 1991) the
broadcast of the brand and message is increasing. It raises the question of whether
organisations should dedicate energies and marketing resources to identifying those
14
individuals who act as a catalyst for ‘social epidemics’ (Gladwell, 2000). Gladwell
(2000) acknowledges that social epidemics are driven by the efforts of a handful of
exceptional people. What sets these individuals apart is how sociable, energetic,
knowledgeable or influential these people are among their peers. He terms this the
‘Law of the Few’ and says, “these exceptional people found out about a trend, and
through social connections and energy and enthusiasm and personality have the
ability to spread the word about brands”. (Gladwell, Page 22). This approach is
similar to what Payne (1991) termed ‘brand advocates’. The challenge for marketers
is to identify these individuals and track their involvement with the brand.
Netnography is one approach that could support this measure. Through using a
netnographic method, researchers can monitor the approach of information online
and study the attitudes and behaviours of the market involved.
Whereas the concentration in relationship marketing emphasises the need for
organisations marketing philosophy to shift from customer acquisition (increase in
followers through social media for example) to marketing strategies that focus on
customer retention and engagement (Payne, A et.al, 2005). Tuten and Solomon
(2013) argue that numbers are important, let us not forget that, “social media is
meant to be about participation and relationships between brands and consumers”
(page 203). Engagement in social media should be concerned with how people feel,
how exposure to the brand through social media influences feelings (Tuten and
Solomon, 2013). 25,000 followers on a Facebook page for Cherry Coca-Cola does
little to inform Coca-Cola about how the target markets feels towards the new can
design for example or even how they feel about the product. This networked view of
markets is not entirely new and the challenges remain persistent. Ford (1990)
discussed a chaotic, non-hierarchical view of industrial relations and the notion of
markets as conversations and how organisations were failing to be involved in those
conversations outside of ‘command and control’.
Customer engagement through gamification differs in the social media approach
according to Esslinger and Combs (2011) when they state (anecdotally) that,
customers actively participate with the brand (active) through gamification,
gamification engages customers, although this researcher would question the flow,
frequency and time of engagement, it embeds the brand in everyday lives (active
involvement) but again participation needs to be measured and the more a brand
15
can engage with customers in a loyalty programme, the less time or incentive that
person has to move to a competitor. Is this the same for all consumers? Are there
specific groups of people more engaged with the brand than others? Anecdotally the
researcher has noted multiple marketing CEO’s at some of the worlds most
accomplished and recognised brands boasting of the merits of gamification as
engagement tool but who is engaging and what constitutes engagement? One quick
play of the platform? Or multiple plays through to purchase and acquisition? The
dialogue remains fuzzy around this area.
The ‘Engagement Food Chain’, pioneered by Jim Sterne (2010) demonstrates a
social media metric scale of engagement as a desired connection between the brand
and the target market. Sterne offers a hierarchy of the effects that marketers seek
from the target audience as they reach increasing levels of engagement with the
brand, as illustrated below.
Figure 3 The Engagement Food Chain (Based on the Engagement Food Chain,
Jim Sterne, 2010. Social Media Metrics, 2010, page 109).
16
The chain (not a pyramid?) starts with ‘saw’, advancing to ‘saved’ and ‘rated’, and
climaxes with the ‘purchase’ and ‘recommended’. The difficulty will lie with identifying
individuals and tracking on an individual basis where they are on the chain and
monitor their individual progress. However the model provides some foundation for
measuring online activity and could be applied to a gamification platform. The model
appears to favour those organisations where the business model is entirely online
and ignores offline activity or a fusion of both. The pyramid construct makes the
assumption that the more people, who for instance are ‘commenting’, the more
consumers you will have at the Purchasing stage. Also, if a consumer has
purchased, it assumes the consumer is to make a recommendation and again is
working on this assumption this will be positive and gives little credence to negative
feedback, resulting from a product purchase. The focus is on acquisition, through to
purchase and recommendation of the brand or product but this researcher remains
curious about a metric model that considers how social media marketers measure
negative brand comments and the reaction, response and strategy to rectify brand
disillusionment.
Engagement is a complex, especially online engagement and is an emerging topic in
academic research where consumers are increasingly active participants in
interactive processes with multiple feedback loops and highly immediate (even real
time) communication (Hoffman and Novak, 1996). The effects of electronic word of
mouth in online communities can spread rapidly and could be a measure of
engagement. This researcher has noted in preliminary research stages that
electronic word of mouth in many gamified platforms occur within the hosts platforms
and beyond the virtual brand community. Richins and Block (1991) found that
consumers are more likely to search for, and accept negative electronic word of
mouth when they lack online information. Interestingly, Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006)
investigated how negative reviews of online books having a larger detrimental effect
on sales, than positive reviews. This has radical implications for brands through
gamified platforms and although research literature tends to focus on the merits of
engagement and creating brand loyalty, the consequences, if the gamified
experience is re-soundly negative could have implications for the brand’s equity and
possible impact on sales by those engaged with the gamified platform. The
researcher will seek to consider what online communities’ reactions are to branded
17
gamified platforms and if the gamified platform acts as integral part to the brands
proposition, perception and positioning.
Recent research suggests that customer engagement is expected to contribute to
developing our understanding of the customer experience and retention (Bowden,
2009) and despite developments in the practitioner environment, academic enquiry
into customer engagement is limited (Verhoef, Reinartz and Kraft, 2010). Customer
engagement is anticipated to contribute to relationship marketing facets of retention
and loyalty (Verhoef et.al 2010). When a customer is a strong admirer of a business
organisation, they desire to engage with others and organisation directly, often in
communities sponsored by that business (Porter, C et al. 2011). Gamified platforms
facilitate this desire as do social media systems such as Facebook and micro
blogging site, Twitter. The more popular and successful gamified platforms have also
embedded and incorporated social media sharing typically through Facebook and
Twitter. Examples include Nike+, Starbucks My Rewards, Coca-Cola, Four Square
and Gigya.
Customer Relationship Management as pioneered by (Berry 1983; Christopher,
Payne and Ballantyne, 1991, Grönroos 1994, Gummesson 2002, Sheth and
Parvatiyar 1995) acknowledged the step away from one way, mass marketing
techniques to two way dialogues. However most of the relationship was still one way
i.e. the company drove the conversations and not the customer. But with the growth
of Web 2.0 and social media and gamified applications, the power and harness of
the consumer conversation appeared to grow. Consumers are more informed and
have the power to express themselves directly with the brand. In addition consumers
can seek out advice and opinions from other consumers that brands have little or no
influence over, witnessing the rise of brand advocates and champions. These
changes, coupled with advances in data processing technologies have led to
strategic shifts; a move from relationship plans with customers to engagement with
customers (Aungst and Wilson, 2005). The fundamental shift; from mass to two way
relationships to two way engagement.
Josephine Pine and James Gilmore (1999), authors of The Experience Economy,
discussed the notion of customers buying or engaging in an experience, enjoying a
series of memorable events that a company stages to engage customers in an
18
inherently personal way. Marketers now refer to this customer experience as
illustrated by Pine and Gilmore as ‘touch points’ (1998) through forms such as
gamification and the paradigm shift is customer engagement and experience.
Amazon and Facebook have applications that allows shoppers to receive product
recommendations based on Facebook preferences and Starbucks gamified ‘My
Rewards’ transforms customers iPhone into a Starbucks loyalty card. Coca-Cola is
reducing its dependence on branded micro sites in favour of consumer driven
engagement sites for building connections with customers.
Consumer perceived value through engagement as the core of relationship
marketing process was conceived by Christopher et al (1988) who offered a
perspective of marketing, based on a broadening approach that the principles of
marketing can, and should be applied to a range of ‘markets’ or ‘market domains’.
These ideas have been captured in a model known as six markets model
(Christopher et al, 1991; Payne and Holt, 1991) (See appendix three) which
identifies five other markets surrounding the customer markets. These are internal,
referral, supplier, recruitment and influence markets, which consist of all
stakeholders. In this model delivering superior value to customers is predicated on
building and nurturing relationships among all these markets. Customer engagement
through gamified platforms draws parallels with the six markets model as it is
considered as a behavioural manifestation towards the brand or organisation that
goes beyond transactions and emphasis on acquiring new customers and building
long-term customer relationships.
19
Figure 4 – Six Markets Model (Payne, A, Ballantyne, D. and Christopher, M, 1991,
www.emarldinight.com/journals/acticleid=1508894)
Whilst the majority of research on the six markets models is focused on addressing
consumer behaviour in business to customer traditional orientation there is little
acknowledgement and application to virtual brand communities explicitly, the
literature will provide a foundation to investigate during this empirical study.
Customer engagement in virtual brand communities is sparse, and lacking
particularly with reference to gamification. To date, De Valck, et al. (2009),
concluded that the nature of brand communities and the effect on consumer
engagement is nebulous- to-date and represented an important area for research.
Brodie et al.’s (2011) addressed customer engagement in a virtual community by
analysing five themes. The first involved the interactive experiences between and/or
other actors in the marketing/brand network. In gamified terms, this would be the
interactions in brand-related chat rooms, postings and blogs (typically found on the
20
gamified platform). The second theme is that the consumer engagement is
dependent on the user’s motivational state (could gamification alter this motivational
state?). The utility value and interest should outweigh the level of perceived risk.
Thirdly is the individual’s engagement with a particular brand over time. A fourth
theme is engagement as multidimensional concept, comprising of cognitive, affective
and behavioural domains (Patterson et al., 2006). The final theme of consumer
engagement in a virtual community implies that the process has relational
consequences that may act as antecedents in subsequent engagement. The five
themes have led to a broad understanding of consumer engagement virtually:
“Customer engagement involves specific interactive experiences between
consumers and the brand and/or members of the brand community. Consumer
engagement is context-dependent and is a multidimensional concept comprising of
cognitive, emotional and behavioural dimensions, and plays a central role in the
process of relational exchange where other relational concepts are engagement
antecedents” (Brodie et.al. 2010, page 11)
This broad definition will provide a direction for the undertaking of the exploratory
research presented in this study. Central to this broad definition is consumer
engagement embodies consumer experiences and participation and involvement act
as engagement antecedents, while engagement may also result in issues of
commitment, trust, consumer brand attachment and brand loyalty.
21
2.5 Customer Loyalty
Gamification adoption appears to strike a balance between targeting new (the
attraction and appeal of something new to try, play and engage with) and existing
customers (satisfy demands of loyal customers with rewards). Payne (1998) argues
that it often the existing customers who receive in-sufficient attention. In an attempt
to understand customer loyalty, many marketers have studied the Customer Loyalty
Ladder (Christopher, Payne and Ballantyne, 1991). Although different variations of
the ladder can be found today, the original ladder concept provides a sequential set
of goals for growing the lifetime value of customers, and thus attaining their
maximum value. Many organisation placed emphasis on the lower rungs of the
loyalty ladder in an attempt to turn consumers into active advocates of the ladder.
The message was to move as many customers up the ladder as you can.
Gamification and social network principles of engagement and social brand
conversations through Nike+ and Starbucks My Rewards are connected to Twitter
and Facebook for example is resulting in thousands of un-paid advocates, spreading
the brand values and heaping praise (and negatives) on brands.
Discussion threads, leader boards, trophies, rewards, endorsements and online
interactions is presenting opportunities for relationship building, not only between
peer to peer but also between marketers and their customers. My Starbucks Idea
platform allowed 150,000 Starbucks customers to feature ideas on the system for
new or improved products and services (Allen Adamson, Forbes, 2011) for the
company. Literature on the loyalty ladder focused or organisations endeavours to
build relationships with new and existing customer bases but, as Harridge-March and
Quinton (2011) propose that a hierarchy exists of social network users (this could be
extended to gamification as social networks are typically built in or embedded into
gamification) and that hierarchy can be linked to the loyalty ladder. The loyalty ladder
can help marketers gain insight into the structure and form of social platforms in
order to improve their understanding of key influencers in the gamified systems and
social networks. The benefit this brings of being able to communicate more
effectively with influencers and other members of this social network ladder. In the
case of its application to gamified platform, the possible opportunity to communicate
with the most masterful or experts (most trophies, accolades, reward points.)
22
Figure 5 – The Loyalty Ladder (www.eightleaves.com/2010/04/the-loyalty-ladder)
Harridge-March and Quinton (2009) suggested the adaption of the loyalty ladder in
social networking communities to consider ‘Lurkers’, (previously prospect) as those
who are reticent to contribute to sites, ‘Tourists’ (previously customer and client) to
term those who post comments but demonstrate a lack of commitment to the
platform or network and ‘Evangelists or Insiders’ (previously supporter) as those
contributors who are enthusiastic, expert and regular in their contributions. Similarly
using the loyalty ladder as the framework, Riegner, (2007) used different sets,
starting with the ‘social clicker’ (users who communicate with friends and create
content on message boards and review boards), ‘online insiders’ (avid online users
and shoppers who vocalise product preferences) and finally ‘content kings’ (young
men addicted to online entertainment). These groups reflect some complexity and
the lack of a uniformed measurement for marketers engaging with users of social
media and communities. No measurement or recognition of labelling loyalty has yet
23
been suggested for gamification applications and platforms. Although the labels are
different from Harridge-March and Quinton and Riegner, the models themselves
appear to be entrenched in the foundations of the loyalty ladder
It is interesting to consider if the reach of gamified platforms are appealing to the
loyal brand advocate or if the appeal of the gamified marketing system extends
beyond the most loyal consumers and the level of engagement? Porter et.al (2011)
considers the prospect of communities, that can be fostered and nurtured through
gamification share a ‘consciousness of kind, a sense of belonging and a sense of
shared social identity’ and notes that the appeal is likely to form around mature
brands that have strong brand loyalty and built up a strong image with consumers
(brand maturity). The writers suggest that engagement is motivated intrinsically
towards gamified zones, based on the value created by the organisation that meets
the needs of the viral community (Porter et.al, 2011). Considering the success of
Nike+ it could be argued this is a mature brand and fitness is associated to intrinsic
motivation and the value of linking sub communities (fellow friends who are
motivated to get fit). Nike+ members are motivated to cooperate with the Nike+
gamified system as they believe Nike has attempted to empower and embed users
through a high sense of attachment. Whereas Starbucks Reward System is
embedding members by giving them exclusive access to certain information (new
flavours, recipes and privileges) that non-gamified can-not enjoy, which in turn leads
the members to exhibit engagement behaviours, such as willingness to co-operate in
new product development (My Starbucks Idea) and stay loyal to the organisation
(Porter and Donthu, 2011). This raises the question of whether customers are loyal
or committed to the game platform and the associated achievements, but not
necessarily the product. Commitment is defined as, ‘durable desire to maintain an
important relationship’ and is considered an antecedent of loyalty (Morgan and Hunt
1994). Customers may be committed to achieving the goal or rewards of the game
but not the action of a sale or purchase.
The work of Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) gave rise to the distinction between
behavioural and cognitive loyalty while later contributions from Dick and Basu (1994)
and Oliver (1997 and 1999) developed the notion of mental loyalty; they identify
loyalty to a brand, follows a process of evaluation and relative attitude towards the
brand and consideration of purchase (new or repeat). When a customer plays the
24
game, especially repeated play of the game to achieve greater rewards
(behavioural), a customer could reflect, evaluate and decide whether this will lead
through to a purchase of the product or consumption of the brand (mental). Gamified
platforms in their design aim to make the customer feel special (Maslow; Fullfilment
needs and Self Actualisation) and the design is such (flow) to make the purchase as
seem-less as possible (see Domino’s Pizza Hero and McDonalds Monopoly.
Although it is clearly possible to frame different forms of loyalty, questions remain on
how can or does the gamified platform relate to the development of loyalty with the
brand and does the gamified platform act as a form of loyalty emergence?
Dick and Basu (1994) considered four sequential stages of customer loyalty through
the combined effects of mental/cognition and behaviour. They suggest that loyalty is
the due to interaction between a customer’s view or attitude towards a brand and
behavioural loyalty (repeat purchase). The typology clusters customers in to four
loyalty groups; Customers with high attitudinal and behavioural loyalty are known as
‘true loyals’, those with high behavioural loyalty but low attitudinal loyalty as ‘spurious
loyals’, those with high attitudinal loyalty but low behavioural loyalty are described as
‘latent loyals’, and those with low attitudinal and behavioural loyalty as ‘non loyals’.
Dick and Basu model (1994) has a built in assumption that the classification of
customers into the four loyalty groups on the basis of relative attitude and repeat
business should then allow the prediction of other loyalty measures such as retention
and defection. However, as Bove and Johnson (2002) suggest, few attempts have
been made to test or predict this and the researcher is interested as part of the
netnographic exploratory research, if such classifications prevail and exist with
customers who have used a gamified platform. It maybe that attitude towards a
branded gamified platform is a better predicator of loyalty than buyer behaviour?
The limitations in explaining and predicting customer loyalty through engagement is
widely acknowledged in the literature (Sureschandar et.al 2002, Uncles, D et al,
2002 and Taylor and Baker, 1994). The engagement concept had been viewed as a
promising variable in enhanced predictive power of customer loyalty (Bowden,
2009). This would highlight the importance of customer engagement in gamified
applications but one would considers if the consumer is engaged with the game or
the brand. Are the two mutually exclusive or does gamification marry the two? Molen
and Wilson (2010) scrutinise how engagement differs to ‘involvement’ and suggest
25
that a consumers’ brand engagement in specific online contexts extends past
involvement, as it encompasses an interactive relationship with the engagement
object (gamified platform) and instrumental value is obtained from brand interactions.
26
2.6 Conclusions to the Literature Review
Flaws, inconsistencies and contradictions exist in the papers reviewed including; the
labels, time-spans and the long term sustainability attributed to the concept of
gamification; the benefits and usage in a marketing context and proposed solutions
for engaging with customers is extensively varied. Substantial evidence exists that
organisations (typically mature, strong branded affiliation organisations) are
embracing gamification and factors other than sales and revenue should also be
considered in profiling the reasons for having a gamified platform.
We have seen that the concept of involvement and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) is
complex within a gamified platform as research into flow and gamified platforms is
sparse. Hoffman and Novak (2009) recommend that with the wide disparities on flow
measurement existing, multiple measures of flow should be adopted and the concept
of flow with reference to gamified platforms gives the emergence of the rise of brand
ambassadors and the power and influence they yield has yet to be substantiated. An
interesting concept is a notion, for example, that a member of the Starbucks gamified
community could leverage the brand to expand, join and collaborate with other
brands.
Customer engagement as a concept derived from Relationship Marketing requires
further empirical research of what constitutes engagement in an online community
(through gamification) is needed to add further clarity to the concept of what the
consumer is engaged to and with (the gamified object, or the brand) and the reasons
and motivations of engagement through gamification.
Traditionally marketing models suggested engaged customers lead to customer
loyalty and the literature reviewed the concept of the Loyalty Ladder (Christopher
et.al, 1991) and the review explored the adaption of the loyalty ladder for online
communities.
27
4.5 How it relates to the Literature Review
Many of the proponents supporting the view that gamification leads to greater
amount of customer involvement, engagement and loyalty argue the game design
and mechanics create this (Zichermann, 2013; Yukaichou, 2011-13 and McGonigal,
2010). In contrast to much of their research, the game elements with experienced
and even casual gamers indicate from the research indicates that the game design
on gamified platforms is restricted and prescribed and as a result customer
involvements with the gamified platform (the brand?) soon wanes and engagement
and involvement is limited to situational analysis.
The results on flow aligned to the research by Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000).
They noted skill and importance increased with experience and having immersed
oneself in the Domino’s Pizza Hero platform this became apparent but engagement
radically dropped after the trophies and awards were achieved and more
spontaneous feedback with an online community (sharing) could encourage
engagement and involvement as suggested by P2 in the interview of engagement
and sharing trophies on the Sony PlayStation network.
In relation to what constitutes engagement, further research is required. The
netnographic accumulative research suggests that engagement with a gamified
platform is partially derived from brand loyalty. Increasingly there are many
competing applications to engage with. To spend the time to download and ‘play’ a
particular organisations game platform suggests a form of brand loyalty and online
recommendations is the social media community. Tuten and Solomon (2013)
believed engagement with social media is driven through participation and
relationships with brands and the positive netnography cultural sentiment from the
Domino’s Pizza Hero suggests the ‘play’, ‘rewards’ and ‘novelty’ aspect drives
sentiment and positive feelings, and as such players share this utility of happiness
with an online community and positive brand endorsement results. However, having
observed the Starbucks online community, the platform performs less favourably and
customer engagement is perceived as negative. The online community are
compelled to share this negative engagement (possibly because they are so brand
loyal enraged by the game platform?). Further research is required from this
exploratory study to investigate if negative online comments and response act as a
28
catalyst to try the gamified platform and analyse if and how developers of gamified
platforms ensure it reciprocates the brand values of the host organisation.
The concept of loyalty to the gamified platform and loyalty to the brand remains of
significant interest. Gamification has the ability to maintain a customer relationship
with the brand, positively or negative (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), however
consideration should be given to the types of loyal customers who choose to engage
with the platform. How influential are ‘content kings’ or ‘brand advocates’ (Riegner,
2007) and does their loyalty transcend the brand and the gamified platform?
29
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Introduction
This exploratory study set out to answer the question; “Gamification as a marketing
tool? Exploratory study of gamification mechanics and if customer involvement,
engagement and loyalty can result?’ This involved the deconstruction of gamification
as a process in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the marketing and
human intrinsic forces involved. It involved gaining the views of a number of
members of different online communities, immersing myself in two different gamified
platforms and completing an autonetnographic account was a first. Analysis of two
interviews with Starbucks My Reward customers was considered and these views
reflect, that successful gamification involves a careful plan of game mechanics for
differentiated players and determinants of their brand loyalty is important
30
5.2 Summary of Major Findings

The emergence of gamification, especially its application in marketing and
through the literature review evidences that it is a relatively emergent topics
surrounded in unmeasured marketing rhetoric. Insufficient empirical research
of the benefits from a marketing perspective and gamification exists. What
has emerged is a need to accurately measure the resulting customer
involvement, engagement and loyalty that is derived specifically towards the
brand as a result of the gamified platform.

Too many instances of gamified platforms, including Starbucks My Rewards
and Domino’s Pizza Hero have borrowed specific elements from existing and
successful video games, but from a customer engagement perspective
requires greater differentiation of the game design depending on previous
game experience and differentiating the game platform dependent on the
level of loyalty the customer has with brand. Referring to Christopher et al
(1991) loyalty ladder, game design and rewarding mechanics and challenges
could be built around this model to induce further engagement and
involvement.

The link between a gamified platform’s ability to increase engagement, loyalty
and revenue with customers requires further research and the link is not clear.
One can conclude from this exploratory study that the Starbucks My Rewards
is a mechanism that has been ‘gamed’ and designed to serve the more loyal
customers. Dick and Basu (1994) and Boye and Johnson (2002) refer to as
‘true loyals’. The gamified platform serves the most loyal of customers to that
particular brand and the rewards are more leveraged at the most behavioural
loyal customers. Differentiation and modelling of gamified platforms based on
different forms of customer loyalty needs to be considered in the design of
gamification mechanics.
31
REFERENCES
Anderson, S. (2011). Seduction – Interactive Design. New Riders Publishing,
Berkeley.
Anderson, A. (2011). Forbes – Starbucks wakes up and smells the coffee – and
buzzes back up the leader board.
(www.forbes.com/sites/allenadamson/2011/06/07/starbucks). Accessed 7th August
2013.
A Brief History of Gamification (www.zefcan.com/2013/01/a-brief-history-ofgamification) Accessed 5th August 2013
Arora, R. (1982). Validation of an SOR Model for Situation, Enduring and Response
Components of Involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 19, pages 505
- 516
Aungst, S. and Wilson, T. (2005). A Primer for Navigating the Shoals of Applying
Wireless Technology to Marketing Problems. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing. Emerald Group Publishing.
BadgerVille Website – www.badgerville.com (Accessed 1st August 2013)
Beaven, Z. and Laws, C. (2007). Never Let Me Down Again – A Netnographic
Exploration of the US Leg of the Depeche Mode 2005 – 2006 World Tour. Routledge
Publishing
Burke, B. (2013). The Gamification of Business. Gartner Inc.
(www.gartner.com/technology/research/gamification). Accessed 4th August 2013
Boone, L. (2011). Contemporary Marketing, 16th Edition. Cengage Learning, pp.341343
Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. 2007.
Bogost, I. (2011, August 8). Gamification is bullshit: My position statement at the
Wharton symposium [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://bogo.st/wm (Accessed 1st
August 2013)
32
Boncher, A., and Ellis, C. (1998). In: A.N Markham (ed.) Life Online – Researching
Real Experience in Virtual Space, pages 7 – 8. Altamira Press, Creek, CA.
Bove, L. and Johnson, L., 2002. Predicting personal loyalty to a service worker.
Australasian Marketing, Journal 10 (1), 24-35.
Bowden, J. (2009). The Process of Customer Engagement: A conceptual framework.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Volume 17, pages 63 – 74
Brodie, R., Ilic, A., Juric., B and Hollebeek, L. (2011). Consumer Engagement in a
Virtual Brand Community. Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, pages 1 -10
Bryman, A., and Bell, E., (2003) Business Research Methods, Oxford. Oxford
University Press.
Carse, J. P. (1987). Finite and infinite games: A vision of life as play and possibility.
New York, NY: Ballantine.
Carlson, John. R. and Zmud, Robert. W., (1999) Channel expansion theory and the
experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal,
42.2, 153 – 170
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Ground Theory – A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publishing: London
Choi, D., Kim, H. and Kim, J. (2000). “A Cognitive and Emotional Strategy for
Computer Game Design”. Journal of MIS Research, 10, 165–87.
Chou, T. and Ting, C. (2003), “The Role of Flow Experience in Cyber-Game
Addiction”. Cyber Psychology & Behaviour, 6 (6), 663–75
Chou, Y. K. (2013) What is Gamification? www.yukaichou/gamificationexamples/what-is-gamification (Accessed 4th August 2013).
Chevalier, M. and Mayzilin, D. (2006). The Effect of the Word of Mouth on Sales.
Journal of Marketing Research. Volume 43, pages 345 - 354
Cisco Communities, Wi-Fi Access www.communities.cisco.com (accessed 29th
August 2013).
33
Costabile, M. (2000). A Dynamic Model of Customer Loyalty. 16th Annual IMP
Conference www.impgroup.com (accessed 20th September 2013)
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper
Perennial New York, USA.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988). "Introduction to Part IV" in
Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi and Isabella Selega Csikszentmihalyi, eds., Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Judith L. (1989). "Optimal Experience in Work and
Leisure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,56 (5), 815-822.
Danet, B. (2001). Cyberpl@y: Communicating Online. Berg, Oxford
Davidson, H. (2002). Even more Offensive Marketing, 2nd Edition, Penguin
Publishing. London
De Valck, K. Bruggen, G. and Wierenga. B. (2009). Virtual Communities – A
Marketing Perspective. Decision Support Systems, Volume 47, pages 185 – 203.
Deterding, S. (2011). Gamification Research Network, www.gamificationresearch.org (Accessed 30th July, 2013).
Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Deterding, S. (2010). From Game Design Elements to
Gamefulness: Defining Gamification
Ellis, C. (2004). The Ethnographic I – A Methodological Novel about
Autoethnography. Sage Publishing, New York.
Elliott, R., and Jankel, N. (2003). Using Ethnography in Strategic Consumer
Research, Qualitative Market Research. Volume 6, Number 4, pages 215 – 223
Flick, U. (2011). An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 4th Edition, Sage
Publishing, London
Frankfurt, H. (2005). On Bullshit. Principle Community Press
34
Gartner Hype Cycles (www.gartner.com/hypecycles/2012) (Accessed 30th July
2013).
Gamification Co Website (www.gamification.co/). Accessed 10th July 2013
Gamification Wiki Website (www.gamification.org). Accessed 10th July 2013
Gibb, G. (2010). Grounded Theory – Core Elements. Available at
www.youtube.com/watch?v4SZDTpb (Accessed 1st August 2013).
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point, Abacus Publishing, London.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago:
Urwin Hyman
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, Anchor,
New York.
Greene, J. (2008). The Social Network is Up and Running, Business Week,
November 17th, 2008
Grobel, W. (2013) Webinar presentation – Gamification; Future of Marketing?
Chartered Institute of Marketing (www.cim.co.uk). Watched live 30th July 2013
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics Creep: Governing Social Sciences Research in the
Name of Ethics. Qualitative Sociology, Volume 27, pages 391 - 414
Harridge-March, S., and Quinton, S. (2009). Virtual Snakes and Ladders: Social
Networks and the Relationship Marketing Loyalty Ladder. The Marketing Review,
Volume 9, Number 2, pages 176 - 180.
Hamari, J., and V. Lehdonvirta. Game Design as Marketing: How Game Mechanics
Create Demand for Virtual Goods. International Journal of Business Science &
Applied Management 5.1 (2010): 14-29.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical
study of gamifying exercise. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on
Information Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, June 5–8, 2013.
35
Hamari, J., and Rvinen, A. (2011). Building Customer Relationship through Game
Mechanics in Social Games. In M. Cruz-Cunha, V. Carvalho & P. Tavares (Eds.),
Business, Technological and Social Dimensions of Computer Games:
Multidisciplinary Developments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hollebeek, L. (2011). Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement: Exploring the
Loyalty Nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27, No 7 – 8, pages 785
– 807.
Hoffman, D.L., and Novak, T. (2006). A New Marketing Paradigm for Electronic
Commerce, The Information Society, An International Journal, Volume 13, Issue 1,
1997.
Hoffman, D.L., and Novak, T. (2009). Flow Online: Lessons Learned and Future
Prospects, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Volume 23
Hoffman, Donna L., and Thomas P. Novak (1996), “Marketing in Hypermedia
Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations,” Journal of Marketing,
60 (July), 50–68.
Houston, M., and Rothschild, M. (1977). A Paradigm for Research on Consumer
Involvement. University of Wisconsin
Hsu, C., and Lu, H. (2003). “Why Do People Play On-Line Games? An Extended
TAM with Social Influences and Flow Experience”. Information and Management, 41,
853–68.
Huotari, K., and Hamari, J. (2012). Defining Gamification – A Service Marketing
Perspective, 16th International Academic Mind Trek, Tampere, Finland.
Jacoby, J., and Chestnut, R. (1978). Brand Loyalty. Measurement and Management,
New York, Whiley.
Jiang, Z. and Benbasa, I. (2005), “Virtual Product Experience: Effects of Visual and
Functional Control of Products on Perceived Diagnosticity and Flow in Electronic
Shopping”. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21 (3), 111–47
Jupp, V. (2006). Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods, Sage Publishing:
London
36
Kim, A. J. Putting the Fun in Functional - applying game mechanics to functional
software. http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/putting-the-fun-infunctiona?type=powerpoint, 2008 (Accessed 1st August 2013).
King, A. (1996). Researching Internet Communities, Information Society, Volume 12,
pages 119 - 127
Korzaan, M. (2003). “Going With the Flow: Predicting Online Purchase Intentions”.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43 (4) (Summer), 25–31.
Koufaris, M. (2002). “Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory
to Online Consumer Behavior”. Information Systems Research, 13 (June), 205–23.
Kozinets, R. (2013). Doing Ethnographic Research Online. Sage Publishing, New
York.
Kozinets, R. (2010). Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. Sage
Publishing, New York
Kozinets, R. (2002). The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing
Research in Online Communities. Journal of Marketing Research, Volume XXXIX,
pages 61 – 72
Kozinets, R. (1998). On Netnography. Initial Reflections on Consumer Investigations
of Cyber culture. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, Volume 25, pages 366
– 371
Kozinets, R. (1999). E-tribalized Marketing? The Strategic Implications of Virtual
Communities of Consumption. European Management Journal 1999. Volume 17,
pages 252 – 264
Krugman, H. (1967). The Measurement of Advertising Involvement. Public Opinion
Quarterly, Volume 29, pages 583 - 596
Langer, R., and Beckman, S. (2005). Priceless – Turning Ordinary Products into
Extraordinary Experiences. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Langridge, D., and Hagger-Johnson, G. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods
and Data Analysis in Psychology, 2nd Edition. Pearson: Harlow
37
Lauckner, J., and Baldwin, D. (2011). To Game or Not to Game: The Effects of
Gamifying our Website. (www.john-lauckner.com) Accessed 2nd August 2013.
Maggetti, M., Gilardi, F. and Radaelli, C. (2013). Designing Research in the Social
Sciences. Sage Publishing, London.
Markova, Y. (2013). The Applicability of the Concept of Gamification within Business
Organisations, MA, Sofia. From www.gamification_consulting.com (Accessed 4th
August 2013)
Marczewski, A. (2002). Gamification Technology – A simple introduction.
Markham, A. (1998). Life Online: Researching Real Experiences in Virtual Space.
Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Mashable.com Website (www.mashable.com) Accessed 10th July 2013
Mathwick, C. and Rigdon, E. (2004), “Play, Flow, and the Online Search
Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 324–32.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and how they
can Change the World. Penguin Publishing, London.
McGonigal, J (2010). TED Talk – Reality is Broken: Why Games Can Make a Better
World. (March 2010) (www.tedtalks.com) Accessed 1st August 2013
Mertens, D. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology –
Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. 2nd Edition.
Sage Publishing, London.
Michaelidou, N. and Dibb, S. (2008). Consumer Involvement, a New Perspective.
Open University Research Online (www.open.ac.uk/22442/2). Accessed 30th August
2013
Mills, M. (2012). Customer Engagement A New Paradigm. Experian White Paper,
Experian Marketing Services.
Mitchell, A. (1979). Involvement: A Potentially Important Mediator of Consumer
Behaviour. Association of Consumer Research, volume 6, pages 191 - 196
38
Mitchell, A. (2006). Climbing Up the Rungs of the Loyalty Ladder – Why Bother?
Marketing Week, 23rd November, 2006.
Mollen, A., and Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, Telepresence and Interactivity in
Online Consumer Experience. Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 63, pages
919 – 925
Morgan, R., and Hunt, S. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing. Journal of Marketing, July 20 – 38.
Nike Plus Website (www.nikeplus.com) Accessed 10th July 2013
Nintendo Website (www.nintendo.com) Accessed 14th July 2013
Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction. A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New
York, McGraw Hill.
Oliver, R. (1999). Whence Customer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, Special Issue,
pages 33 – 44.
O’ Reilly, K. (2004). Key Concepts in Ethnography. Sage Publisuly 2013hing,
London.
Patterson, P. Yu, T and Ruyter, K. (2006). Understanding Customer Engagement in
Services. ANZMAC 2006 Conference Paper, Brisbane.
Payne, A. (1993). Relationship Marketing – The Six Markets Framework, Cranfield
University.
Payne, A, Ballantyne, D and Christopher, M. (2005). Stakeholder Approach to
Relationship Marketing Strategy. The Use of the Six Markets Model. European
Journal of Marketing, Volume 39, Issue 7, pages 855 – 871
Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. (1998). The Experience Economy. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston.
Porter, C, Donthu, N, MacElroy, W and Wydra, D. (2011). How to Foster and Sustain
Engagement in Virtual Communities. California Management Review, Volume 53,
No. 4, pages 80 – 110
39
Richins, M,. and Bloch, P. (1991). Post Purchase Satisfaction. Incorporating the
Effects of Involvement and Time. Journal of Business Research. Issue 23, pages
145 - 158
Riegner, C. (2007). Word of Mouth on the Web. The Impact of Web 2.0 on
Consumer Purchase Decisions. Journal of Advertising Research. December, 436 447
Rogowsky, M. (2012). ‘Starbucks Rewards Changes to Test Loyalty of the Few’,
Published in Forbes, 12th October, 2012
(www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/20122/10/12) Accessed 1st August 2013
Sack, W. (2002). What Does a Very Large Scale Conversation Look like? Artificial
Dialectics of Large Volumes of E-mail. Leonardo, Volume 35, Issue 4: 417 - 426
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students. 5th Edition. Pearson Education. Harlow
Schell’s, J. (2010). TED Talk – DICE Presentation – When Games Invade Real Life
(April 2010) (www.tedtalks.com) Accessed 1st August 2013
Schau, H,. and Gilly, M. (2003). We Are What We Post. Journal of Consumer
Research. Volume 30, Issue 4, pages 385 – 404.
Senecal, S., Gharbi, J., and Nantel, J. (2002). “The Influence of Flow on Hedonic
and Utilitarian Shopping Values”. Advances in Consumer Behavior, 29, 483–4.
Stenros, J,. and Sotamaa, O. (2009). Commoditization of Helping Players Play: Rise
of the Service Paradigm. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2009: Breaking New Ground:
Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory.
Starbucks Corporate Website: (www.starbucks/corporate/2013) Accessed 11th July
2013
Starbucks My Rewards Website: (www.starbucks.co.uk/rewards) Accessed 11th July
2013
StarbucksMelody Website (www.starbucksmelody.com/about) Accessed 10th July
2013
40
Sherry, J. (1991). Postmodern Alternatives, The Interpretive Turn in Consumer
Research. Prentice Hall.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publishing:
London
Terrill, B. (2008). Bret on Social Games.
(www.bretterrill.com/2008/06/mycoverageoflobbyofsocialgaming) Accessed 4th
August
Tuten, T,. and Solomon, R. (2013). Social Media Marketing. Pearson Publishing,
London.
Tuunanen, J., and Hamari, J. (2012). Meta-synthesis of Player Typologies.
Proceedings of Nordic Digra 2012 Conference: Games in Culture and Society,
Tampere, Finland, June 6-8, 2012.
The Coolest Coffee Shops, Mintel Report 2012. Published in The Huffington Post,
Huffington Post (03/07/13). www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/starbucks-brandloyalty
(accessed 30th August 2013).
Verhoef, P., Reinartz, W., and Kraft, M. (2010). Customer Engagement as a New
Perspective in Customer Management. Journal of Service Research. Volume 13,
pages 247 – 252.
Ward, K. (1999). The Cyber-Ethnographic Reconstruction of Two Feminist Online
Communities. Sociological Research Online, 1999, Volume 4, Issue 1.
www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/4/1/ward.html (accessed 2nd October, 2013).
Werbach, K., and Hunter, D. (2012). For the Win – How Game Thinking could
Revolutionise your Business. Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia.
Zaichkowsky, J. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer
Research. Volume 12, pages 341 - 352
Zicherman, G,. and Linder, J. (2010). Game Based Marketing: Inspire Customer
Loyalty through Rewards, Challenge and Contest. Wiley, Hoboken Publishing, New
York.
41
Zicherman, G., and Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design: Implementing
Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Applications. O’Reilly Media Inc. Publishing.
Zichermann, G., and Linder, J. (2013). The Gamification Revolution. McGraw-Hill
Publishing, New York.
Zichermann, G, (2013). Rise of Gamification, Huffington Post, August 1st
(www.huffingtonpost.com) Accessed 5th July 2013
42