Think about the last time you spun a digital wheel for a discount code, completed a challenge on a brand’s app to earn points, or played a mini-game embedded in an online store. These are all examples of gamified marketing, a strategy where companies borrow elements from games, like leaderboards, badges, and rewards, to make their marketing campaigns more interactive and engaging. Brands from Nike to Starbucks have embraced this approach, hoping it will keep customers coming back.
But here is a question that has received surprisingly little attention: does the specific language a brand uses in these gamified campaigns actually matter? And if so, how? A team of researchers based at Sichuan Agricultural University in China set out to investigate exactly that. Their findings, published in Scientific Reports, suggest that the style of language brands choose for their gamified marketing can shape how consumers feel about the brand, and that the effect depends in part on how psychologically close a consumer feels to the company.
What gap in the research prompted this investigation
Most prior research on gamified marketing has focused on a broad question: does gamification work? Studies have shown that adding game-like elements to marketing campaigns can boost brand loyalty, increase user engagement, and generate positive word-of-mouth. But the research team, led by Xiaolin Li, noticed that very few studies had looked at the finer details of how gamified marketing campaigns are designed, specifically the language and messaging used within them.
The team drew on a framework created by the French sociologist Roger Caillois, who proposed that games can be divided into two broad categories. The first, called “ludus,” revolves around challenge and competition, things like tournaments, leaderboards, and luck-based contests such as lotteries. The second, called “paida,” is centered on fantasy, immersion, and playful exploration, think of role-playing as a virtual character or navigating a colorful, imaginative interface.
Using this distinction, the researchers classified gamified marketing language into two styles: a “challenging” style (corresponding to ludus) and a “fantastical” style (corresponding to paida). They wanted to know whether these different styles influenced consumers’ attitudes toward a brand, and if so, what the process looked like along the way.
How the researchers tested their ideas
The team ran four separate experiments, each building on the last, recruiting participants through the Credamo online research platform, a tool commonly used for survey and experiment distribution in China. Only participants who reported having previously engaged with a brand’s gamified marketing campaign were included.
In each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Each group was shown a fictional marketing poster for an Apple-branded product promotion (the specific product changed across studies to ensure the results were not tied to one item). The posters varied in whether they used ludus language, paida language, both, or neither. After reading the poster, participants filled out questionnaires measuring their perception of the language style, their willingness to participate in the campaign, and their attitudes toward the brand. All responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale, a common survey format where respondents rate their agreement with statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The first study was a small-scale pretest with 64 participants, designed to confirm that the posters successfully communicated the intended language styles. The second study, with 199 participants, tested whether each language style was linked to more positive brand attitudes. The third study, with 198 participants, added a measure of “user participation,” defined as the degree to which consumers felt motivated to engage with the campaign. The fourth and largest study, with 384 participants, introduced the concept of psychological distance.
What the experiments revealed
Across all four studies, the results were consistent. Both ludus (challenging) and paida (fantastical) language styles were associated with more positive brand attitudes compared to marketing materials that lacked these styles. When both styles were present on the same poster, the positive association with brand attitude was even stronger, and there was a significant interaction between the two styles.
The third study showed that user participation played a connecting role in this process. In other words, the language style was linked to higher levels of user participation, and this increased participation was, in turn, linked to more positive brand attitudes. The language style did not just directly relate to how people felt about the brand. It also appeared to work through a chain: language style was associated with greater willingness to engage, and that willingness to engage was associated with a better impression of the brand.
The fourth study introduced psychological distance, a concept from psychology that describes how close or far away someone feels from a person, event, or entity, not physically, but mentally. In this experiment, some participants were asked to imagine that someone close to them (a parent, friend, or relative) had a strong connection to the company, such as being a long-term employee or shareholder. Others were asked to imagine that their close contacts had no relationship with the company at all.
The results showed that psychological distance played a role in shaping the relationship between language style and user participation. Participants who felt psychologically closer to the company reported higher levels of user participation and, as a result, more positive brand attitudes than those who felt psychologically distant. The language styles still had an effect in both groups, but the effect was more pronounced when consumers felt a sense of closeness to the brand.
What this could mean for businesses
The findings point to a few practical considerations for companies that use or are considering gamified marketing campaigns.
First, the specific words and tone a brand uses in its gamified promotions may not be an afterthought. The study’s data suggest that language framed around challenge and competition (ludus) or fantasy and immersion (paida) was associated with both greater engagement and more favorable brand attitudes. Combining both styles appeared to amplify this association.
Second, the results suggest that fostering a sense of closeness between the consumer and the brand could strengthen the impact of gamified campaigns. Companies might consider strategies that reduce psychological distance, such as emphasizing community ties, personal connections, or shared values, as a way to boost the effectiveness of their gamified marketing language.
Third, user participation appears to be a key link in the chain between marketing design and brand perception. Campaigns that successfully motivate people to engage, rather than just observe, may have a stronger connection to positive brand attitudes.
Important caveats to keep in mind
There are several limitations worth noting. The study measured brand attitudes through self-reported survey responses, not actual purchasing behavior. A consumer saying they feel more positively about a brand is not the same as that consumer spending money. The researchers themselves acknowledged this gap and suggested that future studies could simulate real purchasing environments to capture behavioral data.
All participants were recruited through a single Chinese online platform, and the cultural context may limit how well these findings generalize to consumers in other countries or markets. The stimulus materials used fictional scenarios involving Apple products, and responses could differ for lesser-known or differently positioned brands.
It is also important to note that these were scenario-based experiments, not observations of real marketing campaigns in action. Participants were reading hypothetical posters and imagining their responses, which is a standard approach in consumer research but does not perfectly replicate the experience of encountering a gamified campaign in everyday life.
Finally, the study design was experimental, meaning participants were randomly assigned to conditions. This strengthens the case for the language style manipulation having an effect, but the chain involving user participation and psychological distance was measured, not manipulated. Readers should be cautious about assuming direct cause-and-effect relationships for every link in the process the researchers described.
