Gamification and loyalty: what the research actually shows

What do we mean by gamification?

Gamification means using game mechanics in a context that is not a game: points, tiers, badges, challenges, leaderboards, streaks of consecutive days. A tiered loyalty program, a banking app that rewards saving or a social network that shows achievements are all examples.

It should be kept apart from a neighboring strategy: offering an actual game to your audience, like the daily puzzles many publishers run. The two overlap, since a daily game often uses gamification mechanics, starting with streaks. But they work differently. Gamification rewards an existing behavior (buying, saving, logging in); a daily game creates a new ritual that is enjoyable in itself.

Either way, the loyalty goal is the same: get people to come back more often and for longer.

What does peer-reviewed research say?

Academic research is more nuanced than sales decks.

In 2014, Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto and Harri Sarsa reviewed the published empirical studies on the topic. Their conclusion: gamification provides positive effects, but "the effects are greatly dependent on the context in which the gamification is being implemented, as well as on the users using it" (Hamari et al., 2014).

In 2020, Michael Sailer and Lisa Homner published a meta-analysis on learning, the most studied field. They found significant but small effects on cognitive (g = 0.49), motivational (g = 0.36) and behavioral (g = 0.25) outcomes. The cognitive effect held up in the most rigorous studies; motivational and behavioral effects were less stable there (Sailer and Homner, 2020).

One finding matters directly to brands: social interaction is among the factors that moderate the effect on behavior, and combining competition with collaboration proved particularly effective. In other words, a leaderboard alone counts for less than a game that gets people interacting.

This research is mostly about education. Applying it to commercial loyalty is an extrapolation, to be read as a pointer rather than proof.

Banking: when a game gets people saving

The strongest finance case comes from prize-linked savings accounts, which replace interest with prize draws. Shawn Cole, Benjamin Iverson and Peter Tufano studied data from a South African bank that offered such an account.

Their results, published in 2022 in the peer-reviewed journal Management Science: the product attracts a broad public, particularly financially constrained people and those with no other deposit account. Those who use it increase their total savings by about 1% of annual income on average. Using the random assignment of prizes, the authors show the account substitutes for lottery gambling while complementing standard savings (Cole, Iverson and Tufano, 2022).

It is a rare example of gamification evaluated with a causal method. It also shows the limits: the effect is real but measured in points of income, not in multiples. Before copying it, check the legal framework for lotteries and gambling in your country.

Retail: the loyalty program as a game mechanic

Points and tiers are the most common form of gamification in retail. Starbucks Rewards is an often-cited example. In 2026, the chain relaunched its program with new tiers and openly changed its logic. CEO Brian Niccol: "We had to stop doing all that discounting. This needed to be about engagement. This needed to be about personalization, and this needed to be about recognition."

Starbucks also says a growing number of customers visit four or more times a week since the relaunch, without giving a figure (CX Dive, April 2026). These are company statements made on an earnings call: they describe a trend, not the isolated effect of tiers. The interesting part lies elsewhere. A major brand is saying publicly that discounts are not enough and that recognition matters more.

Publishers and institutions: the game as a ritual

For a publisher or an institution, gamification often runs through the content itself: a daily game with streaks and leaderboards. LinkedIn took this route, with results it documents itself, covered in LinkedIn and daily games.

In France, Le Parisien aims for its games to reach "2 to 3%" of its total audience. "It seems small, but these are loyal users who come several times a month and stay on the site for a very long time," its digital marketing manager told INA's La Revue des médias. In the same piece, consultant Marion Wyss states that "the more frequently a user returns to the site, the higher their subscription conversion rate." That is a practitioner's observation and it is correlational, but it explains why publishers chase frequency above all.

The link between games and audience loyalty is covered in daily games and retention, and the role of streaks in streaks and daily habits.

How do you tell evidence from promises?

Not all gamification figures are equal.

When a supplier claims a percentage lift in engagement, ask: on which population, compared with what, and over what period?

What design principles follow?

A few principles stand out from these sources:

• aim for enjoyment before rewards: Starbucks itself says it moved away from blanket discounting;
• lean on social features: comparison, collaboration and friendly competition are linked to the clearest effects;
• keep it short and regular: a daily few-minute ritual fits a routine better than a complex mechanic;
• measure with a control group: it is the only way to know whether the mechanic creates loyalty or just attracts the most loyal;
• avoid excessive pressure: losing a streak should not feel like a punishment.

SIWA follows this approach for publishers, brands and institutions: short daily games, with streaks, leaderboards and leagues you switch on to suit your audience, and a dashboard to track usage. Details are on the SIWA for business page.