The Engagement Economy
Read Jane McGonigal's article on the Engagement Economy and use the comments section of this post to write a response to each of the following:
1. What is McGonigal's main argument in this article?
2. What role does human emotion play in the engagement economy?
3. Identify the most interesting aspect of the reading for you. Why is it the most interesting? Do you agree or disagree with McGonigal?
1. McGonigal's main argument in this article is participation bandwidth. How to get your workers engaged and to want to do work. She says it is less and less important to compete for attention, and more and more important to compete for things like brain cycles and interactive bandwidth. Crowd-dependent projects must capture the mental energy and the active effort it takes to make individual contributions to a larger whole."
ReplyDelete2. The economy of engagement is also an economy of feelings in which positive emotions pride curiosity, love, and feeling smart are the ultimate reward for participation. People want satisfying work to do, the experience of being good at something, time spent with people we like, and the chance to be part of something bigger. The role that human emotion plays in the engagement economy is to provide the user with the single simple feel good task.
3. The most interesting aspect of the reading for me is the human emotion and how it effects your work. People are not going to be happy if they are in an environment with 1. People they don't get along with and 2. If they don't enjoy the projects they are working on and if it's too hard. By getting everyone to work together to achieve a goal and to capitalize on doing a good thing people will want to engage more which in turn will make them a lot happier in the work place. I agree with McGonigal and her argument for what needs to be done in a work place in order for everyone to want to work.
1.What I could gather from this article is that the main argument here when it comes to "Crowdsourcing" is that two heads are better than one or in this type of scenario, millions are better than one. That when dealing with online crowds wisdom isn't enough, it needs participation from everyone to become successful.
ReplyDelete2.The role that human emotion plays in the engagement economy is simple. People simply want to be apart of something more. People would rather be in an environment where they're doing something more constructive with themselves, a sense of pride.
3. The most interesting part of the article to me was Exploring Crowd Resources. Where it says, "We've often been taught that getting paid is the only real motivation for serious work". Also, that "We have to unlearn that lesson", "Pride, curiosity,love and feeling smart are the ultimate reward for participation". In todays society, unfortunately I have to disagree. It's sad that "Pride, Love, etc.." today just isn't enough. At the same time money isn't the only real motivation to do serious work. People who do their jobs and do them well because of financial reasons aren't bad people and it doesn't necessarily make them any less passionate, especially with all the challenges we face today. For me, being able to do something that I love doing and making a little extra at the same time sounds great.
1. McGonigal's main argument in this article is that people need to work together and not compete for attention. Wisdom isn't enough, creating new ideas and innovating helps keeps a business alive. Members need to be active contributors.
ReplyDelete2. In a engagement economy want to be noticed. People need to noticed to continue doing something usually. People need to feel that they are a part of something special.
3. For me reading the crowd sourcing and the participation with bandwith was very interesting. McGonigal had a very interesting point about how people are taught that money is the motivation to work. McGonigal says "We have to unlearn that lesson", for me if you enjoy doing something, then keep doing it, money is just extra if rewarded. For example having a Youtube Channel doesn't mean you be making a lot of money but if you enjoy it, keep doing it. Also the passage about "Participation Bandwith" I didn't know much about it and learned a lot.
1. McGonigal's main argument in this article is that people need to participate more in crowdsourcing websites to keep them alive. Although a lot of people do participate, they mostly participate by liking or commenting on something rather than creating something themselves or with each other, which is the type of participation that crowdsourcing websites need.
ReplyDelete2. Human emotion plays a key role in the engagement economy. Instead of using money as an incentive for people to participate, emotion is used. When people participate they feel a number of emotions such as pride, intelligence, and a sense of accomplishment, which is what people crave because it makes them feel good.
3. I found that the most interesting part of the reading was how emotional payoffs are more effective than money. It's interesting to read that people would rather do something to feel good about themselves instead of doing something to make money. This shows that there are people out there who still have passion for engaging in an economy for an emotional benefit instead of engaging because they get money for it. It makes their contributions more meaningful.
1. The main argument of McGonigal’s article is that business/social media should look not just for crowd’s attention, but for their engagement with the product. The goal is to have active participation of the crowd.
ReplyDelete2. McGonigal in his article says, “the economy of engagement, is also an economy of feelings”, where explains that positive emotions can incentivize participation. Then, the role played by human emotions in the engagement economy is that while more positive emotions people have, the more active participants they can be, allowing the growth of the projects.
The most important aspect of the reading is the part where is presented the three primary motivations for MMO participation: achievement, social and immersion. I believe that these motivtions include everything that a player needs to keep engaged with online games, what makes me agree with McGonigal. Players usually like to go to the next level, compete, interact with people with their same goal and finally break the routine and a online game that gives to players these motivations will keep them engaged.
1. McGonigal is talking about how companies and platforms need to get users to actively participate rather than to just observe. McGonigal talks about how we need to not only capture someone’s attention but also get them to actively engage as well.
ReplyDelete2. Emotion can play a role in the engagement economy because people want to feel good, if you can make someone feel good through participating then they will be more likely to participate. People want to have a sense of accomplishment and pride, so through participation people can be rewarded with these feelings.
3. I found it interesting to read about the pyramid of participation, and how there are different levels of people who participate different amounts. It talks about how you need all these different levels of participation, and how the different levels hold each other up. I agree that you do need different levels or ways people participate.
1.) McGonigal really focuses on mass collaboration to promote mass production to insure optimum action. By joining together, working with each other and everyone putting their own effort and input into one purpose oppose to looking at the internet as a competitive field would prove more beneficial to web institutions.
ReplyDelete2.) Emotions are highly significant in this process because tension between companies, websites and social networks can cause their users to become inactive and less engaging, no one wants to be involved in a negative interaction. Also if visually and mentally the web presents itself to be to "standard" or "basic" it could create boredom or lack of interest. By venturing away from the standard conservative internet world and creating a more entertaining playful environment to allow people to openly network in a more casual setting might prompt more users to become active in creative ventures and money making idea's. The simple task of turning a chore into a passion by grabbing and keeping potential participants attention could open up a world of possibilities.
3.) What I found most interesting about this article is that people still would rather watch television than collaborate via internet. Honestly when I read that in the united states people annually spend a total of 200 billion hours watching television, the statistic surprised me. I wasn't shocked that television is still an American addiction, more so shocked that it beat out people wanting to become more involved in internet interactions.
1. McGonigal argues that since so many organizations compete now for viewers/readers very limited time, it is crucial for an organization to have an active group of quality participants in order to survive. Having new ideas from participants keep things fresh.
ReplyDelete2. Humans want to be invested into something and want to get something out for participating. McGonigal states that “positive emotions… are the ultimate reward for participation.” People want to feel good about themselves and what they’ve accomplished through participation.
3. The aspect that’s most interesting to me in the reading is that to grab engagement, emotion will come into play. McGonigal cites Edward Castranova’s study on engagement in MMO games being directly linked to positive emotions. As a gamer, this is very true, looking from a psychological standpoint. Players feel various successes and are given achievements within games, which keeps them coming back for more. I agree with McGonigal.
1. In her article, Jane McGonigal discusses companies and platforms deciding to use mass collaboration as a way to have everyone work together and participate in crowdsourcing sites, rather than simply observe. She also discusses if and how this could work.
ReplyDelete2. Human emotions play an important role in the engaging economy. People are constantly looking for ways to join in on the "fun" as to be apart of something bigger than themselves. If a social network or any website has a positive aspect of happy collaborators and participants, it attracts more people. Users aim to feel connected and accomplished.
3. What I find to be interesting about this article is the discussion of emotions and their connection to video games. Most non-gamers do not see the positive influence video games have. They cause one to feel accomplished, you are entertained and feel that you are part of something bigger because of the vast gaming community. I agree with McGonial, people's emotions do take into play when participating with any sort of platform.
1.McGonigal's main argument throughout this passage is that we are constantly striving to gain the attention of viewers however now we must also engage them into organizations. There must be a rising participation bandwidth allowing “a member of the crowd into a member of your team”.
ReplyDelete2.Emotion plays a big part in an engagement economy, It is human nature to want to feel accepted, loved and noticed. When participating and engaging you are able to feel smart, you are also able to feel like you are making a mark on the world, and lastly you are able to feel as though you are doing a good thing. Notice how all of those reasonings begin with the word “you”.
3.I find it extremely interesting that we use all types of social media and technologies and yet we are clueless and naive to the amount of effort that goes behind it. There are many people who spend their hours attempting to master the art of making mass participation fun and sustainable. I agree with Mcgonigal when she states that whoever is able to capture and attain players and allow them to become participants in this engagement economy will be able to attain an edge on innovation.I also believe this notion to be insane considering many people do not know the thoughts behind it all.
1) Crowdsourcing and Mass Collab are the future for groups and businesses interested in creating a successful online community. Whether it be corporate, start-up, research, non-profit, grassroots, entertainment, media or artist groups/businesses; if done carefully and correctly, organizations can become wildly successful and popular through the internet. Using the great amount of data collected from various “fun-engineers,” organizations have the capability to create an interactive community, receiving valuable input from participants, and giving those participants fulfilling emotional stimulants. These groups should no longer be searching for attention or followers, but they should rather be competing for “brain cycles & interactive bandwidth,” a.k.a. engagement. From what I understood, this engagement would be used to pick knowledge and input from participators brains in order to create some type of large collection of all that information in the form of a website such as Wikipedia.
ReplyDelete2) Provoking human emotion is in a sense a currency, which if done correctly can be traded for engagement from participants. Human emotion is one of the most important aspects.
3) Two points of this reading stuck out to me, first being the idea that majority of people are more interested in trading their time and participation online to create positive emotions rather than make money. Second, the incredible amount of time Americans spend watching television throughout the year, and how that translates into the equivalent of 2,000 Wikipedia pages being created. I can’t even imagine what those 2,000 mass collaborations would be like, but it would probably be pretty epic.
1. Jane McGonigal introduces the importance of engagement over attention through the promotion of mass collaboration. She describes the opportunities and risks of the crowdsourcing model and the future of massively scaled participation. Today, it is not enough calling the public attention. Engagement provides the needed value to success in mass collaboration but it is not easy to create and maintain it.
ReplyDelete2. According to McGonigal, emotion emerges as the most powerful currency in the economy of engagement due to the existence of the economy of feelings. Positive emotions such as pride, curiosity, love and feeling smart, are the ultimate reward for participation. Evoking emotions motivates participation, and thus, engagement and fidelity which amplify the ambitions of a mass collaboration project.
3. I found interesting how McGonigal predicted in 2008 the increment in the importance of participation and engagement. Internet is changing the habits of the users and if users spend part of their time online in mass collab, crowdsourcing will be totally feasible. However, I do not agree with her in the attempt for expanding this model over every field. I believe it is an important record in gaming and knowledge projects. Mass collab requires investment of time and money. With the penetration and growth of Social Media where people have found motivation to participate and companies are trying to find the way to obtain ROI, mass collab and economy of engagement concepts seem to stay apart for a more stable and safer result.
1. McGonigal's main argument is that participation and contribution is required now more than ever in online communities and platforms. Grabbing your attention is no longer enough, companies want users to provide ideas and information through mass collaboration in order to expand itself.
ReplyDelete2. Human emotion drives the engagement economy. McGonigal even says that emotion has replaced money as the currency and incentive for participating in these collaborative online projects. People contribute because they find it emotionally rewarding to “feel smart” and to “do a good thing”.
3. What I found to be most interesting was that crowdsourcing systems that offered money as an incentive were unsuccessful because it wasn’t enough to motivate people. I think that that’s a comforting idea, that not absolutely everyone and everything is controlled by the power of money, but rather personal interest and emotional drive.
1. McGonigal's main argument was that engagement and attention is more important then money incentives. emotional inceptives give us more then just money. instead of giving us money in a game winning points and advancing to the next level is more important we more emotions out of it emotions make us happier that positive emotions are the best rewards.
ReplyDelete2.the human emotion plays a huge part of engagement economy. anyone can look at something for 2 seconds and like it but to spend hours and hours on something that is the attention and the engagement of you audience if you engage you audience with positive emotions then they will more likely stick with it then if there is no emotions attached.
3. what was the most interesting thing to me was the amount of hours that go into the gaming and that over 100 million hours are spent on this. that gaming might help with depression has someone who has suffered with depression I have to say id agree with her I think that if your truly having fun and enjoying yourself gaming with help with your depression. getting attention is worth more then views or votes. Those are just number but having the actual participation is worth so much more.