Research Insight | Driving Mobile App Engagement Through Gamification
Gamification—the integration of game elements into non-game apps—has become one of the most popular strategies to keep users engaged in the crowded mobile app market. By blending game-like elements (levels, points) with real-world perks (discounts, coupons) into a hybrid reward system, apps create engaging reward loops in which every in-app activity translates into tangible rewards.
Researchers in a Journal of Marketing Research study examined data from a gamified market research app with such a hybrid reward system, finding that game rewards significantly boost user engagement—even more so than real-world perks such as discounts or coupons. This heightened engagement translates into increased business value, as users are more likely to complete valuable tasks that matter for the business, such as getting users to pay for premium features, watch more ads, or share more data. One of the most promising aspects of the hybrid reward system is that it can counteract post-reward reset effects, which describe the drop in user motivation after receiving a reward. With hybrid reward systems, users are likely to keep their reward proximity in one of the reward systems as they retain a reward in the other system. But there’s a catch: the hybrid reward structure with game-like elements and real-world perks backfires when users hit a milestone in both reward systems. Also, when users enter a state of flow and become too engaged with the gamified activities, their engagement is less likely to translate into value for the app provider.
Marketers and managers can design successful gamification strategies using a hybrid reward system, integrating value-added activities directly into the reward loop—like earning points only after completing key tasks—or timing them strategically to avoid disrupting flow. For example, a fitness app might award points for finishing workouts (game rewards) while offering discounts on gear for purchasing premium training plans (value rewards). This hybrid system keeps motivation high while boosting value for the app provider.
For more Research Insights, click here.
What You Need to Know
- Game rewards boost user engagement significantly more than traditional value rewards.
- Combining game rewards with value rewards can mitigate the negative effects of post-reward resetting, maintaining user engagement even after rewards have been attained.
- Too much flow in gamified activities can distract from value-added activities.
Abstract
Many mobile app providers offer their apps for free and base their business models on user engagement. However, declining usage over time threatens apps’ ability to add business value. To keep users engaged, app providers use gamification—that is, they use game elements (e.g., levels, points)—in their nongame apps. Complementing traditional loyalty strategies that reward value-added activities (e.g., purchases) through value rewards, gamification rewards ongoing engagement through game elements. Thus, reward architectures of many apps have become hybrid, with value- and game-reward pursuit simultaneously driving engagement. However, it is unclear to what extent gamification helps drive user engagement and add business value. To address this question, the authors study unique data from a gamified market research app comprising daily individual-level app usage observations of 18,952 users. The findings show that game rewards increase engagement significantly over and above value rewards, leading to a lift in business value, especially when users are in closer proximity to both types of rewards. However, the analysis also shows a dark side of gamification: When users enter a state of flow in the game, game engagement has a weaker effect on value-added engagement. The authors discuss implications for gamified reward architectures.
Jens W. Paschmann, Hernán A. Bruno, Harald J. van Heerde, Franziska Völckner, and Kristina Klein, “Driving Mobile App User Engagement Through Gamification,” Journal of Marketing Research, 62 (2), 249–73. doi:10.1177/00222437241275927.