When you look at how gamification has been used over the years, I personally have seen the greatest successes coming from short term “interventions”.
Use gamification to improve onboarding into a product
Use it to make a learning module, or course more interesting
Use it to learn a few words in another language
Use it to help build better excercise habits
Use it to build better medication routines
All of these have great success stories, but by their nature are short interventions being used to either reduce the barrier to entry, create short term engagement or help to build intrinsic habits.
I ask you this – who has become fluent in a language using Duo Lingo?
However, gamification experts (myself included) always talk about gamification being better used as a long term strategic change, rather than a quick win enabler?
So is that true? Can you really change your life, or change long term behaviours with continuous gamification, or does the game has to end eventually?
It is an open question I would love to hear your thoughts on.
Personally, I think that the longest changes happen when you change the attitude of people to become more gameful – or dare I say it – infuse them with the Ludic Spirit!
So, Gurus Unite – I want to hear what you have to say!!
Yeah, a bold title – but AI told me it was true and ok to use!
Over the years I have looked at various behaviour change models and have used them in varying degrees. Early on, if you look at my blog and books I used BJ Fogg a lot. These days it is referred to as B=MAP; Behaviour = Motivation * Ability * Prompt. It used to be B=MAT – T being trigger. I think prompt is better as it covers more ground.
More recently I have been using COM-B model for behaviour change. This was created by Susan Michie, Maartje M van Stralen, Robert West. I liked this model because there was a lot more behind it and it introduces capability and opportunity, splitting out ability into “Can you personally do it” and “Is it possible to do”. I then adds this to motivation to create a flexible model.
However, I have increasingly found myself mixing these two together to create a model that fits my needs better when I discuss behaviour change with clients. That is where the Gamified UK Change Behaviour Model has come from (I could call it MANK-B, or KNAM-B I suppose, but I won’t!)
Gamified UK Behaviour Change Model
The Model
Let’s break this down first, then talk about how it all comes together.
Motivation
Motivation is the first and probably the most important “pillar” of behaviour change. It’s about understanding your “why”—the underlying reason for wanting to change. A strong motivation can make up for gaps in other areas. For instance, if your ability or knowledge is low, a strong sense of motivation can push you through challenges. Conversely, if your motivation is flagging, you might need to boost your ability or knowledge to keep moving forward.
Knowledge
Knowledge empowers you to make informed decisions and strategise effectively. It’s about knowing what to do, why it matters, and how to do it well. If your motivation is high but your knowledge is lacking, focusing on learning and preparation can bridge that gap. Similarly, if you’re less motivated, having a clear understanding of what’s required and why it is important can make the task less daunting and easier to start.
Ability
Ability refers to the physical, cognitive, and emotional resources needed to perform a behaviour. If your ability is low, you might need to compensate by increasing your motivation or knowledge to push through. For example, if exercising feels physically challenging, breaking down the activity into smaller, more manageable steps—or learning techniques that make it easier—can help you keep going. It is worth noting that sometimes, no matter the levels of motivation or knowledge or anything else – if there is a true reason for the ability not being present, the behaviour will likely never be possible.
Now matter how motivated it is, a fish can’t be a rabbit.
Nudge
This one is a little more nuanced. Nudges act in a slightly different way to the other 3 pillars mentioned here. Nudges are subtle cues in your environment that guide you toward the right behaviour without forcing your hand. Think of them as boosts or multipliers. While a nudge alone might not carry you through a challenge, it can tip the scales when things are balanced. For example, if your motivation, knowledge, and ability are in place but you’re struggling to stay consistent, a well-timed nudge—like a reminder notification or a supportive message from a friend—can give you the extra push you need.
Bringing it all together
As you can see, I’ve basically simplified the language and mashed Fogg and COM-B together. There is a good reason though and it is based on practical experience using both over the last 10 or so years.
COMB-B separates knowledge and ability, which I think is extremely important for conceptualising behaviour change. However, Fogg includes Prompts, which I feel is missing in COM-B as a highlighted concept. I went with nudges as I think that can cover more ground when thinking about behaviour, as prompts conjure up images of phone notifications and buzzing fitness watches. Nudges can be much more subtle, or just as in your face when thinking about them in solution design.
Balance and Examples
The image shows a circle connecting the four pillars together, with arrows pointing to behaviour. This is not just a design element, it is central to how all of these come together to help with behaviour change.
It is not about just having one element, you need all of them working in harmony (the circle), especially Motivation, Ability and Knowledge. The arrows then depict that these all then go towards changing the desired behaviour.
As I say in their descriptions, you can balance them out by increasing one where others may be low. For example. I want to get fit, but I am over weight and can’t run very far (which is true). So my ability is low. However, my knowledge about why I need to get fit is high and my motivation is somewhere in the middle. So right now, I am not tipping the balance. I can’t really increase my knowledge, and ability is contingent on me actually changing the behaviour. So I need to increase my motivation. In my case, getting out of breath climbing the stairs, not fitting my clothes and having fatty liver disease! Yeah – that should do it.
However, even then, it is not easy. Time is against me, I work, I have kids, I gig. So when I want to do excercise, it may not be the right time. This is where nudges help. It could be a well timed reminder, at a poitn where I am not doing other things, to just do some press ups. It might be the kids saying “Dad, shall we go for a walk” when I am sat watching TV. The nudge acts like a multiplier, boosting the motivation in this instance.
Another example could be adding products to cart on a website. You have a client who has low add to cart on mobile and is wondering why. When you look at it, their motivation is high by then (they made it to cart). They obviously had the knowledge needed to get them to cart. So it must be ability or timing of reminders to finish their cart journey. You look and the messages come out at a great time of day – so it has to be ability.
When you dig into it and go through the user journey – you discover that on mobile devices with certain screen dimensions – the add to cart button does not display! So they don’t have the actual ability to add the product to cart no matter how motivated they are!
As ever, I welcome your thoughts and comments! I hope this has been interesting and let me know if you want to know more about it.
Oh, also a little shout out to my youngest for helping me with the colours for this 🙂
The wonderful Pete Baikins recently reposted an article from Mashable on Linkedin that got my hekcles up a little. It was all about how gamification was the spark of modern era of AI.
The article argued that early itterations of error filled AI chatbots had given rise to “accidental gamification” where it had become fun and playful to find ways to get Chat GPT to get it wrong. Just to lean in to this – I asked Gemini to summarise the ariticle for you
This is an article about how gamification has influenced the development of artificial intelligence [AI]. It discusses the ways in which AI is being used in games and entertainment. People are creating games that challenge AI systems to perform tasks. These games can reveal both the strengths and weaknesses of AI. In turn, this helps researchers improve AI technology. The article also argues that the public’s playful engagement with AI is helping to shape its development.
AI is having a major moment due in part to a game-like quality.
People are having fun testing the limits of AI and in turn this is helping AI developers learn more about what their creations can and can’t do.
This gamification of AI development started with researchers using video games as benchmarks for AI agents.
Anyway, I digress. The article went on to say the following
“The definition of gamification in AI should be expanded to include the tendency of technology to unintentionally become a game.”
The author event provided a sprawling “current” definition of gamification
ordering specific goals into a game structure, perhaps in order to make onerous activities more attractive, or to make social media apps more addictive.
Emergent Gamification
Ignoring how horrible this is as a definition, nothing that is said in the rest of the article really supports the concept that the development of AI is related to gamification in any way. Play, yes. Gamefulness, yes. Gamificaiton – no.
The reason is, we already have a word that describes what the author is discussing. “Emergence” or in this case, “Unintentional Emergence.” This refers to gameplay that arises from a system without being part of its original design.
We could consider using “Emergent Gamification,” but what is really being described is “Emergent Gameplay” or “Unintentional Emergent Gameplay.” Even by Mashable’s definition of gamification, what they describe does not fit. It is about emergent play or gameplay. Despite the headings in the article referring to gamification, the author never describes anything that fits any definition of gamification, even their own.
I’ll use my simplest definition of gamification for this next bit (as I have been in the industry for a while now, allow me that self indulgence). Basically I would say it is “The process of making something more game-like.”
Thus, we can define Unintentional Emergent Gamification
Gamification that arises in a system that was never designed to be gamified.
We could expland this for Intentional Emergent Gamification as
New forms of gamification that arise in a gamified system that has the tools to enable the creation of new gamified elements to increase engagement.
I suppose even these fall a little short, as gamification is a process!
image
So What is the Author Describing
The “game” aspect of AI described in the article is actually “Unintentional Emergent Gameplay,” as there was no deliberate attempt to provide tools for creating gameplay.
Humans are naturally inclined to find play wherever they can. It is one of the purest ways we learn and understand.
Gamification is amazing, but people really need to stop trying to say that it is the reason for everything. We did not invent the question mark!
Check out the article – beyond my rantiness, it does makes some excellent points!! https://mashable.com/article/ai-era-sparked-by-gamification
What follows is an example of how to combine my Four Pillars of Change with a proven behavioural change model – COM-B. We will be using bounce rate on a website’s homepage as the behaviour we wish to change. Companies often struggle with high bounce rates on their websites, indicating a disconnect between the website and its audience. However, with a little understanding of behaviour, we can start to sort this.
Understanding User Behaviour: The Key to Success
So, the first piece of the puzzle to creating an effective homepage is to understand user behaviour then design a user experience specific to what users want and need.
COM-B: A Scientific Lens on Behavioural Change
Developed by Professor Susan Michie, the COM-B Model outlines three factors influencing behaviour change:
Capability: Does the user possess the requisite skills and knowledge to perform the desired action (e.g., navigating the website with ease)?
Opportunity: Are there external factors influencing the desired behaviour (e.g., clear calls to action, readily available contact information)?
Motivation: Does the user have a compelling reason to interact with the website (e.g., content that addresses their specific needs and challenges)?
com b
The Four Pillars: Translating Theory into Actionable Strategies
How are you going to measure the success of the change?
If we break down the challenge of reducing bounce rate on the homepage, we can use the four pillars to define the problem and how we might look to solve it.
1. What do we want to change?
We want to reduce the bounce rate on the homepage.
2. Why do we want to change it?
A high bounce rate indicates that visitors are not finding the information about products they want fast enough or are not engaging with the homepage’s layout. This reduces conversions and lowers brand awareness.
3. How are we going to change it using The COM-B Framework
Enhancing Capability:
Website Clarity: Ensure the homepage clearly conveys its value proposition and how the website or store might match the needs of the visitor.
Intuitive Navigation: Design navigation menus that are user-friendly and straightforward.
Search Functionality: Provide a search bar to cater to users who have a specific goal in mind.
Amplifying Opportunity:
Call to Action (CTA) Prominence: Display clear and relevant CTAs prominently, guiding users towards their desired actions.
Reduced Clutter: Minimize distractions and avoid overwhelming users with excessive information.
Mobile Optimization: Ensure a seamless user experience across various devices by optimizing the homepage for mobile.
Recommendations: Create recommendations based on previous behaviour or popular general behaviour (such as top sellers) to help users get to things of interest quickly.
Boosting Motivation:
Value Messaging: Ensure that the company values, messages, value etc are easy for the customer to see. A company that matches the personal values of the customer will often have a higher chance of succeeding with capturing their engagement.
Visual Appeal: Use images that resonate with the user. If you know they are male from previous visits, show them images with men. If they have come in from an external campaign on social media – make sure the images and messaging follow them.
Social Proof: Showcase reviews, product feedback, case studies, or social proof badges to establish trust and credibility.
4. How are we going to measure the success of the change?
Tracking Bounce Rate: The main KPI is going to be bounce rate. If our plan has worked, this should go down.
Analysing User Engagement: Track metrics such as time spent on each page, click-through rates on CTAs, and user behaviour recordings to gain a deeper understanding of how users interact with the homepage.
Guard Rail Metrics: Keep an eye on other metrics, such as conversion rate and AOV just to see if the change you have made hurts them.
By using the COM-B Model alongside the Four Pillars of Change, you can adopt a data-driven and user-centric strategies to solve almost any behaviour change related problems!
Additional Tip: A/B Testing for Continuous Optimization
Use A/B testing to continually optimize your homepage by testing different variations based on the COM-B principles. This iterative process ensures that your homepage delivers the absolute best possible user experience.
Gamification has been a huge focus of my life, but the last few years have seen me change my career quite dramatically. I find myself in a role that no longer revolves around using game mechanics and the like. Instead, I am focused on improving online retail experiences through testing, optimisation, personalisation, merchandising and so on.
Whilst gamification may seem a million miles away from this, there is actually very little difference. They are both focused on behavioural change – they just use different mechanics.
In gamification and retail optimisation, we are looking to change the behaviour of the user. We may choose an example such as increasing the frequency of how often you exercise using game mechanics in gamification, whereas in retail we may be more interested in reducing the bounce rate on home pages with personalised product recommendations. However, the core is the same. By understanding how people act, we can design interventions to promote or discourage certain behaviours.
The Nexus of Delight
So, what is the Nexus of Delight? Well, to understand this, we need to consider two opposing factions in the battle of behaviour. The user/customer and the provider/retailer.
In a retail environment the customer and the retailer have two very different needs. The retailer wants to make money, the customer wants to buy what they need without overspending. This is very simplistic, but often what it boils down to.
Of course, you can’t have both – you can’t sell everything too cheap, and you can’t expect to squeeze every penny out of a customer and have sustainable customer loyalty!
Both needs must meet somewhere in the middle – the Nexus of Delight (said with a deep booming voice with lots of echo).
Here the customer feels they are getting value (not necessarily just financial value – which we will get to) and the retailer gets a a happy customer, who solved their problem and generated revenue – wini win!
Think of the following example. A customer comes to a retail website looking for a jumper. They use the search and within seconds they are on a product detail page for a jumper they think might suit them. As they scroll down the page, they see a block of recommendations that shows similar products bought by other customers who viewed that product and then went on to buy something else. Here they see their perfect jumper. They click through and there it is – the jumper they always dreamed of. As they go to the add to basket button, they see a message “Free delivery if you spend £5 more”. Under the add to cart they see more recommendations – all of them for products that fit with the jumper and most of them around the £5 mark. They find a hat that there that they think would go perfectly and add it to their basket.
They are delighted because they found exactly what they wanted, they had a pleasant journey through the website and even found a hat they liked. All this, within budget, with free delivery and at no point did they feel taken advantage of or tricked. Remember, value is not just financial – it is the quality overall experience.
The retailer is also delighted, they made a sale with an uplift – whilst giving the customer a good experience, which with luck will lead to repeat visits.
The Nexus of Delight – they both got what they wanted and neither party felt anything negative towards the other! More importantly – the customer felt that the whole expereince was personalised based on their wants and needs – they were the center of the experience.
The Nexus of Delight
Retail Optimisation Mechanics
I wanted to just highlight something here as well, that goes back to me talking earlier about the use of mechanics. In games and gamification, mechanics are sets of rules that have specific outcomes in the game. For example, in Super Mario, one of the mechanics is the ability to jump. The height of his jumps is very carefully worked out to allow him to do all the things he needs in the game, without overbalancing the need for skill. If the jump is too high – the game is too easy, if it is too low – the game is impossible.
In the example above I reference 3 things I would consider to be Retail Optimisation Mechanics. The first is the search. A good search is essential for improving the customer experience if they are not 100% sure of what they want when they get to your site.
Secondly, the messaging that talks about free delivery thresholds. From a retail perspective, free delivery only makes sense if a customer spends over a certain amount of money. However, the customer needs to be aware of what that threshold is at just the right moment. If you go too early “spend £100 to get free delivery” they will not be interested. Go too late “Spend 50p to get free delivery” they may then struggle to find something they want that tops them up.
Finally, recommendations. I talk about two. The first is based on items like the product they are looking at. If I am looking for a jumper, there is no point saying, “You might like these T-shirts”. First, I am not in “T-shirt mode”, secondly, I am likely to think you are just trying to offload overstock on me. So contextual relevance is essential for the products being shown.
The other recommendation ties into the free delivery – items that not only match the product I am looking at, but also fit the budget needed to get the free delivery. This could easily also be a more “Complete the Look” style recommendation where you could then show me those T-shirts but under the context of “This T-shirt will complement the jumper you like”.
So What?
I suppose you are wondering so what? If not that, then may be “great, now how do I do that”.
Well, if you asked the first question, go read the blog again. If you asked the second – that is a blog for another day – but it involves data-driven decisions, testing, optimisation, and more testing.
If you get nothing else from this, take this away with you. Everything you want to do that may potentially drive a behavioural change – be it retail or otherwise – ask this question;
“What’s in it for them?”
Because that is the first question your customer is going to ask!
