VCs level up with "gamification" investments

There are a few different ways to measure the power of a meme in the tech industry. You can run powerful sentiment analysis on blog posts and message boards, scour trending topics on Twitter, or just follow the money. While it’s no absolute indicator, the appearance of well-respected venture capitalists and angels in a sector is usually regarded as a serious market signal.

And “gamification,” or the use of game mechanics to boost interest in non-game applications, is no exception. The notion of engaging consumers using game thinking and game mechanics has transformed both startup pitches and later-stage company strategies. Investors have taken notice and are ramping up their funding in what they perceive as a major, multi-billion-dollar market opportunity.

In the last twelve months alone, over $10 million in seed capital has flowed into a series of disruptive, gamification-centric startups, over $25 million additional capital has gone to businesses betting big on gamification as a core customer strategy, and at least one $100 million fund dedicated in part to gamification has been launched. (Last year, more than $600 million was invested in game companies).

We interviewed key investors and companies they’ve funded to figure out what assumptions are driving their investments. They identified three distinct (but overlapping) theses about gamification’s future: It will transform people, it will transform industries and it will transform everything.

One of the believers in the transformative people power of gamification is Brad Feld, famous blogger and Foundry Group partner. As an early investor in Zynga, he saw the power of games first-hand saying in an interview that “How we interact with computers today is crazy.” Feld has a strong interest in new human-computer interactions, and his portfolio includes gamified startups like Fitbit and Oblong, as well as a lead in the $5 million-plus investment in Seattle-based gamification platform BigDoor Media.

When it comes to transforming industries, Glenn Entis knows a thing or two. He’s one of the co-founders of PDI, and a former CEO and CTO of Dreamworks and Electronic Arts. So when he and his business partner launched VanEdge Capital this spring with a $100 million fund dedicated in part to gamification, the market took notice. In explaining his thesis, Entis said that “gamification is about applying the insights and tools of game design to raise engagement,” continuing that they see “opportunities for disruptively gamified businesses everywhere – personal health care, financial management, retail, education, and more.”

Entis is on to something. Finance, education and health care are each trillion-dollar markets with 20+ years of history experimenting with games and game thinking. Whether it was the runaway success of Mint.com, the blockbuster effect of the Obama administration’s “Reach for the Top” program in education or the consumer behavior changes wrought by the Wii and Brain Age, many experts believe these markets are ripe for gamification investment. The common thread: Finance, education and health affect everyone, are cash rich, have few payers and small behavior changes can yield outsized financial benefits.

For years, major investors like Granite Ventures and Adobe have been putting money into gamification through investments in companies like BunchBall – a service and platform provider. More recently, a number of VCs have made a name for themselves in the space, including outspoken veterans Tim Chang and Josh Goldman of Norwest Venture Partners. In candid discussions, they revealed a belief that major verticals, including healthcare and retail would be transformed most, adding that in order to gain their attention, startups must design gamification “from the ground-up, based on a deep understanding of mechanics and engagement loops.” Chang’s passion for so-called smart gamification has led him to volunteer his expertise, shaping the discussion online and at events like the upcoming Gamification Summit (of which I am conference chair).

Leading the vanguard for companies that believe in gamification everywhere is recent TechCrunch Disrupt audience award winner Badgeville. The six-month-old startup’s CEO, Kris Duggan recently revealed a stellar lineup of investors behind their $3 million initial raise. The company’s early partners include Comcast and TechCrunch, and Kris says “The message is clear: [good] loyalty rewards are sorely missing on the web and mobile, and we’ve met with thousands of companies around the world looking to engage their users, customers, employees, and partners.”

Like Badgeville, Utah-based startup iActionable has raised a seed round from notable angels to transform the world into a more fun place. CEO Ryan Elkins says what makes the market a huge opportunity is that it’s about “instant feedback to consumers that is encouraging, motivating and meaningful, while giving companies data that drives better understanding.” Like Badgeville’s Duggan, Elkins’ success doesn’t hinge on a specific vertical (like healthcare) becoming an early adopter, but rather on the long tail of web and mobile content becoming gamified.

Some investors are notably skeptical of the long-tail philosophy and gamification in general. Others, such as Dave McClure, have skewered gamification in at least one expletive-laden tirade (though he’s invested in gamified companies). And even major proponents like Tim Chang have their concerns, saying, “Every entrepreneur has added game mechanics to their business model slide hoping to jump on the buzz bandwagon.” Notably, Chang and other well-known game-y VCs, such as Bing Gordon, have thus far eschewed investing in gamification platforms.

But in perhaps the most telling anecdote, during coffee on a recent Thursday, Charlie O’Donnell of First Round Capital noted “Now, when a consumer internet startup comes to pitch without game mechanics in their plan, I always ask ‘Why Not?’”

If the standard Silicon Valley hype cycle holds true for gamification, there will be some winners and some losers. A multi-billion dollar company or two (three?) will clearly emerge to dominate their sector, while the concept permeates into society. Much like Facebook/social media or Google/search before it, we come to view the underlying concept as a core part of marketing, product design and strategy long after the “startups” are no longer so small.

Perhaps the best (and last) word on gamification as an investment thesis goes to Brad Feld: “Life is one big game that machines are making us play.  Therefore, I want to make sure I invest in the technology enabling the machines. I want that edge.”

Sounds sharp to me.

Gabe Zichermann is the author of the book, Game-Based Marketing (Wiley, 2010), the upcoming “Gamification by Design” (O’Reilly, 2011) and blogger at Gamification.Co. He’s also chair of the Gamification Summit coming up in January. He wrote this piece for VentureBeat. [photo source: gamification.org]

Topics:

  • http://venturebeat.com deantak

    Good points all around here Gabe. I think one observation is missing here. In games, there are a lot of boring games. If 1,000 games get published, maybe five are really fun and turn into blockbusters. If that same ratio applies to gamification, then 995 out of 1,000 attempts at gamification will be duds. What will ensure that a gamification attempt is the one that takes off?

  • http://twitter.com/bunchball bunchball

    Dean – Compelling core content, experience or community is a prerequisite for successful gamification. If you don't have that, then you're guaranteed a dud. After that, it's a matter of really understanding the context, content, and community that's being gamified, and designing something that's motivational and appropriate. Just slapping a generic points/badges/leaderboards solution on is also a surefire way to fail. And finally, know what you're trying to drive, and measure it. So, in summary: 1. Have good content2. Understand the context and community3. Have clear, measurable goalsThere's a process and a science. There's some creative, but nowhere near as much as in the hit-driven games business. You can pretty much guarantee a low-dud rate if you're smart about it. – rajat

  • sweller

    Dean, I agree with your summary. But I would also add, based on my experience, you will still be tasked with building an audience around the “gamification” of your marketing strategy. If you're attempting to use “gamification” to build a channel or audience, you need to be prepared to allocated a very large amount of your marketing spend towards the awareness of that effort. This is regardless of the viral components built into the process. Unfortunately, reach is expensive. You are better positioned for success if you have well established channels to build awareness of the game components that you are adding to your marketing strategy.

  • http://twitter.com/NathanLands Nathan Lands

    Dean, that's assuming a whole lot. Gamification Design and Game Design are not one and the same and thus don't necessarily play by all the same rules. Games create a new world that didn't exist before and may or may not be popular based on the design, story, technology, game mechanics and many other variables. Gamification creates new experiences and enriches things we already use, and the world around us. That doesn't mean that every Gamification effort will be successful, I'm sure many will fail but I don't think we should assume it's the same as the traditional game industry, this is something entirely new.By the way, we created an Encyclopedia for Gamification at http://gamification.org which is a wiki created to open the topic for discussion and collaboration. I think you'll find it of interest.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZIL3CYL55SV4XSU2P43PIPNQCQ PKM

    So a guy who writes a book about “gamification” says gamification is really important and pulls some random data to suggest it's the next hot thing?…Let me goto amazon and buy the book right now

  • http://hyperlexic.com hyperlexic

    If you don't how truly revolutionary and deceptively simply the expansion of 'gaming patterns' into government, healthcare, commerce, education and every other existing part of human life is going to be, you might want to start paying more attention to this stuff. I heard about a program in Cleveland that gives 'virtual points' to people to recycle more that can be converted to tax credits – and it's working. Cleveland. Imagine instead of going from grade level to grade level in school, you 'level up' and achieve schoolpoints for doing work, improving your performance or helping other students. Make it a game, and watch students change how they perceive school.

  • http://twitter.com/whyisthere Steve Holt

    [citation needed]I did not find anything about virtual points being redeemable for actual tax credits for IRS or state tax obligation.I'm one of those people who are in the camp that believe the “gamification” is a fad. Do I have hard data? No, just life experiences such as everyone in my age group, all friends of mine despise the whole Zynga facebook games, etc etc etc. I am one of those people who think investing in essentially dumbing down content to provide a facility to a product is absurd. But history will be the judge.I just wish there was more innovation in things that I would spend my money on, as of now, most stuff I see going to market is garbage, such as Google TV, which is something I would have bought in a heartbeat, if it actually worked, but since more than half of the content I would want to access is blocked, I think there should be more investing and innovation in the field of licensing.The current regulations, and licensing structure in media is destroying innovation, and functionality of products. Ohh hey look, If I check into ten restaurants I will get a gold badge, weeee……

  • http://twitter.com/Ruckus Chris Vieville

    I find it very interesting how this has become such a hot topic lately. When I put together GameCamp I had no idea how many sessions would be dedicated to Gamification. Game Mechanics are nothing new but I find it encouraging that businesses are finally catching on. I hope to see the same enthusiasm applied to education, an extremely captive market. Guess its time to update the resume with “Gamification Designer”, keywords FTW!

  • http://hyperlexic.com hyperlexic

    There is a huge push in Asia as well for new social/local/mobile products and the investments being made there remind of the late 90s Silicon Valley bubble but on 'performance enhancing' drugs

  • http://hyperlexic.com hyperlexic

    Darn, I wish I could remember where I saw that report on Cleveland. It might have been on television, but I do remember they were actually putting sensors in the recycle bins to track it and there was some sort of real reward for people, and it was working. It caught my eye, because i'm originally from Canton, and I was very surprised to see this progressive idea working in such an industrial region. but you're right, without citation it's a weak argument. I guess one key takeaway for me, is much of this stuff is not new in any way. We have known that people will modify behavior for the most arbitrary 'rewards' often in surprising ways. It's simply the metaphors and symbols we use are often seen as static simply because nobody has thought of trying a different name of 'mayor' or 'virtual gold' or 'check in' or 'dollars' or 'manager' or 'player' or 'grade level' etc. These symbols are quite often easily swapped out almost invisibly but the underlying mechanism is left unchanged. In 7th grade, my math teacher used baseball metaphors and put each class in a team – and he let us choose our names – which was critical. he also kept a regularly updated ranking list in his room that reflected how each team was performing. i had no interest at all in either math or sports, but i loved seeing how turning in homework or improving a grade boosted the ranking of the team. kids would come in between classes to check the rankings. i had never seen so much 'engagement' in a class before – or really since then. the keys were – it was simple, everyone could participate (kids like me who didn't like or understand math very well could help the team by doing extra work in our weak areas and then achieve huge points by showing real improvement on tests) and it was fun – fun to actually play without 'hacking'. the rewards system made it so that it wasn't worth just cheating, since it was so easy to legitimately hit 'runs' or whatever metaphor he used. this was 1987. as far as badges go, look at the military or a street gang. people risk their life over 'badges' or 'symbols' that hold deep psychological meanings beyond simple status. taking a less dramatic view, look at school sports 'letter' jackets or having a concert ticket stub or sticker or t-shirt from a 'legendary' concert that you could show people and prove you were there. people take their 'badges' quite seriously.if you wanted to join the hell's angels, would you just get a replica of their vest and badges and walk into one of their bars and say 'hey, look – i'm one of you!' i'd advise against that. authenticity is key here. look at fantasy sports – wtf? the effort i see people put into simulating virtual sports teams is unbelievable. and what's their payoff? i have seen 'leagues' just develop their own trophies and then hand them out to the winners. but people love it. now imagine what we can do with sports + checkins + 'augmented reality' and gamification. get a free beer credit redeemable at %local venue% if you download the %local sports team% app or do something worth more than the beer. or simply put the person's name on the scoreboard if they are 'mayor' of the venue. how do they become mayor? that's your business model and gamification. But I can't agree with you more about the lack of imagination in 'social/mobile/location' apps. The EXISTING native capabilities of Android/iOS devices allow for so many cool apps/games/service that it boggles my mind to see the garbage being sold in the respective marketplaces. I am excited as hell that the 'SmartTV' is actually showing up in a real way, but I fear that the real innovation is going to get stuck in intellectual property legislation and lawsuits that will inevitably follow this massive shift. but the thought of being able to make content and distribute it/market it to people's TVs as easily as I have done with Internet content is too good to be true. it seems like it's really happening, and we just have to hope that Steve Jobs doesn't buy every single bit of content through Disney and build his walled-garden. I'm a fan of apple, but I don't like how aggressive he's been on trying to corner this market through his strategic media assets. i also hope microsoft can get its head out of ass and really learn what it has in its xbox network. that's the worst use of a tremendously valuable asset I see out there today. can you imagine what they could do if they made all the online services free of charge? they would have been the default 'smart TV' platform 5 years ago and stopped google and apple in their tracks. I hope this is changing, as developers catch up with this brand new world. and it is very much a brand new world, as consumers are no longer bound to the Web browser to interact with the Internet. But you have to consider how fast this transition is happening. What is a location-based 'app' and what is simply a custom layer on Google Maps using their APIs? Do I need to implement my own database of geographic locations or simply plug into one of the online map services? nobody knows for sure, since this stuff is still being defined and developed on a daily basis. The speed of development and sheer magnitude of Google's various free services are astounding, and have forced other players to either innovate and compete or disappear. Apple has continued to blow me away with their ability to reshape the most basic things like the phone or how i acquire and consume media. Both developers and consumers are still stuck in a transition period of trying to use the new media to solve old challenges and you get words like 'share' and 'like' that have very different meanings today depending on context. Now we're stuck with 'app', 'game', 'widget', 'extension', 'browser plugin' etc. All of these are converging into something more cohesive and understandable on a mass – global – scale and we're entering a period of enormous opportunities for people that 'get it' and 'get' people.

  • http://blog.semanticfoundry.com/2011/09/06/1787/ Semantic Foundry

    [...] took off in January so quickly that it appeared on NPR’s Weekend Edition in March. Investors seem interested, and it already has a sold-out conference and a fast-growing list of agencies that will help you [...]

  • http://robhof.com/2011/12/28/how-did-i-do-on-my-2011-predictions/ How Did I Do on My 2011 Predictions? « Rob Hof's Blog

    [...] * Game mechanics will spread further into realms such as e-commerce and health care. But these incentives and rewards that get people to play otherwise boring games such as FarmVille won’t be the panacea for Internet startups that some investors hope. [...]

  • http://useradvocate.nl/?p=163 A GAMIFICATION FRAMEWORK FOR INTERACTION DESIGNERS

    [...] took off in January so quickly that it appeared on NPR’s Weekend Edition in March. Investors seem interested, and it already has a sold-out conference and a fast-growing list of agencies that will help you [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus

GamesBeat is your source for gaming news and reviews. But it's also home to the best articles from gamers, developers, and other folks outside of the traditional press. Register or log in to join our community of writers. You can even make a few bucks publishing stories here! Learn more.

You are now an esteemed member of the GamesBeat community. That means you can comment on stories or post your own to GB Unfiltered (look for the "New Post" link by mousing over your name in the red bar up top). But first, why don't you fill out your via your ?

About GamesBeat