Gamification: real or bullshit? In recent years, as the internet has become increasingly accessible and smartphones have rapidly gained popularity, we have also seen the rise of gamification. Undoubtedly, many companies see gamification as an effective marketing strategy and several non-corporate organizations have also integrated gamification into their works. But is gamification as fruitful as its hype seems to suggest, or is it just total bullshit, as Ian Bogost claims in his article? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayIn “Why Gamification is Bullshit,” a piece from “The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications,” Ian Bogost states that essentially, Gamification is “primarily a practice of marketers and consultants trying to build and then exploit a benefit opportunity” (Bogost, 2015). He argues that gamification services offer companies the ability to solve problems that don't actually require attention, and that these companies likely adopt these gamification solutions because they are able to help the company present the appearance of innovation to its shareholders . Bogost called gamification exploitative because gamification vendors typically recycle similar solutions for each situation, instead of brainstorming and developing a curated solution for each of their specific customers. As mentioned in the document, “the process involves the adoption of simple, repeatable and scalable feedback systems such as points, levels, badges and other rewards” (Bogost, 2015). Furthermore, Bogost comments that the huge success of gamification is largely due to the naming of that term. The word “game” might seem terrifying, almost magical, to companies. At the same time, companies recognize the power of “games,” their ability to capture players' attention for hours on end. As a result, unfamiliarity with games “perks up the ears of its potential customers, offering a resentment that stands out in a noisy environment of possible business solutions” (Bogost, 2015). As for the second half of the term “gamification”, the suffix “-ification”, sounds safe and predictable, thus balancing the risky implication of the word “game”. In other words, ““-ification” assures the customer that the process is easy and achievable” (Bogost, 2015). Another point raised in Bogost's anti-gamification article is that gamification doesn't actually embody the core features of gaming, and therefore, doesn't deserve such a misleading name. Proponents of gamification have identified three main characteristics found in games adopted by gamification; performance, results and social interaction (Bogost, 2015). The problem is that these characteristics can be found both outside the games and inside them. These features and characteristics can also be organized and visualized very well on a simple business performance dashboard, rather than being implemented in unnecessary game-based solutions. Nonetheless, companies will continue to find gamification much more attractive, as Bogost cleverly stated: “No executive wants to attend a conference on “new approaches to business intelligence through intelligent dashboards.” In comparison, a gamification conference sounds like a trip to Disneyland.” But is gamification as redundant, as useless and as "bullshit" as Bogost claimed? A closer look at some of the leading gamified activities implies otherwise. Let's take the example of the armyAmerican, where gamification is not just about badges, performance and levels, but about a real game. The US Army began releasing its own first-person shooter video game, titled America's Army, in 2002, and it has continuously received a lot of attention from the gaming community. There are no numbers and statistics on the success of the game, but the US Army has so far released the three official sequels and a spin-off, so it must show satisfactory results. This America's Army game is actually used as both a marketing tool and a recruiting tool. The game familiarizes the younger generation with the US military and allows them to have the chance to practice on simulated battlefields. It has been studied that approximately one in three of new US Army recruits have played the game. (Ferriman, 2014) This clever gamification tactic has also extended beyond the field of marketing and recruiting, and into the field of actual training. Recently, the US Army adapted and developed another version of the game to use as a real training tool. This is incredibly effective in helping the Army reduce training costs and allowing the training program to be more flexible. For gamification, games are not a means capable of producing sophisticated experiences serving different functions and objectives, but simply a convenient rhetorical hook to the state of anxiety in the contemporary business world. Unlike what Bogost stated above, the military American has managed to create a refined experience through the use of gamification. The success of America's Army sheds light on a new side of gamification, where gamification literally involves playing games and not just numbers on a dashboard. Another example of gamification that refutes Bogost's thesis is the NikeFuel creative campaign. Nike launched NikeFuel in 2006 as part of its Nike+ online community. NikeFuel allows members to compete with their friends in their daily amount of physical activity, which is tracked by wearable technology and smartphone applications. NikeFuel rewards members with prizes and badges and, most importantly, a sense of satisfaction and superiority once they dethrone their friends. The application also motivates users to share their achievements on social media platforms to help the company increase brand awareness. NikeFuel is a gigantic success and Nike has seen a rapid increase in its market share in the running shoe market since the campaign launched. This gamification campaign stands out from the rest of the crowd simply because of its creativity and uniqueness. Furthermore, NikeFuel undermines Bogost's claim that gamification is "a way to sell products and services that organizations probably don't need" because at the launch of After the Campaign, Nike was in a real crisis and needed a such rebranding. In the early 2000s, along with other major apparel companies, Nike received heavy backlash due to its cheap and illegal foreign labor. The company suffered several public protests, faced declining demand, and slipped from being the industry leader in 2004. With this NikeFuel rebranding and a change in its code of conduct, Nike has managed to capture the public's interest again and is once again on its way to regaining its throne. (Nisen, 2013) However, Bogost was not completely wrong in his article, because many of the gamification campaigns are indeed “bullshit”. Zappos was a social media king and was on time in most social campaigns.