myavkow: personal finance blog

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]

Next Story: Forrester reveals who uses location-based services the most Previous Story: Bill Clinton: Cloud computing will lead to a smarter, better world

On Monday, I linked to this op-ed from Tom Esvlin, Vermont's "stimulus czar," lamenting the way the money got spent. "Although I'd like to think Vermont did better than many states, much of the money ended up continuing bloated programs rather than providing a transition to a sustainable future," he wrote. That same day, Brookings' Gary Burtless e-mailed in a rebuttal that's worth quoting at length, as it's a very clear description of where the stimulus funds actually went, and why such a small percentage was directly devoted to building things. So here it is, with some edits for space:

The main problem with that silly op-ed is that it refers to only a small slice of the actual federal spending on stimulus authorized by the Feb. 2009 legislation. So far, the overwhelming share of that stimulus has been devoted to three items: Tax cuts for households; direct benefits to people adversely affected by the severe recession, mostly the unemployed or poor; and fiscal relief to state and local governments. Vermont did not need any "Czar" to receive or administer funds under these programs. The money for them quickly left the U.S. Treasury without any effort on the part of the Czar who penned this highly misleading op-ed piece. People in Vermont *directly* received benefits from the stimulus as: (1) lower federal tax withholding from their paychecks; (2) extended unemployment benefits; (3) premium subsidies so they could maintain their health insurance after they were laid off from a job in which they received health protection; (4) miscellaneous benefits (e.g., for college costs) under one provision or another; and (5) aid from the Treasury that permitted Vermont and its localities to finance their Medicaid and K-12 education programs without hiking taxes or lowering other public spending. The kinds of infrastructure spending for which the WSJ's "Czar" had some responsibility constituted a small percentage of the stimulus the Congress authorized for 2009 and 2010.

In FY 2009 and 2010, the EXPECTED spending on infrastructure and other items for which the Vermont “Czar” may have had partial responsibility accounted for just 11% of anticipated spending under the stimulus legislation. The other 89% had nothing to do with the programs criticized by Vermont’s supposed Czar. Thus, all of his complaints – even if justified – are essentially irrelevant to the programs mainly supported by the stimulus law … at least so far. Obviously, in the years 2011-2019, that kind of stimulus spending would have accounted for a vastly larger share of outlays. But (and perhaps Vermont’s Czar has not kept up with this because he does not read a daily paper) the Congress just passed and the President just signed ANOTHER stimulus program consisting of more than 90% personal and business tax cuts and less than 10% extensions in unemployment benefits. So far as I know, very little additional spending has been authorized for those hated infrastructure / technology investment projects. Below is the CBO’s year-by-year analysis of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus law:

My own private view is that the country would probably have been better off if *MORE* of the original stimulus had been devoted to infrastructure / technology investment (more of it would have been spent on goods and services produced in the U.S. rather than China, East Asia, and Europe). Setting aside that consideration for a minute, what infuriates me about the piece cited in your blog is that it reinforces the very widespread but totally erroneous impression that Congress and the Administration were unaware of the administrative hurdles to fast spending that the “Czar” points out in his op-ed. Those hurdles were understood from the very beginning, which is precisely the reason that infrastructure/technology investment projects constituted such a small percentage of the total package. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the pace of spending on these projects, but it is utterly deranged to think that the slow rate of spending on the projects constitutes a serious indictment of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus program. Very little of the expected spending under the stimulus program (at least so far) was supposed to be devoted to those projects.

surface encounters noblesville surface encounters rock tops

Thursday, January 6, 2011

personal finance blog

No comments:

Post a Comment