ISSN 2079-6617 (Print)
ISSN 2309-9828 (Online)
Gamification of promotional discourse practices on TV: the problem of influencing mass consciousness of the audience

Gamification of promotional discourse practices on TV: the problem of influencing mass consciousness of the audience

PDF (Rus)

Recieved: 10/18/2018

Accepted: 03/05/2019

Published: 04/30/2019

p.: 122-131

DOI: 10.11621/npj.2019.0111

Keywords: gamification; TV promo discourse; manipulative impact; online gaming ; virtual reality

Available online: 30.04.2019

To cite this article:

Maligina, Lidiya E.. Gamification of promotional discourse practices on TV: the problem of influencing mass consciousness of the audience. // National Psychological Journal 2019. 1. p.122-131. doi: 10.11621/npj.2019.0111

Copied to Clipboard

Issue 1, 2019

Maligina, Lidiya E. Lomonosov Moscow State University


Background. The paper focuses on manipulating the mass consciousness of the audience. Traditionally, this issue has been considered as an attempt to present the advertising of a TV product as information, but within the digital age, there is a desire to present promotion of TV content as a game. However, the “non-gaming” goals of the institutions that stand behind video games and games in alternate reality may be hidden from the players and serve commercial goals.

Objective. The study focuses on identifying and describing the advantages and disadvantages of using gamification in the TV promo-discourse. The author examines examples of using games in alternative reality and also multiplayer online games in real time in order to attract the attention of films and TV series viewers, analyzes the causes of success and failure of similar projects in related fields, and also in science and business.

Design. The study is valuable for interdisciplinary approach. Analyzing the use of gamification techniques in the TV promo-discourse the author raises topical issues of media psychology, perception psychology, philosophy of video games, ethics, communicative stylistics and media stylistics.

The paper highlights philological methods designed according to the tasks of the research: communicative discursive analysis, synchronic descriptive and synchronic comparative methods. The description of the provisions and forms of persuasive communication as applied to TV promotions includes elements of logical meaning-specific analysis (i.e. argumentative analysis), and also intentional, ethical and psychological analysis. This approach helps to give an adequate description of gamification effects in TV promodiscourse.

Results. The author comes to the conclusion that the ability of game mechanics to motivate mass recepients of the TV promo discourse to watch television programs is enormous, but the viewers of the TV channels need to be critical of gamification projects: they have to understand the purposes they are framed to, and take part in projects whose non-gamer goals are merely civil without implying exploitation of the gamer. Framed to the ethical norms gamification in the TV promotion can be both an effective tool for promoting TV content, and also a way to change the social order for the better.

Conclusion.Theoretical conclusions of the study of the mass consciousness manipulation through using gamification in TV promotions can be widely used in teaching medialinguistics, speech culture, TV, philosophy of video games, humanitarian researche of video game, etc. The results of this study seem to be useful to media professionals.


  1. Aarseth E.J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 

  2. Aarseth E.J. (2001). Allegories of Space. The Question of Spatiality in Computer Games. Cybertext Yearbook 2000 (ed. R.Koskimaa). Saarijärvi: Research Centre for Contemporary Culture, 152–171. 

  3. Aarseth E.J. (2001). Computer Game Studies, Year One. Game Studies, 1(1). Retrieved from: (accessed 10.12.2018).

  4. Arjoranta J. (2011). Do We Need Real-Time Hermeneutics? Structures of Meaning in Games. DiGRA ‘11—Proceedings of the 2011DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play, vol. 6. URL: 17396.pdf. (accessed10.12.2018).

  5. Biryukova E.V., & Popova L.G. (2015). On the development trends of modern comparative historical, typological, comparative linguistics. [Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki]. 11–3 (53),40–43.

  6. Bogost I. (2011). How to Do Things with Videogames. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. doi: 10.5749/minnesota/9780816676460.001.0001

  7. Bolter D., & Gruzin R. A. (1999). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  8. Demjankov V. (2013) Implied reference to audience: on organizational rhetoric of mass media. Mediensprache und Medienkommunikation im interdisziplinären und interkulturellen Vergleich: Mit einem einleitenden Beitrag von Ludwig M. Eichinger. Mannheim, Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 73–84. 

  9. Dybovskii N. (2012) Enemy Behind My Back! The Importance of Time in the Gaming Experience. Retrieved from: post/443. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  10. Frasca G. (2003). Simulation vs Narrative: Introduction to Ludology. The Video Game Theory Reader. London, New York, Routledge, 221–236. Retrieved from: VGT_final.pdf. 

  11. Frasca G. (2014). Ludologists Love Stories, Too: Notes from a Debate that Never Took Place. DiGRA ‘03—Proceedings of the 2003DiGRA International Conference: Level Up, vol. 2.Retrieved from: (accessed 10.12.2018).

  12. Harvey A., & Samyn M. (2006). Realtime Art Manifesto. Gaming Realities: the Challenge of Digital Culture (ed. M. Santorineos). Athens: FOURNOS Centre for the Digital Culture. Retrieved from: 10.12.2018).

  13. Jones M. (2011). Ludology “Versus” Narratology. Procedural Creativity. Retrieved from: 10.12.2018).

  14. Juul J. (2000).What Computer Games Can and Can’t Do. Paper presented at the Digital Arts and Culture Conference. Retrieved from: text/wcgcacd.html. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  15. Juul J. (2003). The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings (eds M. Copier, J.Raessens). Utrecht: Utrecht University, 30–45. Retrieved from: (accessed 10.12.2018).

  16. Juul J. (2008). What Pac-Man really looks like. from: (accessed 10.12.2018).

  17. Malygina L.E. (2011). Modern TV announcement: information or manipulation? National Psychological Joiurnal,2, 60–64.

  18. Manovich L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 

  19. Mateas M., & Stern A. (2005). Build It to Understand It: Ludology Meets Narratology in Game Design Space. DiGRA ’05 — Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play, vol. 3. Retrieved from: publications/build-it-to-understand-itludology-meets-narratology-in-gamedesign-space/.(accessed 10.12.2018).

  20. Mayra F. (2008). An Introduction to Game Studies: Games in Culture. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications. 

  21. McManus A., & Fenstein A. (2006). Narratology and Ludology: Competing Paradigms or Complementary Theories in Simulation. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, vol. 33. Retrieved from: https://journals. article/view/546/515.  (accessed 10.12.2018).

  22. Montfort N., Bogost I. (2009). Racing the Beam: the Atari Video Computer System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/7588.001.0001

  23. Murray J. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: the Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: Free Press. 

  24. Osipovskaya E.A. (2016). Game media space of English-language multimedia: new trends in genre education. Ph.D in Philology.M.

  25. Ostrikova G.N., Zheltukhina M.R., Zyubina I.A., & Sidorova I.G. (2018). Learning Via Visualization at the Present Stage of Teaching a Foreign Language. Astra Salvensis, VI, 1,601-607.

  26. Pearce C. (2005). Theory Wars: an Argument Against Argument in the So-Called Ludology. Narratology Debate. DiGRA ‘05—Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play, Vol. 3. Retrieved from: digital-library/publications/theorywars-an-argument-againstarguments-in-the-so-calledludologynarratology-debate/.(accessed 10.12.2018).

  27. Pinchbeck D. (2010). I Build to Study: A Manifesto for Development Led research in Games. Under the Mask. University of Bedfordshire. URL: document/view/9024697/i-build-tostudy-a-manifesto-for-developmentled-thechineseroom.

  28. Salin A. (2015). Gamification: how does it work? Gumanitarnye diskussii.Retrieved from: 10.12.2018).

  29. Samyn M. (2010) Not a Manifesto. 19/not-a-manifesto/. 

  30. Trammell A., & Sinnreich A. (2014). Visualizing Game Studies: Materiality and Sociality from Chessboard to Circuit Board. Journal of Games Criticism, 1(1). Retrieved from:‑1-1. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  31. Vigrajzer A. (2016). “I want to play a game with you.” Like Spielberg and the mystic lovers blur the line between the Internet and reality. Retrieved from: (accessed10.12.2018).

  32. Volkova I.I. (2015). Game as a systemic screen phenomenon is communicative. Doctor of Philology Thesis. M. 

  33. Werbach K. (2014). Gemification defined. Retrieved from: (accessed 10.12.2018).

  34. Zaitsev O. (2014). “If People Like to Attach Labels, Let’s Talk About It”: Interview with Independent Developers. IGN Russia.Retrieved from: feature/indi-iarlyk-marketingovyitriuk-ili-stil-zhizni. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  35. Zheltukhina M.R., Klushina N.I., Ponomarenko E.B., Vasilkova N.N. & & Dzyubenko A.I. (2017). Modern Media Influence: Mass Culture – Mass Consciousness – Mass Communication.X Linguae Journal, 10(4), 96–105. doi: 10.18355/XL.2017.10.04.09

To cite this article:

Maligina, Lidiya E.. Gamification of promotional discourse practices on TV: the problem of influencing mass consciousness of the audience. // National Psychological Journal 2019. 1. p.122-131. doi: 10.11621/npj.2019.0111

Copied to Clipboard