As Chinese libraries continue to explore and innovate in the provision of public cultural services, gamified and entertainment-oriented reading promotion activities are increasingly appearing in the public sphere. This study employs a comparative analysis between gamified "alienated" activities and "benchmark" activities based on elements of IFLA Marketing Award-winning cases, aiming to investigate whether gamification or substantive content is more effective in reading promotion initiatives within Chinese libraries. Drawing on public goods theory, New Public Service theory, cultural rights theory, and Service-Dominant Logic, the study examines six critical dimensions: degree of gamification, entertainment elements, relevance of content, social media engagement, expert participation, and community co-creation. The findings demonstrate that successful reading promotion is not attributable to any single factor but results from the synergy of multiple conditions. The principle that "content is king" is reaffirmed, while the contextual utility of gamification is also validated when properly configured. The concept of library "alienation" is productively reframed as a specific dysfunctional configuration rather than an inherent property of innovation itself.

Miaomiao Guo. The Value of Core Competence in the Library: A Comparative Analysis Based on Reading Promotion Activities. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2026), Vol. 9, Issue 3: 39-45. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2026.090306.

[1] Jiang, Y., & colleagues. (2021). Public space reconstruction in libraries: Deviation from core values and the problem of space abuse. Library Development, 4, 12–19.

[2] Yi, B. (2020). Institutional alienation in library outsourcing: Problems of professional talent loss and sustainable development. Journal of Library Science in China, 46(3), 45–53.

[3] Feng, C. (2019). Technical alienation in libraries: Over-reliance on automated systems and its consequences. Library and Information Service, 63(8), 22–29.

[4] Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.

[5] Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

[6] Gupta, D. K., Koontz, C., & Massísimo, À. (Eds.). (2013). Marketing library and information services II: A global outlook. De Gruyter Saur.

[7] Koontz, C. (2013). IFLA library marketing award: History, criteria, application process and applicant characteristics, milestones and common characteristics of winners. In D. K. Gupta, C. Koontz, & À. Massísimo (Eds.), Marketing library and information services II (pp. 3–18). De Gruyter Saur.

[8] Collins, N. (2012). The button activity: Waterloo Public Library's IFLA marketing award entry. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 7(2), 1–8.

[9] Ma, J., & colleagues. (2020). IFLA marketing award cases and implications for Chinese library space marketing. Library Tribune, 40(5), 88–95

[10] Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining "gamification." In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 9–15). ACM.

[11] Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE.

[12] Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. In T. Reiners & L. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1–20). Springer.

[13] Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191–210.