The Daily Email - sign up for insights & inspiration!

Enter your email... Sign Up

Home » Blog » Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity

June 7, 2011

Pixie Dust & The Mountain of

Mediocrity
[NB: Today’s guest post is by the world’s most famous ex-
blogger, the great Kathy Sierra.]

We’re always searching for that secret formula, that magic pixie dust
to sprinkle over our products, services, books, causes, brands, blogs
to bring them to life and make them Super Successful. Most
marketing-related buzzwords gain traction by promising pixie dust
results if applied to whatever it is we make, do, sell. “Add more
Social!”. “Just need a Viral Video!” “It’s about the Storytelling!”. “Be
Authentic!”

The rise of social networking and media opened up a world of new

possibilities, yet most Marketing 2.0 is basically:

“If you cannot out-spend the competition, you can out-friend them!”
He who has the most Facebook fans, Twitter followers, and blog
commenters Wins! It’s all about Social Capital now!

Sure, you can try that. You can work your ass off to be, as one
marketer put it, “the person your customers want to party with.”

I never understood how any of this made sense, given that very little
of what I see “brands” (or their human spokestweeters) do on social
media is changing the fundamental nature of how users interact with
their products. “But that is not the point! It is about being human!”.
Nope, I still don’t get it. Why would anyone want to compete on
*that*? It felt fragile to be in essentially a marketing arms-race of
who-is-the-most-engaging-social-media rock star. What does that
really have to do with what users do with the product?

And I saw examples over and over of social media rock stars with
tons of followers, yet they were not able to convert those followers
into Actual Paying Customers unless the product was what people
really wanted. Being super-friendly, “liked”, etc. has limits when it
comes to *paying*. I will follow your blog, but no matter how
awesome I think YOU are, I won’t be paying for your book unless I
think it’ll make ME a little more awesome.

So, why are people still so convinced that social media and all
related buzzwords are The Answer? It has always appeared that if
the product is truly crap, “your social media strategy won’t save you.”
Even the social media gurus agree on that one. But it seems the
opposite end is true as well… If the product makes the users
awesome (at whatever the product is helping them do), no special
secret magic pixie dust sauce is needed either.

Oh, social media does play a massive role in the success of a

product that people love, but it is not the product-to-users
“engagement” that matters, it is users-to-users (and users-to-
potential-users). If people love what a product, book, service let’s
them *do*, they will not shut up about it. The answer has always
been there: to make the product, book, service that enables,
empowers, MAKES USERS AWESOME. The rest nearly always
takes care of itself.

Which brings me back to, why are so many so convinced that [insert
favorite buzzword] is the answer vs. just making a product that helps
people kick ass in a way they find meaningful?

And then someone I trust said this: these [insert favorite new
buzzword] approaches are not about saving a crap product or
marketing an awesome one… where these tools really DO make a
difference for a brand is when the brand has little or no other
compelling benefit over the competition. If the product is mediocre,
or even really good but with too many equally good competitors,
these things can make a difference. If you have little else to compete
on, then out-friending/out-viraling/out-gamifying can work.

At least until your competition out-hires a good social media

strategist or compelling extroverted social media star and out-friends
you.

You do not want to be That Brand. You do not want to be That

Product. That Book. That Consultant. You do not want to be in that
arms race because it is an exhausting and fragile place to be. You
want to use social media not because you *must* but because you
can add even more value for your users by doing so. You do not
want to be the guy that must ask constantly, “how can I get more
comments on my blog? how can I get more followers and fans?”

The real pixie dust is when you ask yourself, “how can I help my
users get more comments on THEIR blog?”. You want to be the guy
who asks, “How can I help my users get more followers and fans?”
And that is why I have always been such a fan of Hugh and Gary V
and Tim Ferris, for example. Not for the comments their followers
make about Hugh, Gary, and Tim… But for the comments their
followers make about themselves. In a nutshell: Hugh, Gary, and
Tim might well be the people you want at a dinner party, but what
matters is that they help people become more interesting at their
OWN next dinner party.

What prompted me to write this is the latest magic pixie dust

buzzword, one that I am passionately against: gamification. Applying
principles of game design to non-game activities can be done
carefully, artfully, and with wonderful results. We use principles of
game design in our programming books, for example, and you may
have heard me at SXSW talk about using aspects of game
mechanics to help create passionate users. But the current crop of
“gamification” experts are doing nothing more than
“pointsification/badgification”, taking the most superficial, surface
mechanics of games and applying them out of context to areas
where they are, as I have referred to it, “the high fructose corn syrup
of engagement.” Once the sugar-rush novelty has worn off, there will
be a substantial crash from the high. And it may be one from a which
a brand cannot recover.

Don’t be that brand.

Don’t be that product.

Don’t be that book.

Be the one people talk about NOT because of your latest

gamification and WOM campaign, but because it is obvious to your
users and those they influence that your brand, product, book has
made them better at something. Something they care about. Don’t
be the slot machine of your industry. Give people an experience that
leaves them feeling a little better about their own capabilities, not
better about the faux-status awards they know, in their heart, are not
examples of anything more awesome than a marketer’s attempt to
use them.

Just make people better at something they want to be better at.

When your goals and your user’s goals are truly aligned, you don’t
need pixie dust. Don’t out-spend, don’t out-friend, and please don’t
out-badge. There is a world of difference between helping someone
*appear* more awesome and helping them actually BE more
awesome.

-Kathy Sierra

 Share  Tweet  Share

Welcome to my empire…

I don't make art

Comments

1. Hugh MacLeod says

June 7, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Thanks for writing that, Kathy,

As always, you are awesome!!!

Reply

2. Rex Hammock says

June 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm

I miss you, Kathy Sierra. Just last night, I was

working on something that caused me to google
up an old post of yours. I do that often as I have to
remind myself and those I work with and the
clients we serve what you’ve just summed up in a
wonderful way: “Just make people better at
something they want to be better at.”

Reply

Kathy sierra says

June 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Thanks, Rex. I was about to say, “your clients

are lucky to have you.” but then corrected it
to, “your clients’ users are lucky to have you.”
You have inspired me much over the years!

Reply

Rex Hammock says

June 12, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Thanks, Kathy. You’re too kind. I

remember running into you at SXSW a
couple of years ago and you saying
something like that, to which I responded
something like, “Surely, you’re confusing
me with someone else.” Not to make this
a mutual-appreciation thread (but hey, I
can think of worst threads I’ve
experienced in comments), you’ve
always help me get better at something I
want to be better at — helping explain
how relationships between buyers and
sellers (or all the other terms that
describe the roles we play in
marketplaces) are best when they are a
journey of growing better together than
as merely a series of transactions.

Reply

Observer says
June 14, 2011 at 4:29 am

Get a room you two.

Reply
 3. Demian Farnworth says
June 7, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Absolutely love it. Anybody who uses the words

“pixie dust” is a favorite of mine. Bravo.

Reply

Kathy sierra says

June 9, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Cheers! And to those who might doubt my

pixie dust cred, my YouTube video settles the
debate about unicorns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=KghghOiqKko

Reply

4. Geoff Livingston says

June 7, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Thank you! This was awesome!

Reply

5. Joel Nelson says

June 7, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Hammer meets nail straight on. Well said. Thanks.

Reply

6. Clint Watson says

June 7, 2011 at 1:45 pm

I, too, have resisted the idea of “gamification” of

our web app. I haven’t been fully able to articulate
why I was uncomfortable with the idea. Thanks for
saying what I couldn’t quite put into words. Like,
Rex, I miss your blog…..maybe posting here on
gapingvoid could be a semi-regular occurance?
(hoping)

Thanks again.

Reply
 7. mack collier says
June 7, 2011 at 1:46 pm

Kathy thank you for writing this and thank you

Hugh for giving her the platform.

I think simple ego is the reason why most of the

‘social media rockstars’ want to put the focus on
themselves, versus focusing on others. Too many
people buy into their own hype, and think that
having 50K followers on Twitter makes them ‘more
awesome’.

Social media is great at making things happen

indirectly. I think Hugh was making this point here
a half a decade ago. This is what I loved about
Creating Passionate Users, you taught others how
to ‘be awesome’, and they thought you were
awesome as a result. Somewhere along the way,
the ‘gurus’ stopped teaching how to be awesome,
and just kept banging over our heads that we just
need to ‘be awesome’. That the rest will take care
of itself. Unfortunately, tweeting ‘Just shut up and
be awesome’ will get you a lot of RTs, even
though it won’t TEACH anyone how to actually ‘be
awesome’.

We need more teachers and fewer egos. And we

need more posts from Kathy Sierra

Reply

Kathy sierra says

June 9, 2011 at 12:35 pm
 Mack, since I stopped blogging in ’07, nobody
has kept the spark alive for me more than you
have. Can’t say it more clearly than that.
Thanks for all that you do and say.

Reply

8. Sean McGinnis says

June 7, 2011 at 1:56 pm

I’m with Rex. I miss Kathy’s stuff…

Reply

9. KatFrench says
June 7, 2011 at 2:06 pm

Wonderful and true. And yes–there will probably

always be the cottage industry of pixie dust for
those stuck in the fat middle. C’est la vie.

If I had three hands, I would give this post 3

thumbs up. Consider this two thumbs and both big
toes up.

Reply
 10. Dave Van de Walle says
June 7, 2011 at 2:26 pm

HOLY CRAP this is good…with one caveat:

Most of the people this is directed toward live in

the freaking bubble. Hugh, Gary and Tim aren’t in
the bubble – but there’s this whole cliquey culture
of reciprocal “you’re awesome” no “YOU’RE
AWESOME” attached to the averageness – that
it’s gonna be tough to overcome.

And this whole echo chamber of pseudo-

awesomeness will read this and say…”Screw em,
I have more fans! Awesome! Buy my book!”

Actually, the people who really need to read this

are too busy checking their Klout scores.

Reply

Tinu Abayomi-Paul says

June 8, 2011 at 7:54 am

Great point – people who most need this are

looking at something else that is totally
meaningless and arbitrary instead of paying
attention to something that really matters.

Although I believe that the way to pierce the

bubble is to make what’s happening outside
the bubble so incredible that people want to
venture outside it.
 Reply

11. DK says
June 7, 2011 at 2:32 pm

Love the sound of the signal breaking through the

monotony of noise out there once in a while –
thank you Kathy / Hugh… this will become a go-to
article for a long time to come!

Reply

Wendy Overton says

June 7, 2011 at 10:46 pm

Same here. And now I love Gapingvoid even

more for sharing Kathy’s insight. Because
she said what I have felt but until now
couldn’t quite pinpoint the source.

Thanks Hugh!

Reply

12. Giulietta Nardone says

June 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Hi Kathy,

Nice rebellious piece! Like Damian above I too

love “pixie dust.” My philosophy has always been
to encourage others to live juicy. What goes
around comes around, always.

Give others a leg up and they’ll give you one.

Thanks, G.

Reply

13. Lee White says

June 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm

This message is more relavent now than ever. It is

so easy to get lost in the “Pixie Dust”.

Kathy – Been missing this for a long time. Glad

you are back writing. Hopefully more ahead!

Reply

14. Robert says

June 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm

Your post made me think of the folk tale stone

soup. The clever stranger creates a social object
to get the villagers cooperating.
You inspired me to write about it, thank you.

Reply

15. John Santic says

June 7, 2011 at 3:08 pm

Awesome post! what stood out was the undertone

of how important being genuine and generous is
to the whole equation. thanks for sharing!

Reply

16. Alex Hillman says

June 7, 2011 at 3:12 pm

I miss when Kathy writes. So thankful for this.

Reply

17. Susan Alexander says

June 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Kathy:

Your words, “Just make people better at

something they want to be better at” so perfectly
describe the task at hand that it’s hard to believe
that so much focus is on the banality of things
such as “follow” and “like.”

I appreciate your clarity of thought and delivery.

Good of you to write, and good of Hugh to post.
Thanks to both of you.

Susan

Reply

18. Jesse Emery says

June 7, 2011 at 4:11 pm

This is a really good post. We’re totally saying

different things, but our graphs jumped out:

http://www.jemery.com/2011/06/01/how-to-keep-
your-software-awesome/

I guess great minds graph alike?

Reply

19. John Dodds says

June 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm

Pescian logic rides again Kathy.

Reply
 20. Catherine Monahan says
June 7, 2011 at 5:36 pm

Fantastic.. Haven’t read anything better in years…

a joy to read a piece that REALLY makes one
reflect, that you know is 100% spot on, and brings
a call to action and change. Thank you for writing
such an open and inspiring post. Loved it all! x

Reply

21. Lucretia Pruitt says

June 7, 2011 at 6:46 pm

Thanks Hugh for giving us a piece of Kathy when

we really need her!
Thanks Kathy for taking the time to write this.
“pointsification/badgification” will be cracking me
up every time I hear ‘gamification’ now.
I get unpopular every time I ask “but why do your
customers want gamification?” ‘Why?’ doesn’t
work well with ‘shiny’ and ‘pixie dust’ does it?

Your voice is so needed Kathy, thanks for stepping

back into the morass even just this once. I was all
sad that Twitter had gotten so noisy that I didn’t
realize you had stepped off of there and it’s been
more than a year since I saw anything about your
beloved Icelandic horses. I feel like an idiot for
having missed your exit there.

This post made my day.

Reply

Kathy sierra says

June 9, 2011 at 12:37 pm

Your comment made my day :). Not the first

time you’ve done that…

Reply

22. Ric says

June 7, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Kathy – great to hear your voice again – missed it!

Hugh – thanks for getting Kathy to guest here …

more coming?

Reply

23. Ilona says

June 8, 2011 at 2:57 am

I’m a big Kathy Sierra fan, because of just this

type of insight… and just love what Dave Van de
Walle had to say, so I will simply ditto that.

Reply
 24. Virginia says
June 8, 2011 at 3:12 am

“magic pixie dust” is such great analogy because

all your examples (Social!, Viral Video!,
Storytelling!, Gamification!) just sit on the surface
making things sparkly. We can tell when the core
product isn’t anything special underneath.

Reply

25. Phillip Long says

June 8, 2011 at 5:55 am

Kathy: Your observations ring equally true about

the current craze to apply gaming principles to
learning activities. There is in fact much potential
value in making the learning interaction self-
motivating, just rewarding enough to attract and
just challenging enough to keep the learning
engaged and motivated.

We’re building pharmacology simulation right now

and there are legitimate interests to make aspects
of the interactions presented more ‘game-like’ – to
keep interest up and more importantly add ‘levels’
of interaction that the more enthusiastic learner
might be challenged and rewarded with more
opportunities to explore and gather icons of their
success.
This may be gratuitous badgification of the
learning story. We’ll find out more shortly when it
goes into a test. Thanks for pointing out the
cautions that we need to be attentive to in the
learning technology development space.

Regards,
Phil

Reply

Kathy sierra says

June 9, 2011 at 7:15 pm

Phillip, applying gamification to education is

the part that scares me the most. Studies
suggest we do not get a second chance at
recovering the motivation that (counter-
intuitively) external rewards suck from a
potentially intrinsically rewarding area. The
kids that begin drawing *less* once they are
given ribbons for their drawings, or even the
monkeys that solve fewer puzzles and make
errors once rewarded for solving what they —
pre-gamification — happily did for the intrinsic
pleasure.

But I am encouraged because you are

already aware and taking care. The fact that
you are doing a simulation already puts it in
my default “potentially awesome” category as
a form of game (or today’s term, “serious
games”, of which I am a fan). And the fact
that you are talking about maintaining the
challenge level is key. Have faith that flow
alone (by balancing the challenge and their
ability in a continuous progression up and to
the right) is usually ALL the motivation you
need for engagement.
Sure, you might need a little encouragement
to get them started, but that is usually more
about making it incredibly easy to get started,
but then go deep, immediately.
The problem with most gamification is it treats
people like they just aren’t that smart (rats in
a skinner box, or people who wouldn’t
otherwise find something deep and
compelling), when that is almost the polar
opposite of good games. Actual games — the
most popular games of every form from
chess to Settlers to nearly every digital game
— make the assumption that the user is quite
smart and capable. Most games ask you to
figure out what is going on without being told,
and expect you to work hard. When
considering why we are borrowing from
“game mechanics” perhaps we should
consider the most important game attribute of
all… that successful games leave people
feeling smarter, in part because games ARE
challenging *for real*.
Trust your users. Simulations are wonderful.

Reply
 26. JD Morrison says
June 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm

Excuse my cynicism. Of course, much of what

Kathy said is true, but much is also meaningless.
Be awesome, yes, but can every product be
awesome? How many non-awesome products
have made millions? In Kathy’s world, how does
that work?

As a marketer, I know that traditional media aren’t

working enough to justify the cost. I also know that
consumers don’t like to be told, they like to be
informed, two-way conversation versus
‘broadcasting’ a message. Now I’m told that social
media doesn’t work, I’m making friends but not
sales according to Kathy.

So what’s left? I need to be seen and heard in a

crowded marketplace but neither traditional nor
social media works. OK, now what? According to
Kathy I should just increase my awesomeness or
my product’s awesomeness. Using what means?

Please remember, successful products are rarely

the best. All the awesomeness of Beta (still used
by TV stations everywhere) couldn’t beat crappy
VHS.

Explain that to me, would you Kathy? The concept

of awesomeness is meaningless, is undefinable
and is in its own way pixie dust.

Reply
 Kathy sierra says
June 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm

It is never about Prodict Quality or which

product is best, etc. I could not agree more. If
you look at my chart again, you’ll see just
how this works in (as you referred to it)
“Kathy’s World”– it is all and only about what
makes the USER awesome. On a venn
diagram, the overlap between Prodict Quality
and User Result Quality is not always as
large as we might imagine.

In the extreme, it could be that in a crowded

field the product that “wins” is potentially
below-average in traditional definitions of
“quality” but exceeds because it does the
best job of helping users actually DO
something wonderful. In a crowded field, I
would use social media and every other
possible means (community discussion
forums, manuals, FAQs, etc.) to help teach,
enable, inspire users to do more.

Reply

27. Chad Elliott says

June 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Social media serves 2 fundamental purposes in
business: amplifying your message (by
incentivizing users to disseminate your message
through their own channels) and, in the case of a
startup, helping you to keep in touch with a
community that supports you. No company gets
their product right out of the gate but keeping in
touch with users that back you (and not just the
product) and iterating on the feedback you receive
is invaluable. Or so I think ;-P With that said, I
really appreciate your insight, and you definitely
identified the BS that everyone else is stepping in
=P

Reply

28. Jay Cordary says

June 9, 2011 at 1:40 am

As a positively ancient guy we used to call “pixie

dust” snake oil. “Social Media” used to be the
PTA, Rotary, Lions, Etc. Amplifying your message
was called advertising, and incentivizing users
was simply giving someone a good deal and
asking them to recommend you to their friends.
Kathy’s message was great and something I
sorely needed hear however and I thank her. The
sound and the fury will abate and this years “Rock
Star” will yield to next years, businesses will adjust
and things will even back out. “Social Networking”,
“branding” “gamification” and all the rest are just
the same old breakfast cereal in a brand new and
improved box. The main reason for the
pervasiveness of the current hucksters is the
boom/bust cycle of the economy. As things slowly
improve and reach a period of equilibrium there
will be a return to a more mainstream business
proposition called “Value”.

Reply

29. Lee Hopkins says

June 9, 2011 at 1:56 am

Kathy’s back (if only temporarily) = tears of joy +

happy dance

Reply

30. Hampus Jakobsson says

June 9, 2011 at 8:11 am

Thanks Kathy for being back!

Reply

31. Mehraj Khan says

June 10, 2011 at 6:20 am

http://www.exclusivesterling.com
Reply

32. Mehraj Khan says

June 10, 2011 at 6:22 am

Perfect, I was looking for similar information. I

have bookmarked your blog. Please post more
about.

Thanks

Mehraj

Reply

33. Joan Defenbaugh says

June 10, 2011 at 8:44 am

Nice to read something that validates my own

scattered thoughts. I’m not a Rock Star and I don’t
want to be.
I want to be recommended to others because I did
a great job helping someone buy or sell a home.
Social Media just helps the message pass along
more quickly and on to the extension of
everyone’s hand, their smartphone.

Reply
 34. Tom Hopkins says
June 10, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Great to read you again Cathy. Agree totally about

gamification, and also that hopeless idea of
socialisation or viralisation.

As I’m sure has been said before, viral was never

a tactic, it was a measure of popularity; it’s not
something you could do or add to a product but
something that happened if your product was
good.

Similarly, the characteristics of successful games

that need to be copied are that they are brilliant,
not just that they award points.

Reply

35. Anne Marie says

June 11, 2011 at 8:46 am

Kathy Sierra is awesome. That is all. Helping

users to *be* more awesome makes total sense to
me.

Reply

36. steve says

June 12, 2011 at 5:32 am
Read the whole thing. Liked it. What do I win?

Reply

37. Lee Gillette says

June 12, 2011 at 7:56 am

Kathy. Haven’t read any of your posts before this

one. I got one question: where did you go and
why?

P.S. do you have an archive?

Reply

38. Lee Gillette says

June 12, 2011 at 8:15 am

Oh! THAT Kathy Sierra!

Sorry, Kathy. Been on the other side of the Planet

most of my life.

I’ll be looking forward to your next guest post.

Reply
 39. pb says
June 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm

Is there a certain meta to this post, oh guest

blogger?

Reply

Kathy Sierra says

June 13, 2011 at 4:29 pm

It’s (turtles) all the way down…

Reply

40. Marigo Raftopoulos says

June 13, 2011 at 2:14 am

Great read, totally agree, but can we all move on

please? The hype cycle will eventually run its
course.

However let us acknowledge that “gamification”

has helped to raise awareness of the
awesomeness of games and game dynamics to
strengthen meaningful engagement.

If the two warring camps focus their efforts here,

then maybe together we can fix broken systems in
health, education and community building.

Reply

Kathy Sierra says

June 13, 2011 at 5:10 pm

Marigo, I appreciate the comment and I have

seen your posts in the past making the good
case in the same way Amy Jo does… for
smart/good approaches using gamification.

But can we “all move on”? No, I don’t think

so. When marketing consultants who are
considered the “thought leaders” and
“experts” in gamification are speaking at
conferences for parents, educators, health,
and sustainable business practices, we are in
trouble. Because as awesome as *games*
are, the misapplication of operant
conditioning to areas where we need more
than simple reinforced behaviors can be
devastating.

When marketing folks cannot or will not make

distinctions between chores/tasks and, say,
*reading*, that’s a problem. When peer-
reviewed, robust research shows a counter-
intuitive but dramatic potential for extrinsic
rewards to DE-motivate otherwise intrinsically
motivating activities, that’s a problem. When
marketers cannot accurately define the
difference between rewards and behaviors
that *are* themselves rewarding, there’s a
problem. When marketers/gamification gurus
do not appreciate the studies of Ryan/Deci or
even those mentioned at the beginning of
Drive, that’s a serious problem.

Because as fun-sounding as gamification is,

we’re dealing with the most manipulative
forms of behaviorial psych, and the marketing
people certainly KNOW that. I assume you’ve
read, for example, “Game-based Marketing”
by the person now currently referred to as
“The Expert in Gamificaiton”. He is quoted in
several places, including his own book, as
promoting the “exploitation of psychological
conditions” to cause people to take action for
a brand against their own best interest. He
pretty gleefully describes loyalty programs
that have been so powerfully implemented
that they cause people to destroy their own
relationships in favor of what’s good for the
brand.

To claim that it’s OK to use these exploitation

techniques as long as they for the “greater
good”, is a slightly separate topic, because
even if one is in favor of that, the techniques
themselves can have the OPPOSITE effect in
some cases, leading people to permanently
have LESS interest in the thing we’re trying to
“reward” (e.g. reading, recycling, civic
engagement, etc.)

Skinner taught us that we can make

extremely powerful, extremely robust
behavior changes using operant conditioning.
Slot machines and some of the darlings of
gamification are good examples. However,
while Skinner produced behaviors that
*appeared* quite complex, they were nothing
more than a long series of very simple
behaviors chained together.

The one thing Skinner never ASKED of these

animals was to be truly creative or innovate
or, for example, to actually CARE about what
they were doing. Had he done that, there’d
have been a lot more awareness of the
counter-intuitive problem of operant
conditioning leading to “phoned-in” behaviors
or, worse, de-motivation for the very thing
being rewarded. Education has enough
problems without hammering in the final nail.

Until I hear the gamification pushers actively

and with intellectual honesty describing the
ribbons-for-drawings-inhibits-kids-from-
drawing studies or the monkeys-rewarded-
for-puzzle-solving-make-more-errors-than-
those-NOT-rewarded research that kicked off
Dan Pink’s book, we cannot even begin to
have a conversation, let alone work together
in a meaningful way. The “other side” is either
unaware of the deeper implications of this
work, or just not willing to put their current
success at risk to acknowledge it. Either way,
trouble.

I will say, this has disturbed me enough to

write for the first time in four years. So,
there’s that. And on this topic, I am only just
getting warmed up.

Reply

Hugh MacLeod says

June 13, 2011 at 11:22 pm

Hey Kathy, Thanks for that…

The Internet has the same problem as

TV does IMHO: people (usually
professional marketers) pretending that
what they’re offering is a meaningful way
to send time and energy.

The only way to fight it IMHO is to create

meaningful work oneself, WITHOUT
having relying on somebody else’s
“content” in order to do so.

Everybody is born creative. The trick is

not letting the world take that away from
you.

Reply

Teal says
September 27, 2012 at
7:11 pm

The beautiful diversity (of each) is

subsumed in the structure of the
system, leaving us poorer. And also
leaving us indirectly, in debt, as one
of the premises of stuff that is
 hollow, is the value is extracted out.
There is no equitable exchange of
value. We cannot give of ourselves,
and we get in return, food without
nurture.

Reply

41. Rajat Paharia says

June 14, 2011 at 2:31 am

1. There is no magic pixie dust.

2. Marketing is about influencing behavior.

3. Companies competing on “Likes”, etc. are

missing the point. It’s only useful if it’s a proxy for
revenue. This article is a good case in point:
http://adage.com/article/news/gatorade-s-g-
campaign-a-sales-success/138368/

4. Making a Great Product and Making Users

Awesome are two different things. You can only
Make Users Awesome or “make people better at
something they want to be better at” if your
product is an enabler, but that’s a very small class
of products, like your books. You’re looking at the
world through a very narrow lens.
5. Not all products can be made “great” enough to
stand out. Which is one of the reasons marketing
exists. To add an intangible to the tangible, that
makes you want the product. Coke is carbonated
sugar water. It can’t stand out on that metric. And
as a business, they have no choice but to
compete on the intangible.

6. Game mechanics divorced from any core

content or intrinsic value have no longevity. We tell
our customers that all the time.
http://gamification.com/post/5793012729/how-
gaming-fails-foursquare-pcmag-com-gamification

7. Plenty of people have read Deci, Pink, etc. It’s

naive to think that intrinsic motivators are enough.
If they were, we’d all be skinny, healthy and smart.
To quote Roland Fryer Jr. from Harvard: “Kids
should learn for the love of learning,” he says. “But
they’re not. So what shall we do?” He’s doing
studies that show that incentives can work in
education:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978589,00.html

8. Incentives can also work in health. HopeLab

has shown a 30% increase in tween physical
activity with their Zamzee product, the equivalent
of running an extra marathon a month.
http://www.hopelab.org/innovative-
solutions/zamzee/

9. Implicit in your arguments, and that of most

gamification critics, is a belief that people are
dumb and easily manipulated into doing things
that are counter to their best interests. I disagree. I
think people figure out pretty quickly if they’re not
getting value, and they disengage. So you need to
provide them meaningful value. We wrote about
this here:
http://mashable.com/2011/05/28/gamify-your-
startup/

10. You have a problem with one person’s point of

view on gamification, and you’re attacking the
whole concept because of it. And doing it in a
similarly hyperbolic manner. None of which seems
productive.

– rajat
Founder, Chief Product Officer
http://www.bunchball.com

Reply

Kathy Sierra says

June 14, 2011 at 1:38 pm

Rajat, you make some good points, but we

are both falling into the problem I have with
gamification in the first place: the issues
around it are subtle and complex, and can’t
BE explored deeply in posts, comments, slide
decks, etc. There are just too many
conditions that *matter*.

I will address a couple things you said,

though:
“You can only Make Users Awesome or
“make people better at something they want
to be better at” if your product is an enabler,
but that’s a very small class of products, like
your books. You’re looking at the world
through a very narrow lens.”

Wow, really? A “very small class of

products”?

Wow.

I am trying to imagine how this makes

sense… a world full of people creating
products and services that do not enable
ANYTHING?

To quote Hugh, year’s ago, when this SAME

point came up: “If you think this, then you’re
not being creative.” As I’ve said in the past,
ANY brand can become an enabling “tool”
even if the product itself isn’t. It requires
asking, as I learned from Tim O’Reilly, “What
is your product, or the solution you’re giving,
a SUBSET of?” In other words, what is the
bigger/cooler thing your tool, product, solution
exists within? And you can expand that
sphere as far as needed.

Start-ups are always asked, “What problem

do you solve?” And while I agree that this
question alone does not immediately get you
to the “enabling” part, a very simple *follow-
up* does: “What would having that solution
mean to your users?” In other words, what
WOULD be enabled if the user had that
solution? Any start-up that cannot make that
simple next link may already be in trouble.

As for everything else you said, I will add

these three points:
1) Gamification claims to be using “game
mechanics” but virtually all concepts in the
gamification sphere were used *FIRST* by
sports/performance. So yes, we DO see very
effective use-cases within sports and fitness,
and of course these things can work. I never
said they weren’t effective. I said that
gamification marketers were not making the
appropriate and subtle (but powerful and
crucial) distinctions.

Like the stunningly bad Saatchi and Saatchi

“study” that asked employees a question
about “games” and then sparked a headline
heard ’round the blog/tweet-sphere that
people wanted “gamification”. Games !=
gamification, and if the Big Guys cannot get
that straight, we cannot expect them to get
any of the rest of it straight.

2) Your company markets, sells, lives and

breathes a gamification solution. Your future
depends on people *not* listening to people
like me, and I believe you’re safe there. I’m
not even a real blogger. Further, I asked Dan
Pink why he hasn’t really spoken out on this,
and his response was that these are subtle
issues and, “once greed is involved”, subtlety
disappears.

I find it even more disturbing that the moment

the gamification marketers are pushed about
potentially ethical questions, they bring up
health. But in marketing spheres, they bring
up Playboy’s gamification success in getting
more college girls competing for Playboy
spreads, and Miller getting more people to
buy beer.

Just be honest about it. It’s about exploitation

which, by the way, I am often in FAVOR of. If I
thought I could get kids to actually “get” math
by using a world of brain hacks, nothing
would stop me.

But if those same hacks would eventually

lead to LESS interest in the actual behavior,
then we must tread very carefully. I’m asking
for caution. A big fat PAUSE button, not a
NEVER GO THERE.

3. As for kid’s/education:
“Kids should learn for the love of learning,” he
says. “But they’re not. So what shall we do?”

Wow. Again, really? I cannot imagine anyone

even remotely connected to education who
would frame this with such simplicity. Those
two sentences are so far off the rails I can
barely imagine how anyone could take that
seriously. If you have studied the deep
implications around theories of self-
determination, then to frame it in this way
makes no sense at all. Of COURSE we are
not trying to inspire a “for the love of
LEARNING”. But as for the “so what shall we
do?” there are about a thousand other
answers that have NOTHING to do with
gamification in *any* form.

For just one example:

Question: what do Jimmy Wales, Jeff Bezos,
Will Wright (game designer god), Google’s
Larry and Sergey have in common?
Answer: they all got their start in schools that
did *not* use any form of extrinsic reward for
performance… no grades, no tests. no
homework, and sure as hell no gamification.
Yes, yes, correlation/causation and all that.

I agree that incentives will work *extremely*

well if it’s about getting kids to “learn” enough
to pass more tests. Of COURSE it’s easy to
find ways in which incentives seem to work.
Just stroll down any gaming hall and look at
the slot machines. My point is NEVER that
reward incentives do not *work* for increasing
behavior. My point is that they DO. The issue
is that not enough people are asking the
deeper question of whether the
rewarded/reinforced/strengthened behavior is
the behavior we actually want, in the long-
run. And in the meantime, the danger of
destroying the deeper behavior we really DO
want is clear. (“writers rewarded for their
poetry begin writing lower-quality poems”,
etc.)

Anyone who can so easily dismiss decades

of research by multiple scientists on multiple
fronts does not appear to have much respect
for science. Whole ‘nother issue…

Reply
 Rajat Paharia says
June 15, 2011 at 2:32 am

Thanks for engaging in conversation

Kathy. I’ll make a few final
clarifications/responses and then stop,
because you’re right that this isn’t a good
forum to explore the depth and subtlety
involved.

There are a class of products that

intrinsically are enabling/empowering,
like educational books. There are large
classes of products don’t fit in this
category. Coke, The Real Housewives of
Atlanta, Twilight. Or that are enablers but
undifferentiated from every other product
in their class: credit cards, airlines,
lawnmowers. Your post talks about
products, not about brands: “If the
product makes the users awesome (at
whatever the product is helping them
do), no special secret magic pixie dust
sauce is needed either.” All the products
above by themselves can’t make users
awesome.

“ANY brand can become an enabling

“tool” even if the product itself isn’t.” –
absolutely. Coke can help people make
their way through law school, run
marathons, and speak a foreign
language. This is all marketing, creating
the intangible, and has nothing to do with
the product, which could be sugar water,
makeup, or chickens. The product is
irrelevant if you expand the sphere
enough, and every brand can make
people awesome, even if the product
can’t. And that is an arms race – that you
can win until someone does you one
better.

I loved “Drive”.
– Dan Pink did offer an opinion on
gamification here:
http://gametuned.com/2011/05/gamification-
and-motivation-3-0/

“Gamification could go either way —

towards 2.0 if the rewards are the point
of the exercise, towards 3.0 if the
rewards are a form of feedback,
information, and a way to make progress
and achieve flow.”

– He’s doing a webcast later this week

with the aptly named company – I Love
Rewards: http://bit.ly/j8t9Hs

I don’t understand how you can call

anything exploitation that provides value
to both the business and the end user. If
the end user receives no value, then
they’re getting screwed. As I said before,
they’ll figure this out quickly and
disengage.

I’m sure Jimmy Wales, Jeff Bezos, Will

Wright, and Google’s Larry and Sergey
are all brilliant. As are a lot of people
who didn’t go to Montessori schools. And
a lot of people who went to those
schools aren’t so brilliant. I don’t
understand the point you were trying to
make.

It’s been hard for me to parse out your

key themes, but here’s what I think
you’re saying in the end:

1. Products should be
enabling/empowering. In the absence of
the ability to do that with your product,
then your marketing should be about
enabling/empowering. I think that’s a
great aspirational goal.

2. Extrinsic rewards negatively affect

intrinsic motivation. This is known. As
you said, it’s a subtle issue. What if there
is no existing intrinsic motivation? What if
it’s for the person’s own good? What if
it’s algorithmic work instead of heuristic
work? Why do we expect kids in school
to have intrinsic motivation to learn,
when a good chunk of the population has
only extrinsic motivation (a paycheck) to
work?
Your advice: proceed with caution.

3. You don’t like gamification, how it’s

being used and some of the people
promoting it. Fair enough.

Going forward I’d love it if you could

highlight when you see what you think
are stellar examples of game-design
principles used in non-gaming contexts –
it would be a great learning experience
for me, and I’m sure for others.

– rajat

Reply

Dad says
July 2, 2011 at 10:20 pm

I think you have the extrinsic /

intrinsic school / work backwards.
People of jobs that are only
extrinsically motivating because
they didn’t grow up in an
environment that encouraged them
to explore those things that had
intrinsic value to them. If more
people had intrinsically motiving
early educational experiences,
there’d be more people in jobs that
were intrinsically satisfying. That’s
kind of a side-point of the list of
people Kathy mentioned and the
fact that they have *created* those
jobs for themselves, because they
knew they wanted them and knew
they could.

Reply
 42. country house says
June 14, 2011 at 3:06 am

right man

Reply

43. Andrew Lightheart says

June 14, 2011 at 6:19 am

Hi Kathy

This post made me go back to the first archives of

Creating Passionate Users and start reading.

One of the things that stands out for me about

your work is that your writing is structured to
reward the reader to (a) continue reading but also
(b) to go and take action, be successful (or not)
and come back to read more.

‘Gamification’ (bleurgh) seems to want to keep

people in the system and away from the world.

And that’s before getting into the moral side of

things, as discussed above.
Seems to me (and as a meditator, I would say
this) that one way is awakening whereas the other
way is deadening.

(Sidebar: I ‘discovered’ you just before you left

Twitter, and haven’t had a way of saying thanks
before. Every time I read a few sentences of
yours, I sit, stare, then get my keys on the
keyboard. So, heartfelt thank you and a grateful
finger wave from across the sea.)

Reply

44. gwendolyn alley says

June 14, 2011 at 1:47 pm

This post inspired me to share the link on my blog

and to review a blog post I wrote about what
Kathy Sierra had to say at WordCamp 2008.

Now it seems like everything I read is related to

this topic. (OK, an exageration but there’s a
conversation about gaming and wine at Good
Grape and another on Robert McIntyre’s wine
blog about wine education that related for me too).

Thanks Hugh for getting Kathy to guest blog here!

I hope she visits again!

Reply

45. Kathy Sierra says

 June 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Ohhhh please everyone, if you are at all interested

in the gamification discussion, go read this quick
post by “Theory of Fun” author:

http://www.raphkoster.com/2011/06/14/deterding-
does-philosophy/

But then please WATCH the entire (long)

slideshare deck by Sebastian Deterding, game
scholar. He is often cited, like Amy Jo Kim, as a
person embracing “gamification”, but both of them
are not afraid to tackle the subtleties. I’m still in
Ian Bogost’s camp that the whole word
“gamification” has already been burned and
cannot be rehabilitated. But whether you use that
word or not, the points these folks make are deep,
thoughtful, accurate, and totally useful.

Reply

46. criticallearner says

June 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Tremendous article. This should cause folks to

look back and consider some true reasons for
employing social, gamification, , and their impacts
vs just “trending with the market/customers”.

Yesterday, I blogged about how I think the learning

community is largely missing a huge potential
area of “gamification” to explore.
As a group, I think we still are stuck on discussing
the “sizzle” (3D, interactive, engaging, mobile,
motion-control, augmented reality…). Even the
“motivation/incentive” discussions tend to focus on
“sizzle”.

But I’m interested in the “steak”. Today’s work

landscape is dynamic and team-based. MMO
game mechanics seem to have more of the
secrets to measuring and individual’s performance
given these factors worked out than any traditional
training development tool or measurement
construct I have seen. I think exploration into
these techniques can allow training designers to
more fairly assess performance in a way that
reflects the reality of today’s workforce.

Any insights into these thoughts, I would be eager

to hear.

Kathy has certainly given me a whole new layer of

factors to consider while exploring. Thanks to
opening my mind to these additional insights.

Reply

Kathy Sierra says

June 26, 2011 at 8:08 pm

Agree that games excel in feedback loops,

and THAT is essential to learning and
improvement of any kind. The current issue of
Wired has at least two excellent pieces on
feedback loops, and that’s the part we need.
 And while feedback is essential in a
successful game, we also find feedback in
virtually ANY strong performance
improvement environment. Performing artists,
martial artists, dancers, chess masters,
athletes, all have coaches and systems for
real-time *useful* feedback.

So yes, I agree we can learn quite a lot from

the way games do this, but we can learn even
more from environments that successfully
build expertise. Sportsification (kidding)

Some of the most successful coaches are

known for providing *useful* feedback while
being very light on “praise”. It is all about the
intrinsic motivation.

Reply

47. dawn kotzer says

June 15, 2011 at 6:01 pm

Wowza! Kathy. good article, good comments and

good replies…the learnin’ never stops. Win-win-
win. So let me get this straight-I GET TO use Venn
diagrams (which i secretly think are kinda cool) to
discover where my stuff and my clients needs and
stuff makes THEM LOOK BETTER? Woohoo! I’m
a creativity coach who works with life’s deeper
issues…my ‘game’ plan as a creativity coach?
“YOU! that’s it. YOU’RE IT. What can i do to help
make YOU feel more YOU?” Pixiedust and ‘How
may i serve you’ ala`Venn diagram here we come.

Reply

48. Violette Calhoun says

June 21, 2011 at 1:29 pm

You’re right about having an awesome product.

There’s no shortcut around that.

The gamification aspect of Code School has made

learning to program fun for over 40,000 users who
have gone through our free Rails for Zombies
course since we launched in November of last
year.

Sure, you have to have great content. But points

and fun screencasts really help to take dry,
sometimes intimidating material and introduce it to
a wide audience.

Reply

Kathy Sierra says

June 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm

Violette, I would argue that Code School does

not *need* the gamification precisely
BECAUSE it is already doing so many things
so much better than competitors. Nobody is
 coming to learn Rails for Zombies *because*
you have those elements… they are coming
because the course is (from all that I have
heard) an outstanding way to learn. I think
Rails for Zombies is getting away with what
might otherwise be a really bad idea (the
what-looks-like-gamification parts) because of
both the context in which those gamification
elements are used, and because it is more
like an extra layer of design icing rather than
ANY attempt to provide motivation.
So far, it seems Rails for Zombies passes the
“make users more awesome” in spectacular
ways. The gamification-like elements appear
to me a reflection of Code School’s desire to
craft an experience that best supports an
engaged learner. They are not needed, but
given the context, I doubt they are doing any
damage. I wish they were not using them,
though, because it is just one more way for
people to see a gamification=success story
missing the deeper (and I hope more
obvious) benefit Code School is providing,
and one that so far sets them apart. Nothing
mediocre there!

Reply

49. Will says

June 23, 2011 at 1:09 am
Also:

BOSE sold speakers for decades that really kinda

sucked.

But their Pixie Dust marketing seemed to do the

trick.

I have never heard ANYbody mention KEF,

Paradigm, Focal, and Monitor Audio as much as
I’ve heard mention of BOSE.

Proof that Pixie Dust can sell crap for a long time.

Reply

50. Stephan H. Wissel says

July 7, 2011 at 12:35 am

Can we start a “we want Kathie back” movement?

Awesome article. Love it. Now where was my jar
of pixie dust?

Reply

51. Deanna Harms says

July 20, 2011 at 10:32 am

Absolutley, wholeheartedly agree. Social media’s

transparency and authenticity will eventually
separate the doers from the posers. The pixie dust
may blind us momentarily, but not forever.

Reply

52. Andrew Edgecombe says

July 30, 2011 at 8:28 am

Kathy, you have just made my week!

You’ve just added another page to the long list of
your work that I regularly direct people to read.
It’s fantastic, and refreshing, to see that you’re still
writing and still sharing.
A very sincere “Thank you” 🙂

Reply

53. Joe Smith - really! says

April 4, 2012 at 8:14 am

Thank-you for reminding us that if “Perception is

reality” suggests a marketing strategy, the concept
that “Reality is reality.” is a far better beginning.

Also, let’s mention behavioral psychology and its

insights into rewards affecting behavior change as
the fundament of “gamification”. My guess is that
these research pioneers would be appalled at the
trivialization of their work to the present corporate
ends. Corporate branding through gamification
transforms altruism onto exploitation.

Reply

54. Lokard Desmock says

June 2, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Good post. I study one thing tougher on totally

different blogs everyday. It can always be
stimulating to read content from different writers
and apply a bit of one thing from their store. I’d
favor to make use of some with the content
material on my blog whether or not you don’t
mind. Natually I’ll provide you with a hyperlink on
your web blog. Thanks for sharing.

Reply

55. Calenti says

October 24, 2012 at 11:15 am

We miss you, Kathy. Good to know you’re still out

there.

Reply
Trackbacks
1. Where to use (insert buzzword) » The Blogging
Nurseryman by Trey Pitsenberger says:
June 7, 2011 at 6:25 pm
[…] blog titled, Creating Passionate Users. Today’s guest
post at Hugh’s was titled, “Pixie Dust And The Mountain
of Mediocrity”. Look’s like Kathy has many of the same
insights, but perhaps explained in a […]

2. Posturing Wastes Corporate Content | Geoff

Livingston's Blog says:
June 7, 2011 at 8:22 pm
[…] on Gaping Void, Kathy Sierra had a stirring post, “Pixie
Dust & the Mountain of Mediocrity” to this effect: “If people
love what a product, book, service let’s them *do*, they […]

3. Social Media Pixie Dust – Kathy Sierra | Andrew

Munro's Blog says:
June 8, 2011 at 7:06 am
[…] don’t intend for this blog to suddenly become all social
media but this post by Kathy Sierra on gapingvoid.com
seems too pertinent to […]

4. Quit selling garden stuff » The Blogging Nurseryman

by Trey Pitsenberger says:
June 8, 2011 at 8:50 am
[…] a pleasure reading Kathy Sierra’s post yesterday at
gapingvoid.com. One thing lead to another and the next
thing you know, I’m […]

5. Fans, Friends, Followers, and the Reason Why None

of it Matters | MackCollier.com - Social Media Training
and Consulting says:
June 8, 2011 at 11:23 am
[…] PluginI’ve tried to stay off the soapbox for the most part
here the past two years, but the first blog post from Kathy
Sierra in 4 years has got my mind […]

6. Pixie Dust and Purpose Driven Sites « AU MA Social

Media says:
June 8, 2011 at 11:37 am
[…] passed along the blog post “Pixie Dust & The Mountain
of Mediocrity” to me today and I thought it was worth
sharing for a few […]

7. Links for June 8th | jonathan stegall: creative tension

says:
June 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm
[…] Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity | gapingvoid
[…]

8. The Answer: A Good Product « Marketing Artist says:

June 8, 2011 at 4:59 pm
[…] post by Kathy Sierra on gapingvoid.com, “Pixie Dust &
The Mountain of Mediocrity.” If you’re in marketing, then you
[…]

9. viralsocialmarketing.com » The Art of Keeping Your

Audience Coming Back for More says:
June 9, 2011 at 10:55 am
[…] mystery, anticipation, and fever around the release of
your next product by building something that does so much
for customers that they can’t wait to get their hands on […]

10. The Art of Keeping Your Audience Coming Back for

More says:
June 9, 2011 at 2:47 pm
[…] mystery, anticipation, and fever around the release of
your next product by building something that does so much
for customers that they can’t wait to get their hands on […]

11. Is Your Brand Tasty? — Gamified Loyalty says:

June 10, 2011 at 12:58 am
[…] online this week about how evil and bad gamification is.
Really? Here we go again. While the recent anti-
gamification blog post raises some interesting points most
of it sounds like same old same […]

12. Five for Friday says:

June 10, 2011 at 2:27 am
[…] Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity – This may be
my new favorite analogy for social media. In general there is
no amount of magic or spin that can make you rock or be
successful in the space it is all about hard work and making
meaningful connections that translate into action. This post
calls that out in some lovely terms. […]

13. On Our Minds @ Scholastic » Pixie dust isn’t going

to magically transform schools says:
June 10, 2011 at 9:28 am
[…] picked this up via a tweet from David Jakes yesterday
— a post on Hugh MacLeod’s blog that, from the
perspective of someone who works for a company that
develops technology for […]

14. The Art of Keeping Your Audience Coming Back for

More says:
June 11, 2011 at 4:06 pm
[…] mystery, anticipation, and fever around the release of
your next product by building something that does so much
for customers that they can’t wait to get their hands on […]

15. viralsocialmarketing.com » Copyblogger Weekly

Wrap says:
June 11, 2011 at 9:15 pm
[…] Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity: This one hits
home with me because it contends that making users more
awesome is something you should be paying attention to.
And… you know… I agree. […]

16. Gamification and pixie dust | Population of One

says:
June 12, 2011 at 8:02 am
[…] what they really want: rat pellets! Or, er, something else
maybe. Then this morning I saw a link to this article by
Kathy Sierra and knew I needed to link to it here. Kathy
gives some cogent arguments about why the latest […]

17. Around the web | alexking.org says:

June 12, 2011 at 1:08 pm
[…] Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity | gapingvoid –
I’ve got some notes in various places that I should pull
together for a semi-related post. […]

18. June 13, 2011: The Kathy Sierra Question « Rails

Test Prescriptions Blog says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:52 am
[…] a good thing when I’m reminded that my projects need
a little more Kathy Sierra, and she dismantles unneeded
social networking and gamification in a blog post this week.
The takeaway is that you don’t want to be the kind of
product […]

19. Why Every Marketer Should Run a P&L | Geoff

Livingston's Blog says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:00 pm
[…] hard to actually do is build a great product or service.
Until you actually have a product or service that beats the
daylights out of the competing […]

20. Tuesday Tips from Kathy Sierra on How To Kick *,

Create Passion, Do It All Better « The Write Alley says:
June 14, 2011 at 12:10 am
[…] Last week, Kathy Sierra wrote a guest post for Hugh
McLeod’s “gaping void” blog ab…. (FYI, Hugh McLeod is
famous for some outrageous marketing ideas for wine and
tweed as well as drawing insightful cartoons which he also
uses in his best-selling book Ignore Everybody.) In her
guest post, Kathy Sierra asks, “why are people still so
convinced that social media and all related buzzwords are
The Answer?” when, if the product is truly crap, “your social
media strategy won’t save you.” […]

21. Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity |

gapingvoid - bookmarks says:
June 15, 2011 at 11:20 am
[…] http://old.gapingvoid.com/2011/06/07/pixie-dust-the-
mountain-of-mediocrity/ Tags: social media Posted on: June
15th, 2011 […]

22. What I Learned From Our 2WAY Summit, Part 2 |

TechDiem.com says:
June 16, 2011 at 8:02 am
[…] Rangaswami, chief scientist of Salesforce.com,
mentioned this post by Kathy Sierra that caught my
attention: “why are so many so convinced that [insert
favorite buzzword] is […]

23. What I Learned From Our 2WAY Summit, Part 2 —

NetworqScience Blog says:
June 16, 2011 at 8:04 am
[…] Rangaswami, chief scientist of Salesforce.com,
mentioned this post by Kathy Sierra that caught my
attention: “why are so many so convinced that [insert
favorite buzzword] is […]

24. What I Learned From Our 2WAY Summit, Part 2 says:

June 16, 2011 at 8:05 am
[…] Rangaswami, chief scientist of Salesforce.com,
mentioned this post by Kathy Sierra that caught my
attention: "why are so many so convinced that [insert
favorite buzzword] is the […]

25. What I Learned From Our 2WAY Summit, Part 2 |

Golden Key Coaching says:
June 16, 2011 at 8:13 am
[…] Rangaswami, chief scientist of Salesforce.com,
mentioned this post by Kathy Sierra that caught my
attention: "why are so many so convinced that [insert
favorite buzzword] is the […]

26. Pixie Dust » RAMBLR says:

June 16, 2011 at 11:50 am
[…] Sierra on Gapingvoid […]

27. Conferentie-organisatoren, train je sprekers | Ernst-

Jan Pfauth says:
June 16, 2011 at 2:25 pm
[…] blog lezen we van voor tot achteren. Een lezing
gameficaction? Been there, done that, door een blogpost
van Kathy Sierra op Gapingvoid.com. […]

28. marketing fairy dust | Tom Fishburne: Marketoonist

says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:01 pm
[…] Sierra wrote a wonderful post recently called, “Pixie
Dust and the Mountain of Mediocrity“. It includes these […]

29. TAOggregator Feed » Dru Sellers: Learning and

Growth says:
June 20, 2011 at 10:05 am
[…] TEACH anyone how to actually ‘be awesome’. -mack
collier – comment from Kathy Sierra’s guest post on Gaping
Void via […]

30. Gary Vaynerchuk (@garyvee) Answers Tough

Questions | Geoff Livingston's Blog says:
June 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm
[…] Kathy Sierra recently said on the Gaping Void blog that
your work is great because you make others better. [How]
do you hope the industry will improve as a result of these
conversations and The Thank You Economy? AKPC_IDS
+= "3571,";Popularity: unranked [?] […]

31. Friday Links « 800 CEO Read says:

June 24, 2011 at 4:14 pm
[…] I’ve read recently on Hugh MacLeod’s gapinvoid site
earlier this month. It was about Pixie Dust and The
Mountain of Mediocrity, or how companies go about
representing themselves online. The answer has always
been there: to […]

32. What I Learned From Our 2WAY Summit, Part 2 |

JetLib News says:
June 26, 2011 at 5:08 am
[…] Rangaswami, chief scientist of Salesforce.com,
mentioned this post by Kathy Sierra that caught my
attention: “why are so many so convinced that [insert
favorite buzzword] is […]

33. Substance® says:

June 28, 2011 at 5:50 pm
[…] de las redes sociales (y sin depender siempre de los
medios pagados). Como dice Katy Sierra en este excelente
post, no seas la marca de la que la gente habla por tu
última estrategia de gamification o social o de […]

34. Gamification news you may have missed – June 13,

2011 — Gamified Loyalty says:
July 1, 2011 at 12:57 am
[…] Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity gapingvoid,
6/7/2011: A counter from Kathy Sierra to the current
gamification buzz. I agree with many of the points, and hope
that we can continue to develop tools and services that help
online publishers make their users awesome and create
passionate users. But I also know we won’t cut out the high
fructose corn syrup completely – it’s ok to add a splash here
and there. […]

35. Gary Vaynerchuk (@garyvee) Answers Tough

Questions | Join the Service! says:
July 14, 2011 at 4:21 am
[…] Kathy Sierra recently said on the Gaping Void blog that
your work is great because you make others better. [How]
do you hope the industry will improve as a result of these
conversations and The Thank You Economy? […]

36. Marketing fairy dust « Management Briefs says:

July 18, 2011 at 9:18 am
[…] Sierra wrote a wonderful post recently called, “Pixie
Dust and the Mountain of Mediocrity“. It includes these […]

37. Getting Better « Kick-It! Training says:

July 18, 2011 at 10:15 pm
[…] Kathy Sierra wrote a great post for Hugh McCleod’s
Gapingvoid blog. In it she said, ” Just make people better
at something they want to be better at. There’s a huge
difference between helping someone *appear* more
awesome and helping them actually BE more awesome.”
It’s easy to get caught up in the science of testing and lose
the performance of the player. It’s also easy be enamored of
the sparkle and shine of a fast time or a big jump. In the
end though it comes back to that one simple thing – did I
help someone actually get better at something they wanted
to be better at. […]

38. | Blog | Learning and Growth says:

August 13, 2011 at 7:30 pm
[…] TEACH anyone how to actually ‘be awesome’. -mack
collier – comment from Kathy Sierra’s guest post on Gaping
Void via […]

39. What Can VolunTourism Learn from the Debate on

“Gamification”? says:
August 31, 2011 at 7:05 am
[…] with a poke at ‘gamification’? Well, Kathy Sierra offered
up a dandy entitled “Pixie Dust and the Mountain of
Mediocrity.” Literally the heart of what she wrote about is
contained in these words: Which brings me […]

40. Reflections on Culture, Consumer, Style, Tech and

Green Trends for 2012 | EcoSalon | Conscious Culture
and Fashion says:
January 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm
[…] Void: Hugh Mcleod’s prescient insights into mediocrity
(including Kathy Sierra!) and […]

41. War Room Inc | The Art of Keeping Your Audience

Coming Back for More says:
January 6, 2012 at 2:31 pm
[…] mystery, anticipation, and fever around the release of
your next product by building something that does so much
for customers that they can’t wait to get their hands on […]

42. Solaris: What comes next? « oracle fusion identity

says:
April 1, 2012 at 4:48 am
[…] They recommended our research techniques could be
improved over just sitting around reading blogs and
checking our Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest accounts,
such as considering input from alternate viewpoints on
topics such as gamification. […]

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields
are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for

the next time I comment.
 Post Comment

Multi-tasking
(This post is part of an ongoing series with Brian Solis “17 Cartoons
That Will Change Your Business,” inspired by Brian’s book, “What’s The
Future Of Business?” …
February 27, 2014 Continue Reading
Generation C
(This post is part of an ongoing series with Brian Solis “17 Cartoons
That Will Change Your Business,” inspired by Brian’s book, “What’s The
Future Of Business?” …
February 18, 2014 Continue Reading
This Stuff Is Hard…
(This post is part of an ongoing series with Brian Solis “17 Cartoons
That Will Change Your Business,” inspired by Brian’s book, “What’s The
Future …
February 3, 2014 Continue Reading

Are you ready to work with us?

Contact Us
Home Culture Design Services Press Our Story Blog
Contact Us Subscribe For Free Privacy Policy

© 2019 · Gapingvoid