This article is written by Anish Dasgupta, Brand Manager at Kuliza. The article was published in issue 07 of the Social Technology Quarterly. Summary: Gamification on one hand is an effective way to change behaviours. But on the other hand there is room for exploitation and manipulation. It is important to determine a framework and gauge how gamification raises ethical concerns.

1. Gamification on one hand is an effective
way to change behaviours. But on the other
hand there is room for exploitation and
manipulation. It is important to determine
a framework and gauge how gamification
raises ethical concerns.
by Anish Dasgupta
Photo Credit: jantik
DoEthicshave
aPlacein
Gamification?

2. Kuliza Social Technology Quarterly Issue 07
Communities
Gamification is not a new concept. The practice of giving incentives
to consumers to influence their actions has been around ever since
marketers first started offering discounts and freebies with their
products. The more modern points-based system of rewards came
into being with frequent-flyer programs in 1979. Even tax-deductible
charity contributions are a form of incentivized influence.
In the past, gamification was more localized and consisted of long-
term rewards programs for consumers. These programs targeted
those living within five kilometres radius of a store.
If one were a part of a frequent-flyer program, it would take at least
two years before one began to reap benefits of the program – that is
more than enough time for anyone to experience the airline several
times and make a rational decision about being loyal to it.
With the intervention of the Internet, gamification has gone beyond
loyalty programs. When FourSquare first launched, it was touted as
a way to let your friends know where you were so that if someone
you knew was in the same vicinity, you could meet up. This evolved
further when Starbucks started offering free lattes for check-ins.
Today, a great number of brands have gamified several aspects of
their online presence.
Widely implemented now in social media, gamification has
generated a great deal of buzz. Marketers are using the concept to
engage customers better, create opportunities for sponsorships and
partnerships, build opportunities to communicate with audiences,
create loyalty, and spread brand awareness. Using gamification to
achieve these outcomes leads to questions of ethical integrity. While
for consumers being active online has never been so rewarding,
gamification tactics have raised a lot of questions on the ethics
of manipulating consumers through incentives. This has labelled

3. gamification as ‘exploitationware’ and ‘monkeyfication’.
The controversy of gamification ethics comes down to answering one
key question: When does gamification become exploitation?
To answer the question, looking at the concept of ethics becomes
essential. To begin with, the term ’ethics’ is ambiguous. The meaning
could bend towards individual feelings and personal beliefs or could
represent a collective framework of how to do and not do things.
Sociologist Raymond Baumhart, author of ‘Ethics in Business’,
demonstrated this ambiguity. He asked business owners and key
executives what ethics meant to them. They responded with answers
such as:
“Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong.”
“Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs.”
“Being ethical is doing what the law requires.”
“Ethics consists of the standards of behaviour our society accepts.”
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics defines ethics as “the study of
behavior which promotes human welfare” and refers to ethics as
“standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to
do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness,
or specific virtues… including honesty, compassion, and loyalty.”
Placing this in the context of business, business ethics can be defined
as “the study of business behavior that promotes human welfare.”
Photo Credit: KCruz511
Feelings, religion, laws, and society to a large extent encourage
us to make ethical choices. While philosophy too gives us insights
into how to approach ethics based on being utilitarian, rights-based,
fairness and justice, common good, and virtue approaches, a
universally accepted and accurate definition is not possible.
In terms of business and marketing decisions, ethical standards
can be derived using any or a combination of the approaches. But
each may lead to different solutions, as all these approaches are not
without ambiguity. For instance, human, moral and civil rights vary
from country to country, and who decides what is ‘common good’?
For example, the Buffalo Wild Wings ‘Protect the Football’ game
explicitly states “There’s no time for everyday responsibilities when
football’s on TV. When it is gameday, you need to avoid distractions
like yard work, laundry, exercise and babies…” and rewards players
with discounts and free food and drinks. This blatantly encourages
watching television and eating junk food.
To locate the space for ethics in gamification, here is an analysis of
gamified campaigns with the help of a framework developed at the
Santa Clara University’s Center for Applied Ethics in 2009:
1. Recognize the issue
2. Collate facts and information
3. Evaluate

4. Kuliza Social Technology Quarterly Issue 07 39
Nike Fuel and Adidas MiCoach
Fuel is Nike’s universal measure for activity. It analyzes users’ daily
lives by measuring all activity using a variety of apps and monitors
such as iPod sensors and the Fuel Band and shared them with the
Nike+ community.
On a similar front, Adidas MiCoach is to football what Nike is to
running. Adidas’ offering is a selection of fitness monitoring devices
and apps targeted at football players, rather than runners.
In both cases, the users get engaged by accumulating points
for being active. They will have to buy either fitness monitors or
download a free app to be involved. This engagement increases
loyalty of consumers towards the brands.
Consumer behavior modification:
• Increased activity in everyday life
• Increased competition for fitness
• Desire to remain fit
• Increased propensity to spend on fitness accessories
Kwarter’s FanCake
FanCake is an iPhone application that rewards loyal sports fans in
real time for watching sports. Fans can play mini games, answer
questions while watching a game, collect points, and redeem them
later for real rewards from the FanCake Catalogue that includes
merchandise such as branded t-shirts and memorabilia.
For FanCake, the users only need to download the iPhone app.
They make money through advertisers and sponsors for the various
activities (quizzes, games, etc.). The users don’t spend separately
on any accessories.
Consumer behavior modification:
• Increased concentration while watching TV
• More incentivized to watch TV
The FanCake campaign is free and easier for users to be a part
of. However, it encourages viewing more television and incentivizes
relative inactivity and passivity, raising the ethical dilemma of enticing
consumers to entice or not to watch more television.
McDonald’s Catch One
Catch One is a game in which passers-by use their phone cameras
to take a picture of a fast-moving food item on a digital billboard.
If they are successful in taking the photo, they go to their local
McDonald’s outlet, show a waiter the picture and get that item for
free. It works in McDonald’s favour as a burger is generally not eaten
in isolation. One is bound to order a bag fries and/or a soda.
Consumer behavior modification:
• Eat more burgers
• Buy more fast food
Similar to Bufflo Wings and FanCake, this one too seems to promote
a unhealthy lifestyle – the same reason cigarette advertising is
banned in mass media in several countries.
Green Giant
In 2010, vegetable company Green Giant partnered with gaming
company Zynga for in-game advertising. Zynga’s hit game Farmville
was the perfect tie-in for them. Users who bought Green Giant
packaged vegetables could peel off stickers with Coupon Codes
printed on the back, which translated into Farmville gaming currency.
Consumer behavior modification:
• Buy more vegetables
• Play more Farmville
While many consider addiction to online gaming a waste of time and
as an opiate for users, on the flipside it also acts as a stress buster
for many. The upside is that users are encouraged to buy and eat
more vegetables, which undoubtedly is good.
While this would seem to show a pattern which suggests that the
argument is decided by the product being promoted, it is not so.
Firms such as Nike, Adidas, and Green Giant are using gamification
to promote a ‘lifestyle’ not a product. That is definitely a great
direction for any company to take.
The subjectivity of ethics makes it difficult to ascertain gamification
in absolute terms as good or bad. We have a more discerned global
population who know what they are consuming. As marketers and
sellers we can definitely judge individual campaigns for positive or
negative user manipulation.
References
Velasquez,Manuel,Claire Andre,et al,and Michael J.Meyer.“What is Ethics?.”
Markkula
Centre for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University Charlotte. “Understanding
Gamification Trends.” MyGamification.com.28 Nov 2012.
Olding, Elise.“Engagification”of the Enterprise – Gamification and Employee
Engagement.” blogs.gartner.com.Gartner Inc,14 Nov 2012.

5. A game
propo
how
its
custome
From “Conditioned to Play”
by Vandana U.

6. Kuliza Social Technology Quarterly Issue 07
e’s value
osition is
it makes
s players-
ers think
and feel