u/Drimify

The instinct most ecommerce teams have is to use gamification for acquisition: a spin-to-win popup, a viral quiz, something that brings people in.

The data from campaigns we've run tells a more nuanced story. The biggest lifts tend to happen mid and bottom-funnel, where people are already interested but haven't converted.

We Are Jolies doubled revenue during a slow period using a gamified campaign. 40% of promo code sales went to new customers. The mechanic wasn't top-of-funnel awareness, it was a path experience that warmed up existing and returning visitors.

The reason: gamification at the acquisition stage attracts everyone, which dilutes lead quality. Gamification at the consideration and conversion stage filters for people who are already engaged enough to keep going.

Is this pattern consistent with what others are seeing in ecommerce? Or are there contexts where top-of-funnel gamification genuinely outperforms?

After running hundreds of campaigns, the failure mode almost never comes from bad mechanics or the wrong format.

It comes from treating gamification as a one-time project rather than a recurring strategy.

A company launches one quiz, gets decent results, and then... nothing for six months. The audience forgets. The momentum dies. When they come back with something new, they're essentially starting from zero again.

The clients with the strongest long-term results treat gamification the way good content teams treat publishing: a consistent cadence of experiences, each one building familiarity with the format so the audience arrives already warm.

Millet runs 154K interactions per year across multiple campaigns. Best Western France sustains 80% engagement rates not from one campaign but from a programme.

The single-project approach can generate a spike. The programme approach builds an asset.

Has anyone here made the shift from one-off to ongoing? What changed when you did?

We have a catalogue of games: arcade formats, instant wins, skill challenges, spin the wheel, scenario builders. The ones that generate the most excitement in a pitch are usually the most complex.

The format that consistently tops our engagement and completion data is the quiz.

Fast to understand, familiar enough that nobody needs instructions, flexible enough to work for lead gen, training, product recommendation, or event activation. When the questions are well written and the result feels personalised, completion rates routinely hit 80–95%.

The lesson we keep relearning: the mechanic that requires the least explanation usually produces the most data. Not because people prefer simple things, but because every extra second of orientation is a second the experience can lose someone.

What's the simplest format you've seen outperform a more complex one? Curious whether this holds in other contexts. 

It's not "what game format should we use?" or "what's the prize?"

It's: "what do you want people to do differently after this experience?"

The projects that fail almost always start with a format or a mechanic and work backwards. The ones that work start with a behaviour change and ask what's the minimum game structure needed to produce it.

This sounds obvious but it's surprisingly rare in practice. Most briefs we receive describe a format ("we want a quiz") or a feeling ("we want it to be fun") rather than an outcome ("we want new hires to understand our product range well enough to have a client conversation in week three").

The format question is much easier to answer once the outcome is specific. And the measurement question, which most teams struggle with, almost answers itself.

What's the most specific outcome brief you've ever received for a gamification project? And the vaguest? 

We talk a lot about what good gamification looks like in learning. But the failures are more instructive.

The progress bar that went nowhere. The quiz where every wrong answer just said 'try again' with no feedback. The leaderboard that nobody looked at after week one.

What's the most memorable bad example you've experienced, and what specifically made it fail?

It might seem like a small detail, but where you place your QR code can make a huge difference. We’ve been thinking about this lately, and here’s what we’ve found:

• Receipts: Great for post-purchase data collection and discount distribution. Plus, they’re portable for customers to scan later.
• Checkout: Some of the highest scan rates happen here, since people are stationary and focused. A soft Call-to-Action can boost usage even more.
• Storefront: With a strong CTA, QR codes here can drive foot traffic and promote ads effectively.
• Packaging: Easy for customers - minimal effort, and they can scan it later. It’s also a great way to condense packaging info.
• Lifts: A captive audience, with zero distractions. QR codes here stand out and can serve versatile use cases.
• Changing Rooms: High-dwell-time areas where you can offer styling tips or product feedback.
• In-Aisle: This is a critical decision point—QR codes can deliver videos, reviews, and even help push conversions.
• Trolleys/Baskets: A constant companion for shoppers. You could turn this into a shopping assistant or create fun scavenger hunts.

We’d love to hear from you, what QR code placements have worked best for your campaigns? Any surprising spots where you’ve seen great results?