Use of Gamification For Customer Satisfaction

Corso di Laurea magistrale (ordinamento ex
D.M. 270/2004)
in Economia e Gestione delle Aziende
Tesi di Laurea
The use of Gamification to

increase customer satisfaction
and brand loyalty: The Nike
case
Relatore
Ch. Prof. Vladi Finotto
Laureando
Alex Brunello
Matricola 829010
Anno Accademico
2013 / 2014
Alex Brunello May 2014

‐ 2 ‐
Alla mia famiglia

‐ 3 ‐
Table of Contents
Abstract . .......................................................................................... 6
Introduction .................................................................................... 7
Research Question . .......................................................................... 9
Motivation . .................................................................................... 11
1. Definition .................................................................................. 12
1.1. The main definition in the literature . ....................................... 12
1.2. Gamification in a service marketing perspective ...................... 15
2. The role of gamification in a business perspective ...................... 18
3. A systematic view of Gamification . ............................................. 21
3.1. The Core Service Provider ....................................................... 22
3.2. The Consumers ....................................................................... 23
3.3. The Gamification Provider . ...................................................... 23
3.3.1. Internal Gamification Provider ............................................. 24
3.3.2. External Gamification Providers ........................................... 25
3.3.3. Examples of gamification provider . ....................................... 26
4. Identify the right strategy to gamify ........................................... 27
4.1. What can be gamified ............................................................. 29
4.2. Examples of successful implementation . .................................. 30
4.3. The future of Gamification ...................................................... 33
5. The NIKE Example ...................................................................... 36
5.1. Overview of the Nike platform ................................................ 36
5.1.1. The history: from the iPod to the Fuelband . .......................... 38
5.1.2. The connection with the real world ...................................... 41
‐ 4 ‐
5.1.3. The future of the platform ................................................... 43
5.2. Questionnaire analysis ............................................................ 44
5.2.1. Methodology ....................................................................... 45
5.2.2. Results . ................................................................................ 46
5.3. Social media analysis .............................................................. 56
5.3.1. Methodology ....................................................................... 56
5.3.2. Results . ................................................................................ 57
6. Conclusion . ................................................................................ 62
6.1. Limits of the research ............................................................. 63
6.2. Recommendations .................................................................. 63
6.3. Management Issues ................................................................ 64
7. References ................................................................................ 65
8. Appendix: Questionnaire . ........................................................... 71

‐ 5 ‐
Abstract
This paper analyzes the opportunity for companies to adopt a gamified
approach to increase the customer loyalty and the brand enjoyment. The
purpose is to contribute to the literature and the definition of gamification,
and to describe the opportunities available for companies operating in a B2C
context.
Different typologies of gamification are analyzed and a systematic

approach to understand the role of each participant in the gamification
process to the overall value creation is showed. Practical examples of
companies that leveraged gamification techniques shows the positive benefit
gained.
The platform NikePlus is analyzed in detail, with the results of a survey
and an analysis of the impact on the social media. The findings shows how is
possible use gamification technique to increment the loyalty of the customers
and the enjoyment of the product.
Keywords: Gamification, games, game design, customer satisfaction,

service design, marketing

‐ 6 ‐
Introduction
Gamification, “the use of game design elements in non‐game contexts”
(Detering, et al., 2011) is a growing phenomenon and it is raising interest of
companies all around the world.
It is currently used by leading companies to address motivational issues,
in the selection process of employees and in the behavioral change, with the
formation of new habits. In addition, it is used to increase the customer
engagement and loyalty, supporting the overall value creation.
This work focuses this last aspect, particularly on the opportunities and
challenges that companies faces in their relation with the customers, showing
how adopting a gamification approach can increase the overall value
delivered to their customers and subsequently the consumption of the
product.
It will show how using a strategy that suit the product portfolio and the
customer target it is possible increase the brand loyalty, the enjoyment in the
usage of the product and the user engagement in sharing the experience. To
do so it analyze different approaches that a company can adopt, explaining
the differences in terms of connection with the customers and investments
required.
A framework to understand gamification in a systematic way is

presented, analyzing the structure of a gamified product and the different
parts of it, showing that companies have different opportunities they can
pursue with a gamification approach. However, it does not focus on the
element of the game design, extensively analyzed in other works.
Different examples of success are presented, in particular the case of
Nike Plus a platform that allows individuals to track their movements and
‐ 7 ‐
position, giving a feedback about the reaching of personal fitness goal and
sharing the achievements with friends.
On chapter 1 a specific definition of gamification is given, examining the
literature that exist in this field. A broader definition is analyzed and then
another one, more relevant for the context of this work, is taken in account.
Chapter 2 shows the impact of gamification in a broad perspective,

identifying the opportunities but also differentiating different use of it to
solve different problems.
On chapter 3 a systematic view of gamification is developed, showing

how different actors of the system interact with each other and how a
company can use different approach to gather advantages from a gamification
strategy.
Chapter 4 gives information about the strategy to adopt to gamify.
Through examples and a critical approach gives ideas to spot the
opportunities identified in the chapter 3.
Chapter 5 treats the Nike example and using the framework defined in
chapter 3 shows the Nike platform, the history of NikePlus and the possible
future for the platform. In addition, it uses results from a survey and a social
media analysis to answer to the research question in a more subjective way.
To conclude, chapter 6 use all the consideration and the result of the
analysis to derive the conclusion to the research question.
‐ 8 ‐
Research Question
In the last years there has been an increasing interest in gamification,
although there is a limited literature and the terms did not became
mainstream due to the novelty of the research field.
This research paper will describe the state of the art in the gamification
field and investigate the opportunities, for a company point of view, regarding
the introduction of gamified product as a way to increase the quality and
quantity of the communication with consumers.
Many researches have been conducted regarding the link between

business and gamification, for example about the interface design of mobile
application, the usage of gamification in human resources management, the
relationship between gamification and motivation, the management of
platform and the usage of badges, the emotions that occurs using a gamified
product.
However, this research wants to understand the company perspective in
the introduction of a gamified product as a way to gather more information
about the usage of a product. It will show how a business organization can
leverage gamification to increase the brand loyalty, the enjoyment in the
usage of the product and the user engagement in sharing the experience.
The research, based on a B2C perspective, could be useful both for goods
producers and for service providers. The focus is on having a deep connection
between the tangible world and the virtual one, gathering data from the first
and allowing organizations to obtain data about the real usage of the product
while increasing the loyalty of the customers.
This paper is divided in two parts:
‐ 9 ‐
 The first part is a description of the general framework, the definition
and the opportunity for a wide range of application of gamification
tools with some examples of implementation by companies in different
fields.
 The second part explain how NIKE has implemented an effective
strategy in this field with the NIKE+ platform and how the system
works. The analysis is made using informations from a survey and an
analysis of social media presence of the Nike users.
The link between gamification and new emergent technologies like

wearable devices and big data surrounds the analysis and examples. The
utilization of these technologies together with gamification is a big
opportunity to improve the knowledge of the consumers by a company,
allowing the final user to maximize the enjoyment during the utilization of the
product.

‐ 10 ‐
Motivation
I have decided to carry out this research because I am interested both in
management and in technology, so every topic that is the result of the
intersection of these two field interest me in a particular way.
Moreover, this is a rather new field, with some highly interesting results
from big companies like NIKE, Microsoft, Samsung, and many more. This is
index of something new in the business practice. I wanted to study and devote
my time not only to something valuable for my professional career but, more
importantly, to a field that raise my curiosity and my interest.
The potential application of gamification is so broad that I needed to
focus only on the creation of its external aspect i.e. the increase in motivation,
loyalty and brand enjoyment, in a B2C context. I have done so not only
because I think it is relevant for companies of every dimensions, but also
because there are not many researches in the field.

‐ 11 ‐
1. Definition
The term gamification has been around since 2002, but it starts to gain
popularity only after 2010. Although some of the results derived from the
application of gamification technique are not new (ad example the idea of
fidelity card in supermarket, or the addition of surprises in cereal boxes), the
methodologies and the improvements derived from the research are relevant
and quite different from anything else seen before.
Gamification is about “learning something from games to address real
world challenges” (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). The importance of learning
something from games is that people loves to play them and they are
powerful in terms of creating motivation and engagement. This is relevant for
companies because it helps to create a more engaging context around their
products.
1.1. The main definition in the literature
The main definition of gamification is "the use of game design elements
in non‐game contexts" (Detering, et al., 2011). It is important to clarify each
word of the definition in order to identify the differences between
gamification and other similar terms.
First, there is a distinction between games and play: in the first case, we
found a defined system, clear goals and rules. Sid Meier defined it in this way:
"A game is a series of interesting choices" (Rollings & Morris, 2000, p. 38). In
the case of play there is a freedom of acting, an “expressive, improvisational,
even tumultuous recombination of behaviors and meanings” (Detering, et al.,
2011); another definition is that “play is free movement within a more rigid
structure” (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 304) .
The game design elements are the tools that is possible to use to gamify,
like leaderboards, badges, levels, points and avatars. None of them is
‐ 12 ‐
necessary for a product to be gamified, but virtually every gamified product
uses some of these elements, naturally derived from the games user
interface. The reason behind it is that the game design approach aims to
create a fun and enjoyable experience; most of the time it results in the
utilization of this tools, but simply adding a badge system to a product is not
enough to have a gamified experience.
The non‐game context is important to differentiate a gamified product
from a game. If the result is only the creation of a game for the customers,
there is no gamification applied, because it is simply game creation. However,
when it is applied in a non‐game context, like in the case of NIKE+, it creates
a platform that enables people to play not in a virtual world but in the real
one. Nike and Temple Run (a game in which the player needs to escape from
monsters, running and collecting items on the road), are both conceived to
increase the willingness to play (i.e. run). However, in the Nike case the
running is made in the real world, creating a benefit for the company. The
purpose of both NIKE and the customers is to run more: for NIKE because this
imply selling more shoes and technical outfit and for the customers because
it means being healthier.
‐ 13 ‐

Figure 1: “Gamification” between game and play, whole and parts (Detering, et al.,
2011)
Figure 1 represent were gamification is positioned according to the

definition. On the vertical axis, there is the distinction between gaming and
playing, seen before. On the horizontal one, there is the distinction between
whole and parts intended as the experience perceived. Serious games, e.g.
simulation tools, are examples of user interface gaming oriented as a whole.
Serious game are designed without an entertainment purpose; the objective
of these games is to help the player learn something or to simulate a real
situation. On the playing side, there are toys and playful design.
In Figure 2, gamification is inserted in a wider perspective. In the trend
of ludification of culture, are identified three main trajectories: “The
extension of games (pervasive games), the use of game in non‐game context,
and playful interaction” (Detering, et al., 2011).
‐ 14 ‐
Figure 2: Situating “gamification” in the larger field (Detering, et al., 2011)
Although this definition is cited across all the literature that exist on the
subject, for the sake of business context and especially in terms of customers
perception in B2C context, it has been challenged, mainly because it is not
able to identifies characteristics unique to games.
1.2. Gamification in a service marketing perspective
Huotari and Hamari redefined gamification in terms of service marketing
experience as “a process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful
experiences in order to support user’s overall value creation” (Huotari &
Hamari, 2012). This definition starts from the objective of gamification
‐ 15 ‐
instead of defining only the tools and it is particularly useful in a business
context, like the one treated in this work.
Interestingly, in the Detering’s work, there is a critique to a previous
work of Huotari and Hamari. In 2011 they defined gamification as a “service
packaging where a core service is enhanced by a rule‐based service system
that provides feedback and interaction mechanisms to the user with an aim
to facilitate and support the users’ overall value creation” (Huotari & Hamari,
2011). This definition appears too broad and unable to identify the relevance
of game design technique in the process of gamification.
However, the definition of 2012 includes this characteristic and it is
helpful to clarify the role of gamification in the marketing perspective. One
important advantage of this definition is that, differing from the general one,
it is independent to the perception of the users and that explain gamification
as a process. This gives to the definition a higher level of objectivity, although
the only definition of gameful experience given in the article is “an experience
leading to gamefulness” (Huotari & Hamari, 2012).
Another interesting point carried out analyzing this definition is that it

emphasize the risk of focusing in creating economic value throw a
gamification design directly. On the contrary, gamification purpose is to
create some gameful experiences that are enjoyed voluntarily by the
customer. This then will contribute to the economic value creation thanks to
the higher loyalty of the customers and the increased consumption of the
products.
In fact, the process of gamification needs to be developed together with
the product design, in order to have consistency between the overall value
creation. Seeing gamification only as a service layer, as many software
providers are selling it, only to add game elements to a product or a service
‐ 16 ‐
is not effective in terms of value delivered because it creates only a fake
interface without a real integration with the product.
In addition, using software that offers a ready‐to‐use gamification

program may lead to miss the importance of the systematic approach to the
overall value creation. The process of gamification needs to be developed
closely with the product and be part of a whole design of the customer
experience.
A gamified product or service is one that uses a gamification approach
to enhance the interactions between the product, the consumer and,
indirectly, the company. Gamification is often associate to a digital service;
although the vast majority of applications and examples are digital, this is not
a requisite.
In the last years the range of application of these techniques grew and a
lot of researches focused on the impact of gamification in different business
functions, like motivation in HR, internal organization (using specific
platforms and badges) and the emotions that occurs using a gamified product.
In this work, as mentioned above, the focus is on the value creation for
consumers and the opportunities, for companies, to enhance the usage of a
product, the loyalty of customers and the information about the product
consumption. Therefore, in this work the definition used is the one of (Huotari
& Hamari, 2012). In field different from the service marketing perspective the
definition of (Detering, et al., 2011) is still valuable and useful to define
gamification in a broader way.
To analyze the use of gamification to enhance an existing service or
product, we need to develop a systematic view of it, able to let companies
understand the different actor of the systems. This aspect is further
developed in chapter 3.
‐ 17 ‐
2. The role of gamification in a business perspective
As said before, there are different opportunities that a company may
embrace using gamification. From a company point of view, there are three
main different perspectives: internal, external and behavior change.
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012)
The Figure 3 represent a possible classification between the

perspectives. The behavior change may be developed for the sake of
employees (e.g. for promote a sustainability program) or for the individuals
(e.g. for assist people in personal habit formation).
Examples of implementation on the internal perspective may regards

gamified services to increase the productivity or as a HR tool.
Figure 3: Relationship between different gamification categories (Werbach & Hunter,
2012)
Microsoft, ad example, used gamification as an internal way to motivate
people in the code validation process. They developed a gamified platform to
‐ 18 ‐
ensure the quality of the localization in the user interface. This helped the
validation of a huge amount of information and the employees “not only do
it above and beyond their work responsibilities, but a large number of them
described the process as enjoyable and even addicting” (Werbach & Hunter,
2012).
On the HR aspect, analyze the behavior in the game enables companies
to understand the problem solving skills and the ability to analyze information
of the candidate. For example, KPMG recently added a gamification in the
recruitment process, allowing people to challenge others in an engaging
experience. During an online recruiting conference, KPMG presented the
motivations, declaring: “the ways in which applicants play these games, and
then demonstrate these characteristics, can help line and HR managers gain
insight from information regarding potential employees.” (Bodimeade, 2014)
The behavior change aspect, to be better analyzed, can be declined in
two different aspects that however should overlap most of the time to be
effective. In fact, if most of the people are internally motivated and therefore
willing to change the behavior, the company will gain advantage from that. In
that sense, gamification should be meaningful, thus defined: “Meaningful
gamification is the use of game elements to help someone find meaning in a
non‐game context, and is therefore a tool to help people learn through
changing their perspectives on life.” (Nicholson, 2012). The existing literature
contains many contributions on this perspective, e.g. regarding how the user
behavior is positively impacted by badges (Grant & Betts, 2013) and how
gamification can provide motivational support (Blohm & Leimeister, 2013)
For the external perspective, the focus is on marketing, sales and
customer engagement. The objective of this one is to “improve the
relationship between businesses and customers, producing increased
engagement, identification with the product, stronger loyalty and ultimately
‐ 19 ‐
higher revenue” (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). As said before, this is the
perspective analyzed in this work.
It is important notice that all the different perspective may coexist in the
overall gamification strategy of the company. Therefore, when a company
decides to gamify should evaluate what is the problem they want to address
and what is the best way to address it.

‐ 20 ‐
3. A systematic view of Gamification
The systematic definition of gamification introduced in 1.2 needs to be
better schematized, in order to analyze different cases of application, defining
the actors of the system and their role in the creation of a gamified
experience.
Figure 4: A systematic view of gamification
Without any gamification applied, the actors of the system are the
company, i.e. the core service provider, and the consumers. Between them,
there is an exchange of services and/or goods throw the traditional channel.
As described in Figure 4, when a gamified service is added to the core
offering, a third actor, i.e. the gamification provider, enter in the system.
‐ 21 ‐
The flow of informations regarding the gamified service is different from
the core service offering, with the gamification provider that play a role of
interconnection between the core service provider and the consumers.
Each part of the system has a different role and may be different
depending on the objectives the company wants to pursue. The following of
the chapter describe each part of the system and the role that each plays in
the service delivery.
3.1. The Core Service Provider
On the core service provider level (i.e. the company), for the marketing
service perspective, the creation of perceived value for the customer is the
main driver of success and the usage of gamification techniques can wide the
supplied needs, increasing the customers’ loyalty and the brand awareness.
Moreover, in most of the gamified services, the added social level helps the
creation of viral marketing throw word of mouth and peer‐to‐peer
interactions.
A company should think of way to gamify its products not only to
maintain a competitive advantage but mainly because it is a way to add new
level of enjoyment in a product and especially because it creates a new
opportunities of connecting with customers, through the exchange of
information that happens inside the gamification provider.
The information gathered through these services are created directly

using the product, so are particularly relevant because not mediated. For
some companies, like in the case of Nike that is discussed in this work, this
may lead to collect an incredible amount of information regarding the usage
of a product. This helps company to deliver the right offer to the right
customer, reducing the expenses in market research and obtaining a direct
connection with the users of the product.
‐ 22 ‐
3.2. The Consumers
On the consumer’s level, the decision to use the gamified service of a
product should be voluntary. The participation in a game makes a lot of sense
for the customers because it creates more fun and enable them to connect
with friends and other members of the network that utilize the same product,
creating an environment in which they may want to perform better. This
suffer from the limits and the advantages of a network, where it may be
difficult create the initial user base but then each users has a lock‐in effect
due to the time and resources invested being part of the community.
This willingness to enjoy the gamified aspect of a product increases the
usage opportunity and the emotional appeal related to the product.
In this framework, the consumer is already using the core service or
goods provided by the company, so the new gamified layer of value creation
is going to create a deeper interaction with a customer that is already
involved. If there is a social connection external to the platform, is then
possible that non‐consumer starts using the platform, increasing the
opportunity for a company to reach these new potential customers.
In this sense, the adoption of these platform follows the Rogers’s curve
for innovation, so a company should focus on the innovators and early
adopter and then use them to move to the majority of the population.
3.3. The Gamification Provider
The gamification provider can be either internal or external from the
company point of view. The difference is both in cost of implementation and
maintenance and in the degree of control that is possible to apply to the
information that transit across it.
‐ 23 ‐
The choice to use an internal or external provider depends on the
resources of the company and on the characteristics of the core
services/goods offered, as well as the business model of the organization.
One risk in the process of development is that the gamified service may
“distract too much from a core offer” (Blohm & Leimeister, 2013) and
therefore the company needs to define the right way to offer this kind of
services and the degree of gamification that should be implemented in the
organization. The choice of the gamification provider impact on the
investment needed to implement a gamification strategy.
3.3.1. Internal Gamification Provider
Use an internal infrastructure makes sense for companies that are well
structured and that have a wide customer base because it is possible to
control the information flow and to own the data created by the customer.
An example of that is the Nike+ platform that enable people to share their
daily sport and activity achievement with friends and other users of the
platform. Nike built the infrastructure collaborating with Apple and it
included not only the web service to share information, but also the technical
devices needed as a way to interact with the platform.
Creating an internal infrastructure to provide the gamified experience is
difficult and expensive. Moreover, it needs to attract a critical number of
users to be effective. Therefore, only companies with a relevant number of
customers and specific needs should adopt this way.
A dedicated platform specifically designed for the purpose of the

company is very effective and able to create an experience unique and
difficult to emulate from competitors, creating a competitive advantage for
the company that first succeed in its implementation.
‐ 24 ‐
3.3.2. External Gamification Providers
On the other hand, an external infrastructure allows small businesses to
provide a gamified experienced to their customer using an external tool and
without investing a lot of money in the construction of the infrastructure. An
example of that is the usage of foursquare by small shops, restaurants, bars,
etc. They use an external service to increase the perceived value by the
customer. The degree of control is lower when using a third party provider,
and become even lower when customers act as a provider for themselves or
for other customers.
It is very difficult for a company to monitor and incentivize behaviors of
customers on channels not directly controlled. Although this activity creates
values for the customers, most of the time is not easily scalable and replicable
for a wider audience. For this reason, a company should neither block nor
incentivize these behaviors; however, they should monitor them to discover
interesting applications and usage from the early adopters of this technology.
The interesting thing, from a company point of view, is to utilize a third
party provider to maintain an average degree of control but with a minimum
investment.
In this framework and accordingly to the definition described above,
foursquare is not a gamified service but an infrastructure that enables other
companies to add a gamified layer to their offer. For example, restaurant, pub
and local activities can use the infrastructure of foursquare to add a layer of
gamification to their service
In the standard definition (cf. 1.1) Foursquare is defined as a gamified
service on itself and used as example of a successfully gamified product
(Detering, et al., 2011). In this context, it is a provider and can gamify a core
service offering.
‐ 25 ‐
3.3.3. Examples of gamification provider
The Figure 5 is adapted and integrated from (Huotari & Hamari, 2011)
and explicit some examples of gamification provider, describing all the actors
in the system described by Figure 4, page 21.
Figure 5: Examples of gamified services with different gamification providers.
Adapted from (Huotari & Hamari, 2012)
All these examples shows that there is not only way to gamify in the
external perspective, and that each company should focus on the best
strategy to tackle the specific issue.
In the following paragraphs, some ideas are developed in order to
successfully identify the most effective strategy.

‐ 26 ‐
4. Identify the right strategy to gamify
Defining a strategy to implement a gamified service that suits in the best
way not only the objectives of the company and the business model but also
able to deliver value to the customers in an effective way is not an easy task.
The specificities of the business needs to be taken into consideration, as well
as the characteristic of the customer base, to understand if the consumers
are willing to adopt technologies and services that are designed to increase
the overall value proposed but that may require an investment in terms of
time and money.
Assuming all the pros and cons described in chapter 3.3, two
characteristic that are able to give a guidance are:
‐ The experience provided in the overall value creation, described as
exclusive or unique vs standard or common to other similar services.
Ad example a dedicated platform will be more difficult to imitate than
the simple creation of a foursquare profile from a local company.
‐ The degree of external socialization required for the gamified service
be effective. For external socialization is intended the sharing of
information outside the boundaries of the infrastructure.
Ad example if the systems bases most of the motivation on the social
support of friends, it would be necessary connect the service with
platforms in which these people are present.
Depending on the business, it would better to introduce one typology of
service provider or another. Different examples of the implementation are
illustrated in the Figure 5 that shows how it is possible to create user
experiences extremely different among themselves but with the common
characteristic of being a gamified experience with the objective of increase
the overall value proposed by the company.
‐ 27 ‐
Figure 6: Classification of service provider regarding the experience offered and the
external socialization required
The area of low external socialization and standard experience, as said
before, it is not very effective in the creation of economic value. However, all
the other three strategies can be effective.
The internal solution is a way to provide to the customers a unique
experience, difficult to replicate. The customer base is specific, easy to
identify and with uncommon needs. Therefore, the exchange of meaningful
information happens inside the platform.
The third party solution is the classic strategy of a follower: when other
competitors develop a gamified product, the easiest and fastest way to
replicate some of the advantages is to use the same or a similar third party
gamification provider, offering a standard experience to the customers but a
high degree of external socialization. It suits businesses when the product
‐ 28 ‐
consumption is a status symbol and this increase the willingness of customers
to publish information in external network to increase their personal brand
value. This solution, also, is particularly relevant for companies where the
platform should be a standard, in order to reduce the entrance cost for the
customers.
The last option is more complicate and expensive but may be very
effective if there are both opportunities to create a unique experience and
gain advantages from the external socialization. It combines the benefit of the
internal and third party solution. In the case of Nike the company started, in
partnership with Apple, with an internal strategy and then developed the
connection with external channels to address a bigger part of the population,
after the successful adoption from early adopters.
4.1. What can be gamified
Every service that involves a B2C exchange can be gamified, but not
everything should be gamified. Services similar to the one described here as
gamified has been around since a lot of time, think for example of fidelity card
of supermarket or fidelity plans of airplane companies: in this services, the
objective is to collect points in order to unlock features and bonuses.
However, usually this kind of systems were not exploiting all the possibilities
offered by new technologies and were not creating an environment which
utilize the higher possible number of the gamification techniques.
In recent year, the increase interest in big data analysis helped these
companies discover new way to use the adopted system. For example, a
supermarket can creates a profile of each customer, thanks to the
identification provided by the fidelity card, to create targeted offers. It is also
possible estimate the buying habits, reducing buffers and creating a more
efficient system.
‐ 29 ‐
It does not make sense to add every possible game elements offered by
the traditional literature, but in most of the cases it is possible to identify new
ways to increase the customer perceived value, slightly changing the
infrastructure. An important aspect of a gamification process is that should
avoid the utilization of standardized packages, because it should be a process
that creates new layers of interaction, each of them strictly linked to the
product itself.
Gamification is effective in particular when comes to change the users
behavior or the consumption habits. A company should try to introduce some
simple layer of gamification and then track the performance, in order to
establish if it is successful or not.
Luckily, generally it is rather easy to monitor the performances and adapt
the implementation strategy with the new information collected, because
most of the gamification systems use information technologies in the delivery
of the service.
4.2. Examples of successful implementation
The one that follows is a list of some of the implementation of
gamification technique in the company offering.
1. Samsung Nation: launched in 2011, the objective of Samsung was
to increase the website traffic and the product reviews posted by
users in the corporate website.
To do so they created a loyalty program that enabled users to get
rewards (in terms of badges and Samsung products) for being
active in the community
The results were a 500% increase in products review, 66% increase
in visitors and 300% more comments. (Rosenbaum, 2012)
(Swallow, 2012)
‐ 30 ‐
Figure 7: Samsung Nation, www.samsung.com/us/samsungnation/
2. Verizon Wireless: Like Samsung Nation, they used a badge system
to incentivize the commenting of articles and their sharing con the
social media.
On average, the ones who used the system spent 30% more time
on the website than the ones that did not used the service. The
gamified platform was used by 50% of the total users. (Takahashi,
2012)
Figure 8: The Verizon Wireless platform, (Takahashi, 2012)
3. Teleflora, a U.S. Florist service, gamified the experience of the

website in order to induce people spending more time on it and
sharing it on the social media.
‐ 31 ‐
The referral traffic from Facebook grew by 105% and the friend
recommendations raised the conversion rate by 92%. (Moth,
2013)
Figure 9: Teleflora Leaderboard, (Moth, 2013)
4. Autodesk 3D Max created a storyline to involve users in the trial
phase, in order to help them learn how to utilize the software.
The trial usage increase was 54%, with a 29% increase in channel
revenue per trial. (Lane, 2013)
Figure 10: Autodesk 3D Max Trial interface, (Lane, 2013)
5. Pepsi used gamification technique to gather data regarding the

campaigns performance, allowing people to scan a QR code in the
store and obtaining special redemption and discounts.
‐ 32 ‐
The system collected on average 1,500 scans per week (over a 14‐
weeks trial). There was an uplift in Sales of Pepsi by 20% over the
pilot period (PerformanceIN, 2014)
Figure 11: The SwipeStation unit, http://www.swipestation.co.uk/
4.3. The future of Gamification
The debate on the concept of gamification is divided between people
who look at it as a fad that will eventually finish and the ones who think that
in the next 10‐20 years gamification will shape a new way to work and interact
among people and between companies and consumers.
A report released (Anderson & Rainie, 2012) tried to identify what can

be the future of gamification, interviewing business owners and companies
manager from different fields. However, the result is not definitive:
‐ 42% agreed with the statement that “by 2020 gamification will not
be implemented in most everyday digital activities for most people”.
(Anderson & Rainie, 2012)
‐ 53% agreed with the opposite statement: “by 2020, there will have
been significant advances in the adoption and use of gamification. “
(Anderson & Rainie, 2012)
‐ 33 ‐
This is probably caused by the fact that gamification is still a new concept
and the structured application of it started only some years ago, so it is
difficult estimate the impact that will have on the economy.
It is discussed not only the adoption rate but also the opportunity of
adoption: the critics says that gamification is a way to control the behavior
and this can be made for the good but also for the bad. The Economist, ad
example, said, “gamification is really a cover for cynically exploiting human
psychology for profit” (Shumpeter, 2012). On the other hand, gamification
proponents dismantled the theories of the detractors, pointing out data and
arguing that gamification is already a successful business practice: “since the
beginning of the gamification industry in 2010, over 350 companies have
launched major gamification projects. These include consumer brands like
MLB, Adobe, NBC, Walgreens, Ford, Southwest, eBay, Panera and Threadless
among others. For B2B companies Oracle, SAP, Jive, Cisco, Pearson and
Salesforce, gamification has emerged as a key element in their
consumerization of the enterprise strategy” (Zichermann, 2013).
The advance of wearable devices, big data, and internet of things, as well
as the widespread distribution of smartphones, will surely play an important
role on the diffusion of these technologies among customers and companies.
One concern regards the privacy: the management of information

collection and distribution needs to be aware of the increasing sensibility
among the consumers on this problematic.
To summarize, the phenomenon is still recent and is related to a number
of technologies that will change very fast in the future. It is important to point
out that the detractors of gamification never cite data about its unsuccessful
implementation, while the more enthusiastic in this field demonstrate that
big and small companies successfully implemented it, with interesting results.
‐ 34 ‐
Every company should evaluate how it is possible apply a gamified
approach to increase the value provided to the customers. There is no magic
success formula because every business is different from the others;
therefore, each strategy should be developed taking into account the
specificities of the organization and of the competitive arena.
For most of the companies gamification represent a way to be innovative
and gain a first mover advantage against competitors. In addition, if
gamification is applied correctly the customers will gain benefit from it,
ultimately increasing the economic value for the company.
Small companies, thanks to their direct relationship with the customers,
may be able to use gamification in creative and innovative ways and this can
represent a great opportunity to face the competition against bigger
companies.

‐ 35 ‐
5. The NIKE Example
The case analyzed is one of the first examples of gamification. This
chapter outline the characteristics of the Nike platform, using the systematic
view developed before. Survey results are then presented and commented, in
order to answer to the research question. In the end, there is the analysis of
twitter data, to understand the impact of the hybrid gamification strategy on
the presence on social media and on the word of mouth generated by
customers.
5.1. Overview of the Nike platform
The Nike example is an example of external gamification, with internal
service provider. In this case, Nike collaborated with Apple for the creation of
the service; therefore, both the companies were involved in the value
creation and in the information flow. After the initial implementation, the
company developed connection with existing social network, moving from an
internal to a hybrid strategy.
Using the scheme described by Figure 4 and in chapter 3, it is possible
summarize the Nike+ Platform. The systematic view includes both Apple and
Nike as actor, because they developed the platform together, gaining both
advantages and creating a higher value for the customer. In addition, this
helped in the creation of a lock‐in effect.
‐ 36 ‐
Figure 12:NikePlus systematic overview
The NikePlus infrastructure now integrates different devices. The most

relevant are showed in Figure 13. The devices connects to the Nike+ software
infrastructure in different ways. Nowadays most of the connection are
provided by Apple iPhone and iPod that receive informations from the Nike
sensor and then deliver them to the NikePlus website.
The history of these devices is explained in the next paragraph, as well
as a deeper description of the platform and the motivation that led Apple and
Nike collaborate in the creation of an ecosystem for runners and sportive
people.
‐ 37 ‐
Figure 13: The Nike+ Devices
5.1.1. The history: from the iPod to the Fuelband
Nike started the introduction of a gamified experience back in 2006, with
a collaboration with Apple that introduced for the first time Nike + iPod Sport
Kit, a system that enabled the iPod Nano to be connected with a sensor placed
in the shoes, allowing the tracking of activities. iPod Nano was very successful
among the runners because it integrates a solid state memory that did not
suffer, like the hard drive of the previous iPod, from rapid movements that
happens when running.
‐ 38 ‐
Nike used the fact that most of the runners used the iPod to listen music
while running, to improve the pace of the run and to create a more enjoyable
experience. With the collaboration with Apple it was possible create a direct
connection, for the first time, with the customers when they were using the
Nike products.
The sensor was able to collect data like the time of the workout, the
distance traveled and using these informations the pace of the run and the
calories burned. The data were then uploaded on the Nike website when the
iPod was connected to the computer, allowing the users to have a clear
overview of the performances over time.
The data were shared with other runners and this helped the creation of
a specialized social network of runners, all sharing the same passion and the
goals achieved.
The product innovation is an example of value co‐creation, in which all
the actors in the system gains advantages:
‐ Nike creates a deeper connection with the runner community,

endorsing a product that were successful and without further
investment in research and development and in marketing of the
innovation.
‐ Apple creates a trust connection with a huge part of the customer
base, increasing the barriers to enter for competitors and creating a
brand loyalty, also learning about these customers.
‐ The customers were able to obtain a new function in a single device,
making the utilization of the system very convenient.
The results were interesting, even if it is difficult to calculate the exact
impact of the Nike+ platform: “Nike reported a 10% increase in sales for its
second quarter to $3.8 billion, compared to $3.5 billion for the same period
‐ 39 ‐
last year. Net income for the period rose 8% to $325.6 million. In the U.S.,
footwear sales gained 8% for the quarter, while apparel sales in the U.S. grew
10%.” (Mahoney, 2006).
During the second quarter conference call, Nike said that "In less than 6
months Nike+ users have logged more than 3 million miles […] and there are
over 3 million Plus‐ready shoes in the global marketplace” (Mahoney, 2006)
After two years since the introduction of Nike+ in August 2008, 800.000
runners logged on the platform to run a 10K race, organized by Nike to
promote the platform, spread across 25 cities. (Greene, 2008)
On the same year, Nike launched the SportBand, and a Kit for the gym,
able to collect cardio information from most of the equipment brand in the
U.S. gym market.
By November 2008, Nike had sold 1.3 million Nike+ Sport Kit and 500.000
Nike+ SportBand. Even if the total sales of the technical equipment accounted
only for $56 million over a total sales of $18.63 billion, the non‐financial
results were really interesting, with an increase in market share from 48% in
2006 to a 61% in 2008 (in the U.S. market) (Greene, 2008).
In the subsequent years, the collaboration between the two companies
provided a seamless integration between the products and the opportunity
to connect the devices also to the iPhone.
On 2010, Nike released the Nike+ GPS app (now called Nike + Running),
allowing people to track their fitness activity using the built‐in GPS in the
iPhone. On 2012, the app was updated and able to track the activity without
external equipment but only using the accelerometer in the iPhone or in the
iPod Touch. However, most of the people prefer use it with another device,
to increase the precision of the information collected.
‐ 40 ‐
On 2011, Nike launched, in collaboration with TomTom, a SportWatch,

integrated with the Nike iOS app and able to track the daily activities. (Vogel,
2011)
On 2012, a Nike+ Fuelband was announced, and the preorder was sold‐
out within 4 minutes (Foster, 2012). That year Nike Equipment grew 18% in
revenue. On 2011, there was a decrease of 1%. One year after the
introduction of the Nike+ FuelBand, Nike shared some stats about the
utilization. “The 11 million users of the community have earned more than
409 billion total fuel points. That translates to enough energy for one person
to run 44.1 million marathons” (Laird, 2013). The Nike+ Fuel is a proprietary
universal unit of measurement, used to track different physical activities and
translate everything in a single indicator.
On August 2013, Nike claimed to have more than 18 million global
members in the Nike+ Ecosystem (Nike, 2013)
5.1.2. The connection with the real world
The most important feature to create the economic success of this
gamified experience is that it involved a strong relation with the real world.
Instead of having a virtual reality were people used to run, with the Nike+
platform real running needs to be performed. The gamified layer here is on
the stats regarding the physical activity, which enables people to create an
engaging experience sharing the information with friends but also having a
personal overview on their physical activity. All this data are collected in an
easy to use platform that using a lot of gamification technique (like badges,
leaderboard, etc.) allows people to sustain the motivation and to reach every
day new goals.
‐ 41 ‐
This translates in an increase of running equipment, and the fact of using
a Nike platform every time the consumers do a workout influence the buying
behavior.
Nike is very good in creating this connection, for example launching
spread events involving people all around the world in a single event where
the connection between people is made only using the Nike platform, like
they did in 2008 (Greene, 2008).
The creation of this connection is mandatory for a successful

gamification strategy because is the way for a company to monetize the
increase in the involvement of the customers. The social support provided by
the platform and by the interaction with friends is used to incentivize the
creation of collective events, real matches between runners or to support
collective goals. The platform enables also to discover common path used by
other runners, increasing the social support of peers.
An example of connection with the real world took place in Paris: before
the inauguration of the store in Saint‐Michel, a giant countdown (Figure 14)
was set‐up showing kilometers instead of minutes. The aim was to involve
people in the opening of the new store, increasing therefore the connection
between runners and the store.
‐ 42 ‐
Figure 14: "The Nike running Saint‐Michel will open in 46.155Km. You can help the
opening adding your kilometers on nikeplus.com"
The massive amount of data collected from users surely provide Nike an
incredible amount of information to support important decision, like setting
up a new store. Nevertheless, allowed also Nike to create a better ecosystem
of companies around these informations. In January 2013 Nike opened the
access to these data, with an “online portal [that] allows authenticated
developers to access "activity data" from users of the Nike+ Fuelband and
Nike+ Running services, including their GPS location, distance run (or walked),
pace, calories and goals achieved” (Clarke, 2013). This new information
allowed developers to create new application around the Nike+ Platform, like
LoseIt (www.loseit.com), a website to help people track and lose weight.
5.1.3. The future of the platform
On April 2014, unexpectedly, Nike announced that would stop the
creation of new wearable devices, blocking the launch of new products after
the FuelBand SE and focusing only maintaining the Nike+ infrastructure on a
software side.
‐ 43 ‐
The official reason was that Nike wanted to avoid the competition from
the sector of wearable devices that will probably become intense in the near
future. (Statt, 2014)
The launch of the Nike+ Platform and the opening of it allows Nike to
maintain a control on the platform, while at the same time allowing other
innovative companies to produce the future devices. In this way, Nike will
maintain the control of the ecosystem, avoiding the strong competition of
other companies.
Given the past collaboration with Apple and the fact that Apple declared
interest in the wearable devices, there is probably another collaboration on
the horizon, with a clever division of the work. Nike is a shoe producer
company and the core competencies are in the innovation of shoes materials
and design. Nike will probably be able to maintain the interest in the gamified
platform, while at the same time avoiding investing too much in the devices
themselves.
In the future Nike will probably be the core of an ecosystem with the
Nike+ service at the center, allowing other companies to create value for the
consumers while at the same time enabling Nike to maintain a high degree of
control on the information
The most important thing to control will be the branding of the platform,
which is the bridge to the core business. From an innovation point of view,
this may resound as a wasted opportunity to invest in a growing business,
because of the early adopter advantage that Nike had on all the competitors.
5.2. Questionnaire analysis
As said in the research question, the objective of the research is not only
to show how a company can create a gamified experience but also how this
experience creates a better engagement, increasing loyalty from the
‐ 44 ‐
customers. It is not possible declare causation between the use of
gamification and this impact on the customer in a statistical point of view with
this work. However, in order to have some empirical evidence of the
correlation I developed a questionnaire backed up with some interview with
users of Nike+.
To back up the considerations in some critical point of the analysis, I
made one‐to‐one interview with some of the users that answered the
questionnaire in order to have a specific feedback on unclear results.
5.2.1. Methodology
To gather the needed information I conducted a survey among 151
people over a one week period. 56% of them are not Nike+ users, while 44%
are using the Nike+ platform.
I have collected participants through social media, inside my personal

network and within groups of people related to fitness and Nike communities.
I also shared the survey in some heterogeneous groups, in order to reduce
the bias.
I structured the questionnaire in two parts: the first one was equal for
everyone, while the second one changed if the participants said that he/she
was a Nike+ user or not. To avoid biased answer I did not mentioned Nike in
the first questions, and I have not indicated that the second part changed
accordingly to the previous given questions.
I duplicated a couple of questions, formulating them in different ways,
to be sure that the participants were consistent across the answers. I used
some control questions to identify possible clusters of users (professional
runners or prosumer vs occasional runners).
The complete questionnaire is in the Appendix 1.
‐ 45 ‐
The general questions related to:
‐ Frequency of the sport activity and the importance of these
factors while buying a sport equipment
‐ Perception of the Nike brand perception and the utilization of
the products
‐ Demographics (age and location)
For the users of the platform the questions regarded:
‐ The weekly usage of the platform
‐ Devices used in the platform
‐ Motivation for the use
‐ Appreciation of the platform
For the people who do not use Nike+ the questions regarded:
‐ The awareness of the platform and the channel
‐ Motivation for the non‐usage
It is important notice that the data are based on a non‐random sample;
therefore, a margin of error cannot be computed. The results are not
projectable to any population other than the people who answered to the
survey.
5.2.2. Results
The average age of the surveyed people is rather low (Figure 15) and
distributed in the range 20‐40. The distribution of users and non‐users does
not show any relevant cluster that may show a strict correlation between age
and utilization of the service Nike+.
The gender of the population (Figure 16) shows that both male and
female utilize the service Nike+, without a real difference. It also shows that
overall in the population there are more woman than man, but this difference
‐ 46 ‐
is not really big and given that the percentage of users inside each gender
group is the same does not creates problem for the analysis.
25,00%
20,00%
% of popuation
15,00%
Nike+ User
10,00%
Non Nike+ User
5,00%
0,00%
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33 34 35 37 38 53
Age

Figure 15: The age distribution of population divided by users and not of Nike+
70
60
50
# of people
40
Non Nike+ User
30
Nike+ User
20
10
0
Female Male
Gender

Figure 16: The gender distribution of the population divided by users and not of Nike+
‐ 47 ‐
The general buying behavior, described in Figure 17, does not depend on
the fact that the people who answered to the survey are or not a Nike+ user.
This guarantee that, on average, the sample of the survey is composed by
people with a similar buying behavior.
3,5
3
Average Importance [1‐5]
2,5
Non Nike+ User
1,5
Nike+ User
1
0,5
0
Price Technical The influence Design Brand
specification of family,
friends
Factors

Figure 17: Importance of these factors when buying Sport Equipment
However, inside each subgroup, there is a quite high variability, as
showed in Figure 18. This variability, globally lower for the Nike+ users (except
for the price), indicate a difference in the consistency of the importance rating
for the two groups.
To summarize the Nike+ users on average express similar importance of
attribute as the non‐users, but with less variability. This difference may be
indicator that the people who become Nike+ users are more determined (and
willing to invest) and therefore behave in a similar way when shopping
technical sport products.
‐ 48 ‐
0,9
0,8
Standard Deviation 0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
Non Nike+ User
0,3
Nike+ User
0,2
0,1
0
Price Technical The influence of Design Brand
specification family, friends
Factors

Figure 18: Standard Deviation of the importance in buying decision
The Figure 19 shows that members quite active form both the subgroups,
(on average they exercise 2.5 times each week). This confirm the data
interpretation made in the previous pages and shows again that the two
subgroups are comparable in terms of sport activity. It is important notice
that the answer described before were made without a mention of Nike in the
questionnaire.
Analyzing the answers regarding Nike, it is noticeable that the Nike+
users tend to rely more in general on brands. Moreover, they bought Nike
more than the non‐user and they express a higher satisfaction regarding the
Nike products.
‐ 49 ‐
4,5
3,5
3
Average Value
2,5
1,5 Non Nike+ User
1 Nike+ User
0,5
0
How many times per Do you agree with "I How often have you Based on your own
week do you do rely on the brand"? bought Nike product experience, how
sport activities? in the past? would you rate your
satisfaction with the
Nike products?
Questions

Figure 19: General answer regarding sport habit and Nike products
What clearly prove the thesis is the results showed in Figure 20 and
Figure 21; they show the product utilization of the Nike shoes and the Nike
clothing accessories. The shoes segment is the one in which the distinction
between the two groups is more evident. The difference between shoes and
clothing is relevant because traditionally the advertising of the Nike+ service
is strongly related to the shoes, while the positive results of the clothing
accessories shows that the brand loyalty is extended over the single
advertising and is able to increase the utilization of the product across all the
Nike offering.
It is important notice that in both the charts the value showed is the
percentage of people answers within the category, in order to avoid
misinterpretation due to the different percentage of people using Nike+ and
not. Therefore, the total sum of the percentage amount at 200%.
‐ 50 ‐
The results shows that half of the NikePlus users use only Nike shoes
when exercising. The result is particularly relevant because nowadays it is
possible use the Nike platform with every shoes.
60,00%
50,00%
% of population per single category
40,00%
30,00%
Non Nike+ User
Nike+ User
20,00%
10,00%
0,00%
No Yes, but I have also Yes, I have only Nike
other shoes shoes
Do you use Nike Shoes when you exercise?

Figure 20: Utilization of Nike shoes during exercise
‐ 51 ‐
70,00%
60,00%
% of population per single category
50,00%
40,00%
30,00% Non Nike+ User
Nike+ User
20,00%
10,00%
0,00%
No Yes, but I have also Yes, I have only Nike
other brands' clothing clothing
Do you use Nike Clothing when you exercise?

Figure 21: Utilization of Nike clothing during exercise
The subgroup of Nike+ user normally use the platform using the GPS app
in an iOS device (Figure 22); this account to the half of the users and it is
important because it is probably one of the factors that influenced the
decision to stop the development of new accessories (cf. 5.1.3).
During the individual interview with some of the users appears that is
important be able to track the activity only with the phone, because allows
them to save money and to avoid having another device to take care of. In
addition, the ones that said that, are the ones who uses the Nike+ service only
when running and not as a fitness tracker for all the daily activities.
Focusing on the reasons for using the Nike+ service (Figure 23), and
pointing out that was possible for the users to express more than one answer,
it is evident that are predominant internal factors (like the ability to increase
motivation and to track the daily fitness activity). The survey sample is
therefore less interested in the sharing features of the product. This is a
‐ 52 ‐
critical point, because for Nike it is a relevant way to create work of mouth
and to raise consciousness about the product outside the group of actual
users.
60
50
# of answers
40
30
20
10
0
With an Shoe With the GPS With a With a With an Without a
Pod of the iOS SportBand or SportWatch other device Device
running app FuelBand
How do you use the Nike+ service?

Figure 22: Devices used with Nike+
60
50
40
# of answers
30
20
10
0
To increase To share progresses To track daily To have a virtual
motivation with friends fitness activity trainer
Why do you use Nike+?

Figure 23: Reasons for using the Nike+ service
‐ 53 ‐
35
30
# of answers 25
20
15
10
5
0
I like using the is funny to use it It helps me exercise I am proud when I
platform better reach my goal
With this one of this affiirmation do you agree?

Figure 24: Personal perception of the platform
It is interesting the Figure 24, because no one said that it is funny use
the Nike+ service. This seems to be in contrast with the idea that the
gamification should increase the customer involvement because it is funnier
and interesting. Fun is a relevant aspect of game playing. During the personal
interview, I asked Nike+ users about this aspect and they said that even if the
application is fun to use, it is not “funny” in itself. Therefore, it was a bad
choice of words in the questionnaire that caused the zero answer.
For what concerns the non‐users, most of them never heard about the
platform (Figure 25 and Figure 26). This is clearly a problem of awareness in
the marketing of the product. Probably the problem is accentuated by the fact
that as saw in Figure 23 the sharing features are not really used. In addition,
most of the participants were European and Nike has a lower market
penetration in EU than in the U.S.
‐ 54 ‐
70
58
60
# of answers 50
40
30
20
8 8
10 2 4
0
Advertising Social Network Friends & Family Internet (except Never heard
social network) about it
Have you ever heard about NikePlus from...?

Figure 25: Awareness of non‐user of Nike+
70
58
60
# of answers
50
40
30
20
6 8 6
10
0
0
I've never heard I don't like I don't think it I am using other I think is not
of it technical stuff worth the price products useful
Why are you not using it?

Figure 26: Motivation for the lack of usage of non‐user of Nike+
To conclude and summarize the result of the interview, there are clear
evidence of the correlation between using the Nike+ device and the increase
in the product usage and the brand loyalty. It is possible interpret this in
different way:
 There is no causal relation between the two aspects;
 Being part of Nike+ increase the loyalty and the brand enjoyment.
 Being a loyal Nike customer increase the possibility to know about
Nike+ and use it.
Based on the interview made, the first option does not makes sense
because most of the people found a relationship between the two aspects and
‐ 55 ‐
directly related them in a causal connection. The second option makes sense
with the other data regarding the historical success, with the increase in the
market share after the introduction of the Nike+ platform (cf. 5.1.1).
However, surely, there is something true in the third option, and this is
compatible with the data showing that most of the people did not know about
the Nike+ platform. Therefore, probably a mix of aspects needs to be taken
into account to explain the correlation. Further researches may find clearer
evidence of the cause‐effect relation.
5.3. Social media analysis
To try to understand how Nike leverage the user base on the general
social media I analyzed 280.000 tweets in a one week timeframe (from April
28 2014 to May 5 2014) to understand some characteristic of the users and
the usage of the product.
5.3.1. Methodology
I used a software1 to download tweets in a local database and then
analyzed them. I analyzed tweet corresponding to two different search
queries:
 “#NikePlus”: The first one took in consideration only the tweets
with the hashtag #nikeplus. These are for the 90% tweets
generated automatically from the device at the completion of a
workout or at the achievement of a goal.
 “Nike”: The second one took in consideration all the tweets
mentioning “nike” excepted the one with the hashtag #nikeplus

1
Plus One Social, beta version. http://plusonesocial.com/
‐ 56 ‐
Due to the limitation of the hardware and the high amount of tweet
retrieved from the second query, I had to limit the analysis of the second
query only to three days (from May 2 to May 4)
5.3.2. Results
As said, the results timeframe is different for the two queries (Figure 27).
However, the results presented here are based on average value or presented
in different charts; therefore, this difference is taken into account and does
not invalidate the results. On average, the #NikePlus messages counts for 1/7
of all the tweets regarding Nike.
90000
80000
70000
60000
# of tweets
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
28/04/2014 29/04/2014 30/04/2014 01/05/2014 02/05/2014 03/05/2014 04/05/2014

#NikePlus 8577 14085 11876 13778 11553 13778 8042
Nike 82786 62564 53143

Figure 27: Amount of tweets collected for the analysis
Based on the location indicated by the user on the twitter profile it is
possible to draw a map of the location of the Nike service around the word.
The Figure 28 and Figure 29 represent the Europe and America. The service
shows peak of users also in Brazil, India, Japan and Indonesia but they are not
presented in this thesis.
‐ 57 ‐
The two charts are based on 21% of the users because not everyone has
a valid data point regarding the position. As said, the aim is only to provide a
general idea of the users’ location. It is also important notice that the location
are based only on people who uses twitter as a social network to share the
stats, therefore differences between countries may be caused to the different
adoption rate of Twitter and not of Nike+.
Figure 28:Nike+ users geolocalization in Europe for #nikeplus
‐ 58 ‐
Figure 29: Nike+ users’ geolocalization in the U.S. for #nikeplus
Nike+ Running Nike+
3% Source of tweets SportWatch GPS
Nike+ Sportband 6%
1% Nike+ FuelBand
6%
Nike+ iOS App
84%
Figure 30: Source of tweets for #nikeplus
The Figure 30 confirms the results of the survey showed in Figure 22, and
even if it is expected because of the measurement tool (it is easier have a
‐ 59 ‐
connection to twitter from the iOS app) it is a confirmation that the survey
sample is coherent with a broader audience. The sources showed in Figure 30
are the one that are directly related to a Nike+ device/application. They
account for the 83% of the dataset.
Moving the focus from the tweets to the users, it is interesting notice
that only the 15.8% of the users compare in both the two queries. Having the
connection with the social network allows Nike to increase the social presence
with a minimum effort. For example, the 67.000 users of the Nike+ platform
identified in this research have globally more than 40 million follower.
It interesting notice that, as shown in Figure 31, the user base of Nike is
more active than the average on Twitter. The data utilized as a benchmark are
of 2012 and based on the 80 million of people active on Twitter the last 30
days before making the statistics.
The computation of average values is influenced by the presence of users
highly popular. Therefore, I also calculated the median values, in order to
have a better value for the comparison. There are no recent data on median
values for all the twitter customer base, but the 2013 informations regarding
the average numbers of followers are comparable with the one quoted in the
table, therefore the statistics of 2012 should not be really different from
actual reality.
Figure 31: Comparison of Users' Activity. Global twitter stats from (Bash, 2012)
‐ 60 ‐
To summarize, the informations regarding the devices usage are

compatible with the one derived from the survey I conducted. The relevance
of the presence on Twitter is demonstrated by the high involvement showed
by the users of the platform. The fact that they allows their devices to post
on Twitter (given that they are really active) means that they believe this
information is valuable.
However, the survey results regarding the knowledge of the platform
from non‐users seems to be against this interpretation. As explained before,
the possible justification is a bias in the surveyed people and the usage of
Twitter.
The impact on the social media and the fact that only a small part of the
Nike+ users are talking about Nike independently means that allowing these
external connections, Nike gained presence on twitter and the tweets are
about reaching new goals and improving the sport activity, therefore are
positive and may convince other people to try the platform.

‐ 61 ‐
6. Conclusion
Gamification is a relevant business trend and it is important for every
company understand how it is possible apply it to the organization. Although
the amount of academic articles is limited, the debate around the definition
and on the utility of this technique is raising interest in the traditional media.
This work, after having identified different opportunities for company to
invest in gamification, focus on the external aspect explaining the systematic
view and the element of the system.
Some company will find useful use it as an internal resource, for example
to increase employees motivation and some of them, like in the case
described in this research, will use it as a tool to support the customer overall
value creation. In the case of Nike and in the cases described in 4.2, this was
successful and helped the company to create a stronger connection between
the brand and the sport activities.
The survey conducted showed a strong indicator that the use of the
gamified platform and the amount of product consumption of the brand are
related. The social media analysis, even if limited to twitter, show that there
is a high number of high quality users that participate in the discussion about
Nike. The analysis showed also that the ability to share results obtained using
the platform to users outside the platform is currently used by users all over
the world.
These findings, consistent with the hypothesis, shows with some

quantitative data that these innovations are useful for a company as well as
the customers. In addition, the framework provide opportunities for
companies of different size, allowing them to leverage an external
gamification provider, reducing the amount of money and of customer
needed for the implementation.
‐ 62 ‐
6.1. Limits of the research
The main limitation is based on the lack of structured data about this
kind of projects. In addition, successful implementations are vastly publicized,
while unsuccessful ones are not showed and this cause a biased image of
gamification. Learning from failures would be interesting in order to
understand in details the impact of different factors in the process of
implementation.
Other recent researches tried to develop an approach to analyze
different cases, the results are compatible with the findings of this paper:
“gamification provides positive effects, however, the effects are greatly
dependent on the context in which the gamification is being implemented, as
well as on the users using it” (Hamari, et al., 2014).
Another limitation is that the survey pool is not statistically
representative of the all population. However, the comparison between the
group of users and the group of non‐users show that they behave in a similar
way when purchasing something and in the exercise habit. Therefore, even if
limited, the results are internally consistent.
In addition, the analysis of social media confirmed some of the
hypothesis made analyzing the information gathered from the survey. Use
twitter data, again, is not representative of all the population, but it is helpful
to understand the impact on the social network aspect. However, analyzing
the real communication on the customer level is better founded than using
only company advertising informations.
6.2. Recommendations
It would be interesting to analyze the case of utilization of external
gamification provider to validate the findings of this work. Comparing the
benefit between different gamification strategies and across different sector
‐ 63 ‐
would be helpful to find limits of the application of these techniques. The
analysis of failure would be helpful to better understand the determinant of
success.
Enforcing the analysis just proposed with a statistical analysis would

increase the trustworthiness of the results.
Moreover, this paper limits the analysis to the external context. It would
be interesting analyze all the spectrum of opportunities for companies in the
application of Gamification to their businesses. Another point of interest is to
analyze the impact of Gamification in companies operating in a B2B
environment.
6.3. Management Issues
The gamification trend is gaining interest in many companies. Emergent
technologies like wearable devices, internet of things and big data, as well as
the widespread presence of smartphones will be driver for the
implementation of gamified products across a wide range of industries. This
paper provide a classification, to help them identify the better strategy to
introduce these technologies. It provides also economic justification for its
adoption and show how it is possible use external gamification provider to
reduce the infrastructure investment. However, it is important take
advantage from these opportunities creating a strict connection with the
company’s product, avoiding the utilization of platform not created or
personalized for the real needs of the company.
The findings are not definitive and difficult to generalize without further
analysis, but the overall trend is clear and every business manager should
evaluate the feasibility of the introduction of a gamified product.

‐ 64 ‐
7. References
Anderson, J. Q. & Rainie, L., 2012. Gamification: Experts expect ‘game
layers’ to expand in the future, with positive and negative results, Washington
D.C.: PewResearchCenter.
Bash, D., 2012. Some Fresh Twitter Stats (as of July 2012, Dataset
Included). [Online]
Available at: http://diegobasch.com/some‐fresh‐twitter‐stats‐as‐of‐july‐2012
[Accessed May 2014].
Blohm, I. & Leimeister, J. M., 2013. Design of IT‐Based Enhancing Services
for Motivational Support and Behavioral Change. Business & Information
System Engineering, 4, pp. 275‐278.
Bodimeade, M., 2014. KPMG uses gamification to increase graduate

intake. [Online]
Available at: http://www.recruiter.co.uk/news/2014/02/kpmg‐uses‐
gamification‐to‐increase‐their‐graduate‐intake/
Clarke, T., 2013. Just do it: Nike opens access to customer data. [Online]
Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/it‐pro/business‐it/just‐do‐it‐nike‐
opens‐access‐to‐customer‐data‐20130122‐2d3tt.html
Detering, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. & Nacke, L., 2011. From Game Design
Element to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification. MindTrek, 28‐30 September,
p. 9.
Everett, M. R., 2005. Diffusions of innovation. Fifth Ed. ed. New York:
Free Press.
‐ 65 ‐
Foster, K., 2012. Nike’s Fuelband, the Shiny iOS‐Powered New Fitness
Gadget, Sold Out in Four Minutes. [Online]
Available at: http://betabeat.com/2012/02/nike‐fuelband‐apple‐sold‐out‐
02232012/
Grant, S. & Betts, B., 2013. Encouraging User Behaviour with
Achievements: An Empirical Study. San Francisco, CA, USA, IEEE Computer
Society, pp. 65‐68.
Greene, J., 2008. How Nike's Social Network Sells to Runners. [Online]
Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008‐11‐05/how‐nikes‐
social‐network‐sells‐to‐runners
Hamari, J., 2013. Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A

field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer‐to‐peer trading service..
Electronic commerce research and applications, Lug‐Aug, pp. 236‐245.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. & Sarsa, H., 2014. Does Gamification Work?—A
Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. Hawaii, USA, s.n.
Huotari, K. & Hamari, J., 2011. "Gamification" from the perspective of
service marketing. s.l., s.n.
Huotari, K. & Hamari, J., 2012. Defining Gamification ‐ A service

Marketing Perspective. MindTrek 2012, 3‐5 October, p. 17.
Laird, S., 2013. Nike+ Users Could Power 6,700 Houses Daily. [Online]
Available at: http://mashable.com/2013/02/22/nike‐fuelband‐stats/
Lane, A., 2013. Gaming the System: How Gamification Offers a Better
Learning Experience. [Online]
‐ 66 ‐
Available at:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AndyMott/20130604/193506/Gaming_th
e_System_How_Gamification_Offers_a_Better_Learning_Experience.php
Mahoney, S., 2006. Nike's iPod Connection Pays. [Online]

Available at: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/52946/nikes‐
ipod‐connection‐pays.html
Moth, D., 2013. Six interesting examples of gamification in ecommerce.
[Online]
Available at: https://econsultancy.com/blog/61912‐six‐interesting‐examples‐
of‐gamification‐in‐ecommerce
Nicholson, S., 2012. Strategies for Meaningful Gamification: Concepts

behind Transformative Play and Participatory Museums. Lansing, Michigan,
Presented at Meaningful Play 2012..
Nike, 2013. NIKE REDEFINES "JUST DO IT" WITH NEW CAMPAIGN.
[Online]
Available at: http://nikeinc.com/news/nike‐evolves‐just‐do‐it‐with‐new‐
campaign
PerformanceIN, 2014. Bringing Gamification to Voucher Redemption.

[Online]
Available at: http://performancein.com/news/2014/02/21/bringing‐
gamification‐voucher‐redemption/
‐ 67 ‐
Rollings, A. & Morris, D., 2000. Game Architecture and Design.
Scottsdale, Arizona: Coriolis.
Rosenbaum, D., 2012. The Games Businesses Play. [Online]

Available at: http://ww2.cfo.com/it‐value/2012/02/the‐games‐businesses‐
play/
Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E., 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design
Fundamentals. s.l.:MIT Press.
Shumpeter, 2012. More than just a game. The Economist, 12 November.
Statt, N., 2014. Exclusive: Nike fires majority of FuelBand team, will stop
making wearable hardware. [Online]
Available at: http://www.cnet.com/news/nike‐fires‐fuelband‐engineers‐will‐
stop‐making‐wearable‐hardware/
Swallow, E., 2012. How Badgeville Is Gamifying the Internet. [Online]
Available at: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/222657
Takahashi, D., 2012. Verizon Wireless gamifies its site and gets 30
percent more logins. [Online]
Available at: http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/23/verizon‐wireless‐gamifies‐
its‐site/
Vogel, S., 2011. Nike+ SportWatch GPS Review. [Online]

Available at: http://fittechnica.co.uk/fittechnica/2011/04/nike‐sportwatch‐
gps‐review/
‐ 68 ‐
Werbach, K. & Hunter, D., 2012. For the Win: How Game Thinking Can
Revolutionize Your Business. s.l.:Wharton Digital Press.
Zichermann, G., 2013. Gamification: The Hard Truths. [Online]

Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabe‐
zichermann/gamification_b_2516376.html

‐ 69 ‐
Index of Figures
F IGURE 1: “G AMIFICATION ” BETWEEN GAME AND PLAY , WHOLE AND PARTS (D ETERING , ET AL ., 2011) .............. 14
F IGURE 2: S ITUATING “ GAMIFICATION ” IN THE LARGER FIELD (D ETERING , ET AL ., 2011) . ................................ 15
F IGURE 3: R ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIFFERENT GAMIFICATION CATEGORIES (W ERBACH & H UNTER , 2012) . ......... 18
F IGURE 4: A SYSTEMATIC VIEW OF GAMIFICATION ................................................................................. 21
F IGURE 5: E XAMPLES OF GAMIFIED SERVICES WITH DIFFERENT GAMIFICATION PROVIDERS . A DAPTED FROM (H UOTARI
& H AMARI , 2012) .............................................................................................................. 26
F IGURE 6: C LASSIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDER REGARDING THE EXPERIENCE OFFERED AND THE EXTERNAL
SOCIALIZATION REQUIRED . ..................................................................................................... 28
F IGURE 7: S AMSUNG N ATION , WWW . SAMSUNG . COM / US / SAMSUNGNATION / .............................................. 31

F IGURE 8: T HE V ERIZON W IRELESS PLATFORM , (T AKAHASHI , 2012) . ......................................................... 31
F IGURE 9: T ELEFLORA L EADERBOARD , (M OTH , 2013) ........................................................................... 32
F IGURE 10: A UTODESK 3D M AX T RIAL INTERFACE , (L ANE , 2013) ............................................................ 32
F IGURE 11: T HE S WIPE S TATION UNIT , HTTP :// WWW . SWIPESTATION . CO . UK / . .............................................. 33
F IGURE 12:N IKE P LUS SYSTEMATIC OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 37
F IGURE 13: T HE N IKE + D EVICES . ...................................................................................................... 38
F IGURE 14: "T HE N IKE RUNNING S AINT ‐M ICHEL WILL OPEN IN 46.155K M . Y OU CAN HELP THE OPENING ADDING YOUR
KILOMETERS ON NIKEPLUS . COM " ............................................................................................. 43
F IGURE 15: T HE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION DIVIDED BY USERS AND NOT OF N IKE + . ............................. 47

F IGURE 16: T HE GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION DIVIDED BY USERS AND NOT OF N IKE + ................... 47
F IGURE 17: I MPORTANCE OF THESE FACTORS WHEN BUYING S PORT E QUIPMENT ........................................... 48
F IGURE 18: S TANDARD D EVIATION OF THE IMPORTANCE IN BUYING DECISION .............................................. 49
F IGURE 19: G ENERAL ANSWER REGARDING SPORT HABIT AND N IKE PRODUCTS .............................................. 50
F IGURE 20: U TILIZATION OF N IKE SHOES DURING EXERCISE ...................................................................... 51
F IGURE 21: U TILIZATION OF N IKE CLOTHING DURING EXERCISE . ................................................................ 52
F IGURE 22: D EVICES USED WITH N IKE + . ............................................................................................. 53
F IGURE 23: R EASONS FOR USING THE N IKE + SERVICE ............................................................................. 53
F IGURE 24: P ERSONAL PERCEPTION OF THE PLATFORM ........................................................................... 54
F IGURE 25: A WARENESS OF NON ‐ USER OF N IKE + ................................................................................. 55
F IGURE 26: M OTIVATION FOR THE LACK OF USAGE OF NON ‐ USER OF N IKE + ................................................. 55
F IGURE 27: A MOUNT OF TWEETS COLLECTED FOR THE ANALYSIS ............................................................... 57
F IGURE 28:N IKE + USERS GEOLOCALIZATION IN E UROPE FOR # NIKEPLUS . ..................................................... 58
F IGURE 29: N IKE + USERS ’ GEOLOCALIZATION IN THE U.S. FOR # NIKEPLUS . .................................................. 59
F IGURE 30: S OURCE OF TWEETS FOR # NIKEPLUS ................................................................................... 59
F IGURE 31: C OMPARISON OF U SERS ' A CTIVITY . G LOBAL TWITTER STATS FROM (B ASH , 2012) . ......................... 60
‐ 70 ‐
8. Appendix: Questionnaire
Common Questions
How many times per week do you do sport activities? *
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How important do you think is a brand when you buy sport
accessories? *
1 2 3 4 5
Very Very
unimportan importan

t t
How much important are these factors when you buy sport
accessories? *
1‐Not 5‐Very
2 3 4
important important
Design
Brand
The
influence of
family, friends
Technical
specification
Price

Do you agree with "I rely on the brand"? *
1 2 3 4 5
‐ 71 ‐
Very Very
disagree agree

How often have you bought Nike product in the past? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not at Very

all frequently
Do you use Nike Shoes when you exercise? *
o Yes, I have only Nike shoes
o Yes, but I have also other shoes
o No
Do you use Nike technical clothing when you exercise? *
o Yes, I have only Nike clothing
o Yes, but I have also other brands' clothing
o No
Based on your own experience, how would you rate your satisfaction
with the Nike products*
1 2 3 4 5
Very Very
dissatisfied satisfied

Are you a NikePlus User? *
This means having a NikeFuelband or utilize the NikePlus platform with
other devices
‐ 72 ‐
o Yes
o No
In which country do you live now? *

Please indicate your age *

Please indicate your sex *
Male Female
Questions only for the NikePlus User
How many times per week do you use NikePlus? *
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How do you use the NikePlus service? *
o With an Shoe Pod
o With the GPS of the iOS running app
o With a SportBand or FuelBand
o With a SportWatch
o With another device
o Without a Device
Why do you use NikePlus? *
Please indicate the main reasons
o To increase motivation
o To share progresses with friends
o To track daily fitness activity
‐ 73 ‐
o To have a virtual trainer
o Other:
With which one of this affirmation do you agree? *
o I like using the platform
o It is funny to use it
o It helps me exercise better
o I am proud when I reach my goal

Questions for non‐user of NikePlus
Have you ever heard about NikePlus from *
o Advertising
o Social Network
o Friends & Family
o Internet (except social network)
o Never heard about it
o Other:
Why are you not using it? *
o I've never heard of it
o I don't like technical stuff
o I don't think it worth the price
o I am using other products
o I think is not useful
o Other:
‐ 74 ‐

Use of Gamification For Customer Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Gamification For Customer Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Gamification For Customer Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corso di Laurea magistrale (ordinamento ex

The use of Gamification to

1.1. The main definition in the literature . ....................................... 12

3. A systematic view of Gamification . ............................................. 21

3.3. The Gamification Provider . ...................................................... 23

3.3.3. Examples of gamification provider . ....................................... 26

4.2. Examples of successful implementation . .................................. 30

5.1.1. The history: from the iPod to the Fuelband . .......................... 38

5.2.2. Results . ................................................................................ 46

5.3.2. Results . ................................................................................ 57

6. Conclusion . ................................................................................ 62

8. Appendix: Questionnaire . ........................................................... 71

Different typologies of gamification are analyzed and a systematic

Keywords: Gamification, games, game design, customer satisfaction,

A framework to understand gamification in a systematic way is

Chapter 2 shows the impact of gamification in a broad perspective,

On chapter 3 a systematic view of gamification is developed, showing

Many researches have been conducted regarding the link between

The link between gamification and new emergent technologies like

Figure 1 represent were gamification is positioned according to the

Another interesting point carried out analyzing this definition is that it

In addition, using software that offers a ready‐to‐use gamification

The Figure 3 represent a possible classification between the

Examples of implementation on the internal perspective may regards

The information gathered through these services are created directly

A dedicated platform specifically designed for the purpose of the

3. Teleflora, a U.S. Florist service, gamified the experience of the

5. Pepsi used gamification technique to gather data regarding the

A report released (Anderson & Rainie, 2012) tried to identify what can

One concern regards the privacy: the management of information

The NikePlus infrastructure now integrates different devices. The most

‐ Nike creates a deeper connection with the runner community,

On 2011, Nike launched, in collaboration with TomTom, a SportWatch,

The creation of this connection is mandatory for a successful

I have collected participants through social media, inside my personal

28/04/2014 29/04/2014 30/04/2014 01/05/2014 02/05/2014 03/05/2014 04/05/2014

To summarize, the informations regarding the devices usage are

These findings, consistent with the hypothesis, shows with some

Enforcing the analysis just proposed with a statistical analysis would

Bodimeade, M., 2014. KPMG uses gamification to increase graduate

Hamari, J., 2013. Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A

Huotari, K. & Hamari, J., 2012. Defining Gamification ‐ A service

Mahoney, S., 2006. Nike's iPod Connection Pays. [Online]

Nicholson, S., 2012. Strategies for Meaningful Gamification: Concepts

PerformanceIN, 2014. Bringing Gamification to Voucher Redemption.

Rosenbaum, D., 2012. The Games Businesses Play. [Online]

Vogel, S., 2011. Nike+ SportWatch GPS Review. [Online]

Zichermann, G., 2013. Gamification: The Hard Truths. [Online]

F IGURE 7: S AMSUNG N ATION , WWW . SAMSUNG . COM / US / SAMSUNGNATION / .............................................. 31

F IGURE 15: T HE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION DIVIDED BY USERS AND NOT OF N IKE + . ............................. 47

Not at Very

You might also like