Not so long ago, opening a savings account meant receiving a passbook, a modest interest rate, and possibly a free gift from the cashier. Today, it might mean securing a badge for a seven-day savings streak, or competing with friends on a leader board for the highest amount saved in a month.
For a generation raised on computer-gaming, many challenger banks have realised that gamification is the route to changing a whole generation’s attitude towards money.
Old and new
Financial gamification is not an entirely new phenomenon. Many people will be familiar with loyalty points and cashback rewards. Today’s gamification, however, is fundamentally different, marked by its sophistication and its intelligent application of human psychology. The tools are not blunt instruments, but elegant tactics designed to resonate with the triggers familiar to a modern generation of savers. New banks and fintech apps such as Current, Qapital, Chime and Revolut have built entire product experiences on game-like behaviours such as round-up saving (which feels like a spare-change game) streaks that reward consistency, and congratulatory animations when a target is achieved.
These actions in many way imitate the triggers that have motivated a gaming generation over many years. Applied to finance, these motivators can sustain a young person’s saving habit and make saving fun.
For younger savers, especially Gen Z and younger millennials, the gamification approach resonates for at least five good reasons.
Gamification meets them at a point they have already reached: this is a group of people that were raised with smartphones, social media, and gaming not only as part of their everyday lives but often as an interface for their social engagement. A finance app that imitates the rest of their digital life ensures it feels intuitive rather than intimidating.
Game-like qualities lower emotional barriers to entry: money can be a source of anxiety, especially for those without generational wealth or financial education. Making saving into an apparently low-risk game means that missing a streak feels like a minor setback rather than a personal failure.
Gamification provides instant gratification in a market historically characterised by delayed reward: saving for retirement or a house can take decades before the return on the investment is realised. Gamified apps introduce small, frequent reward mechanisms such as badges, streaks, and visual progress graphics that ensure the journey itself feels rewarding.
Gamification also builds habits through repetition rather than sheer determination: automated, low-drag systems are deployed to outperform pure discipline, as gamified interfaces automate motivation and ensure users are engaged rather than reliant on willpower to sustain the relationship.
Gamification is social by its very design: group challenges, shared goals, and leader boards all introduce peer accountability. Saving is transformed into something people can do together rather than in isolation, in the same way that fitness apps transform individual exercise into a competitive, shareable activity.
Are traditional banks missing out?
The answer is arguably ‘yes’. Traditional banks appear to have been slow to respond. However, the picture is perhaps more nuanced than that as they wrestle with infrastructure and brand values that were created in a pre-gaming world.
Many traditional banks are operating on sometimes decades-old banking systems that were never designed with game-like capabilities in mind. Building the necessary architecture on a legacy system is a serious engineering challenge.
Furthermore, traditional banks can often display a risk-averse culture. It’s a natural reaction to compliance, fraud prevention, and consumer protection, but it can spill over into product design and produce interfaces that are functional rather than engaging.
Many traditional banks operate on the principle of trust over delight. Their brands have been built on security, stability and trust. The positioning has served them well over many decades but for today’s young savers it can appear sterile and paternalistic.
Many traditional banks may also have underestimated the emotional element of saving. They might still treat their savings products as a rate-and-fees proposition where whoever offers the best annual percentage yields wins. For younger savers this may no longer be the case: a gamified app with a slightly lower interest rate might win the young customer if the interface makes the savings habit feel achievable, and even enjoyable.
Finally, legacy banks could justifiably be accused in many cases of being slow to respond to changing expectations. Fintechs make changes rapidly, pivot quickly and even add features weekly. Their app is a product in its own right rather than simply a channel to a relationship built on branches, mortgages and relationship-managers. The implication is that the pace of change in traditional banks is likely to be slower than that of digital innovators.
Banks once earned loyalty through trust and stability, through branch visits, relationship managers, and face-to-face communication. Today, for Gen Z and younger millennials, engagement is earned through the experience that is being delivered. Often the app will be the only relationship a customer has with the bank, and if that fails to deliver the right experience, the customer will simply move to one that does.
Traditional banks are almost certainly not losing the battle on trust and security where they still maintain very real advantages. However, if they continue to treat their digital interfaces as conduits rather than ends in themselves, they are likely to face increasing challenges as Gen Z and young millennials grow. Arguably, the most important battle in the coming decade will not be who holds the money, but rather, who makes people save in the first place.
