Hi Michael, When I mentioned culture, I did not mean it from a surface implementation point of view (thought that definitely is a factor) but more from the direction that certain personality traits that are inculcated in us can be traced to our cultural and environmental upbringing than say needs per se.   As an example, folks brought up in a "scarcity culture" might show different intrinsic motivation thresholds and competitive nature than say those who grew up in an "abundance culture".  Folks from the former might appear to be easily triggered  or compete more fiercely because of a percieved notion honed into them that one has to compete for resources (even though in reality a resource might not be  scarce).   Anyway, just a thought....   Best, Ned ... View more

Hi Michael, Thanks for an interesting read – and a good review of some key works.  I especially like the ‘walking the thin line’ between certainty & uncertainty as I do think the yin and yang of these states define our life pathways in general.    Motivation is definitely a complex topic with many dimensions to it. Even in the business world, understanding the underlying motivational elements is a prerequisite to creating any sort of triggers, rewards, or point system.  Firms that manage to inject just the right amount of rewards/triggers (fueling extrinsic motivation) to balance the existing intrinsic motivation are more successful than those that just throws rewards/challenges around when it is not needed.   From a consumer behavior point of view, I also like viewing motivation through the lens of psychogenic needs  - affectional, ego-bolstering, ego-defensive  being one way to look at it.   And lastly, I think culture also has a say in how individuals are motivated.  I think this is also something to consider from a business standpoint as what triggers/motivates an Indian might not motivate a German or an Italian etc.   Looking forward to future posts.   Regards, Ned ... View more

Hello Michael, Good set of articles and looking forward to the good stuff and discussion coming my way :-).    As someone straddling the world of cognitive science and business, I find gamification pretty interesting. I think many of the basic concepts of gamification actually overlap with fundamental management principles and leadership theory (especially as it relates to motivation, incentives, feedback etc. to drive an outcome).     Also, as you mentioned in the case with communities I think the principles of gamification can be leveraged succcessfully in various areas of business including customer service, acquisition and retention. Trigger-based marketing is not a new concept but like you said a shotgun approach to trigger based marketing is useless -- setting up the right triggers at the right time in the customer's behavior path is essential.   Good stuff.   Regards, Ned  ... View more

Hi Michael, Thanks very much for the explanation. You are right that we were talking different semantics on what is meant by replacement & its implication on engagement.   When I said replacement, I was referring to replacing "no F2F" with virtual. However, I do agree with you that in doing so the engagement that is generated is in addition to what would have been there (none- as they cannot make the IRL).   I think we are on the same page now.   (Btw, on a side note - I do think the extra category adds value. I think as a business you want to meet people [and prospective clients] F2F. So if you find out that you have a lot of people opting for scenario #2 above - given a chance to go virtual they would pick virtual even if they are within the IRL vicinity - that would definitely impact the answer to  your two questions: Is Virtual Better Than in-Real-Life? & What is the True Value of Being Virtual?)   Regards, Ned ... View more

Michael, Great analysis. There is only one point I am not sure I completely agree with. You mention "If we use them [social technologies] in addition to F2F engagement, then they can definitely help us build stronger relationships. If we use them as a replacement to F2F, and since socializing through social technologies is less efficient than F2F interaction, we would end up with a weaker relationship" == totally agree based on our previous conversations. However, in your #2 scenario They would NOT be able to attend if it was an IRL event, due to distance, conflicts, or whatever reason it may be, you say for these people the virtual summit is an addition to the F2F engagement. This is where my contention is. I think for these folks the virtual is a replacement and not an addition - as they would not have attended a F2F anyway. Also, by saying #2 is an 'addition to' are we not coming out with contradictory results? Previous concl: Social tech "in addition" to F2F creates stronger relationship. Current concl: We are only creating some relationship (& therefore weak) with folks who are using social tech "in additon" to F2F (scenario #2). I love the idea of your survey and I think it would benefit to break it into one more category. 1. Folks who can & would have attended the IRL if it were available 2. Folks who can but would not attend the IRL but opt for the Virtual 3. Folks who cannot attend the IRL but would attend the Virtual The interesting thing to see would be how many cross-over from #1 above to #2. In other words, by offering virtual how many relationships are you potentially pushing away (by giving them a choice). Anyway, just some thoughts. Interesting read as always - and love these academic jabs with you 🙂 Regards, Ned ... View more