Expanding the magic circle – gamification as a marketplace icon

ABSTRACT

This article explores the gamification trend sweeping the globe promising increased engagement and motivation, in practically any industry, context and culture, based on a stratagem of “game design elements in non-game contexts,” which is its most quoted definition [Deterding, Sebastian, Miguel Sicart, Lennart Nacke, Kenton O'Hara, and Dan Dixon. 2011. “Gamification – Using Game-Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts.” Paper presented at the CHI EA “11 proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, May 7–12.]. The rise of gamification as marketplace icon is examined and particularly claims that position gamification as the manifestation of a wider societal transformation into playful societies – a “ludic turn.” Many of these grandiose statements are the result of ahistoricity and ambiguity regarding the definition of gamification. Based on game philosophy, game studies and gamification research this article posits gamification as an emergent perspective, as distinct conceptualisation, on the rule-driven organisation of sociotechnical management systems that reference “games.” Of particular importance is the role of rules. Examples such as Frequent Flyer Programmes and Foursquare are analysed according to the player/consumer positions they bestow, which are explored from participatory, co-creational, critical and game philosophical perspectives. Conclusively, a “gameful” perspective of rule-generated goal-oriented behaviour, or “playful” perspective of instinctive and limitless fun, shed two challenging perspectives on the interpretation of gamification in the marketplace.     

Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with ‘exploding’ implicit prices in mixed logit models

The estimates of mean WTP are typically of main interest in non-market valuation studies. In the case of mixed logit models the distribution of WTP for an attribute is derived from the distribution of the ratio of individual coefficients. Since the cost coefficient enters the denominator, its distribution plays a major role in the distribution of WTP. A standard practice in analysing the data from choice experiments is to assume the cost coefficient is fixed, which implies that there is no heterogeneity in price sensitivity. The three most commonly given reasons for this are: (i) the distribution of the marginal willingness-to-pay for an attribute is then simply the distribution of that attribute's coefficient; (ii) in this way analysts wish to restrict the price variable to be non-positive for all individuals; and (iii) analysts avoid assuming log-normal cost because it is often found to produce behaviourally implausible estimates. Constraining a price coefficient to be fixed can however have serious consequences, i.e. a constant price coefficient implies that the standard deviations of unobserved utility is the same for all observations which can lead to biased results. Respondents are also likely to vary in price sensitivities, thus ignoring this variation can lead to erroneous interpretation and conclusions. In this paper we demonstrate a choice experiment exercise in which specifying a log-normal cost results in implausibly large WTP, however, adding into the utility function the cost income ratio prevents implicit prices from ‘exploding’.