Gamification: authentic or bullshit? Over the past few years, as the internet has become much more accessible and smartphones have rapidly grown in popularity, we have also seen the rise of gamification. Undoubtedly, many businesses consider gamification as an effective marketing strategy and various non-commercial organizations have also incorporated gamification into their works. But is gamification as successful as its hype seems to suggest, or is it just complete bullshit, as Ian Bogost claims in his article?Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayIn “Why Gamification is Bullshit,” an article from “The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications,” Ian Bogost says that essentially: gamification is “above all a practice of marketers and consultants who seek to build and then exploit an opportunity to profit from it” (Bogost, 2015). He argues that gamification services allow businesses to solve problems that do not require attention, and that these businesses are likely adopting these gamification solutions because they are able to help the business present the appearance of innovation to its shareholders. Bogost called gamification exploitative because gamification providers typically recycle similar solutions for any situation, instead of thinking through and developing an organized solution for each of their specific clients. As he mentions in the article, “the process involves adopting simple, repeatable, and scalable feedback systems such as points, levels, badges, and other rewards” (Bogost, 2015). Furthermore, Bogost comments that the enormous success of gamification lies largely because of the naming of this term. The word “game” can seem terrifying, almost magical, to businesses. At the same time, companies recognize the power of “games,” their ability to capture players’ attention for hours and hours. As a result, unfamiliarity with games “awakens the ears of potential customers, offering them a picnic that stands out in a noisy environment of possible business solutions” (Bogost, 2015). As for the second half of the term “gamification” – the suffix “-ification” – it seems safe and predictable, thus counterbalancing the risky implication of the word “game”. In other words, “-ification assures the customer that the process is simple and achievable” (Bogost, 2015). Another point made in Bogost's anti-gamification article is that gamification does not actually embody the main characteristics of gaming, and therefore does not deserve such a misleading name. Proponents of gamification have distinguished three main characteristics found in games adopted by gamification: performance, achievement, and social interaction (Bogost, 2015). The problem is that these characteristics are found as much outside of games as within them. These features and functionalities can also be organized and displayed very well on a simple business performance dashboard, rather than being implemented in unnecessary game-based solutions. However, businesses will still find gamification much more attractive, as Bogost smartly puts it: "No executive wants to attend a conference on 'new approaches to business intelligence through smart dashboards.' In comparison, a gamification conference feels like a trip toDisneyland. » But is gamification as redundant, as useless and as “bullshit” as Bogost claimed? A close look at some of the leading gamified companies suggests otherwise. Take the US military as an example, where gamification is not just about badges, performances and levels, but about actual gameplay. The United States Army began releasing its own first-person shooter video game, titled America's Army, in 2002, and has continually received a lot of attention from the gaming community. There are no numbers or statistics as to the success of the game, but the US military has so far released three official sequels and a spin-off, so it must be showing satisfactory results. This US Army game is used effectively as both a marketing tool and a recruiting tool. The game familiarizes the younger generation with the US military and allows them to train on simulated battlefields. Research has shown that approximately one in three new U.S. military recruits have played this game. (Ferriman, 2014) This clever gamification tactic has also expanded outside of the field of marketing and recruiting, and into the real field of training. Recently, the US Army adapted and developed another version of the game to make it a real training tool. This is incredibly effective in helping the military reduce training costs and allowing the training program to be more flexible. For gamification, games are not a means capable of producing sophisticated experiences serving various functions and purposes, but simply a practical means. Contrary to what Bogost stated above, the US military has successfully created a refined experience through the use of gamification. The success of the US military highlights a new facet of gamification, in which gamification literally involves playing games and not just numbers on a scoreboard. Another example of gamification that refutes Bogost's argument is the NikeFuel creative campaign. Nike launched NikeFuel in 2006 as part of its Nike+ online community. NikeFuel allows members to compete with their friends for daily physical activity, which is tracked through wearable technology and smartphone apps. NikeFuel rewards its members with rewards and badges, and most importantly, a feeling of satisfaction and superiority once they dethrone their friends. The app also motivates users to share their results on social media platforms to help the company increase brand awareness. NikeFuel is a gigantic success and Nike has seen its market share increase rapidly in the running shoe market since the launch of the campaign. This gamification campaign stands out from the rest purely for its creativity and uniqueness. Additionally, NikeFuel contradicts Bogost's claim that gamification is "a way to sell products and services that organizations probably don't need" because when the campaign launched, Nike was in the midst of a crisis. and needed such a rebranding. In the early 2000s, like other major clothing companies, Nike faced heavy backlash due to its cheap and illegal foreign labor. The company experienced several public protests, faced declining demand, and in 2004 lost its position as the industry leader. With this NikeFuel rebrand and a change in its code of conduct, Nike has managed to capture the public's interest again and is once again on track to reclaim its throne..