I’ve often said that Zeus Jones’ biggest insight was that Web 2.0 wasn’t a media revolution, it was a cultural and social revolution. That participatory-media would lead to expectations of participation in the workplace, society and government. And that expectations of participation with the companies who create the products, services and experiences we choose would transform branding. That insight, which seemed much less obvious in 2006, led to the development of our theory of Modern Brands - brands designed for participation and whose growth is optimized around participation and co-creation.
It feels increasingly obvious that the same is happening around Web3. That the transition to ownership-media will result in similar expectations of ownership in all other areas of life - most dramatically with the companies who create the products, services and experiences we choose. It feels like brands are changing again.
In the Web 2.0 era. the adoption of Modern Brands was driven by a variety of different factors. There were visible symbols like Method who brought a focus on sustainability and design to cleaning products and used its People against dirty community and humor to grow its brand. Or Netflix with its radical approach to culture transparency and co-creation via the Netflix prize. Or OK Trends from OK Cupid which brilliantly used its dating data to help its members become more successful at the mating game.
In Web3, the stories are just starting to emerge: we love what Nike is doing with .swoosh
What Starbucks is doing with Odyssey
And we love how Early Majority is using co-ownership and collaboration with creative and cultural partners to build its brand
In Web 2.0 the impact of new kinds of branding and new forms of creativity started to make non-participatory brands feel very old. Method’s industrial design made “The Beauty of Pledge” feel like a joke. We all know what happened with Blockbuster as they tried to compete with Netflix, and even Web 1.0 brands like Match.com struggled to compete - eventually conceding defeat by buying OK Cupid in 2011.
But the real acceleration in Modern Brands occurred when it became clear that - as artifacts of a new media landscape - they delivered growth and efficiency that traditional brands simply couldn’t match.
These last 2 factors combined to create a death spiral for traditional brands who relied upon traditional marketing tactics. They were forced to spend more to achieve less growth and benefited from lower engagement and emotional attachment as their brands became less and less culturally and creatively relevant. Web 2.0 was a culling of the herd, very literally splitting the brand world into those that adapted and those that did not.
Only 13 of the top 25 brands in 2003 are still in the top 25 today. And I think the same dynamics will start to play out with Web3 brands who can simultaneously bring fresh, new interesting ideas and creativity to their communities while also gaining huge efficiency and effectiveness from their marketing - because they are optimized for the new cultural landscape AND the new media landscape.
As with the advent of Web 2.0 Modern Brands, we’re already seeing many of the signs. The playbooks for Web 2.0 brands are becoming less and less effective, and in may cases are not working at all.
Perhaps the most clear example of this comes from a client we worked with through our Web3 dev partners at Future Proof - Bud Light.
Famously, their recent influencer marketing approach failed in dramatic fashion - leading to a 30% drop in sales. Ironically, this campaign was initiated in an attempt to reverse a long decline in sales and while the political environment has definitely influenced its failure, its reliance upon well understood and cynically-viewed influencer marketing absolutely factored into its rejection. It was seen - perhaps rightly - as a disingenuous move that was clearly aimed at acquiring new customers while alienating the customers it already has.
In contrast, we collaborated on a smaller Web3 campaign to bring additional value to their existing community by bring an NFL survivor pick ‘em contest onto the blockchain. This campaign generated higher than expected engagement and drove digital, non-beverage revenue through its NFT marketplace.
Most current examples are early like the ones I’ve shared above. But the big mainstream cases for a new kind of branding are being worked on right now (some of them by us). If history is any guide the transition from brands built for Web 2.0 to brands built for Web3 won’t be gradual.
Brands that fail to adapt will feel old and stop working literally overnight. I’d argue they already do and already are.
I’ve often said that Zeus Jones’ biggest insight was that Web 2.0 wasn’t a media revolution, it was a cultural and social revolution. That participatory-media would lead to expectations of participation in the workplace, society and government. And that expectations of participation with the companies who create the products, services and experiences we choose would transform branding. That insight, which seemed much less obvious in 2006, led to the development of our theory of Modern Brands - brands designed for participation and whose growth is optimized around participation and co-creation.
It feels increasingly obvious that the same is happening around Web3. That the transition to ownership-media will result in similar expectations of ownership in all other areas of life - most dramatically with the companies who create the products, services and experiences we choose. It feels like brands are changing again.
In the Web 2.0 era. the adoption of Modern Brands was driven by a variety of different factors. There were visible symbols like Method who brought a focus on sustainability and design to cleaning products and used its People against dirty community and humor to grow its brand. Or Netflix with its radical approach to culture transparency and co-creation via the Netflix prize. Or OK Trends from OK Cupid which brilliantly used its dating data to help its members become more successful at the mating game.
In Web3, the stories are just starting to emerge: we love what Nike is doing with .swoosh
What Starbucks is doing with Odyssey
And we love how Early Majority is using co-ownership and collaboration with creative and cultural partners to build its brand
In Web 2.0 the impact of new kinds of branding and new forms of creativity started to make non-participatory brands feel very old. Method’s industrial design made “The Beauty of Pledge” feel like a joke. We all know what happened with Blockbuster as they tried to compete with Netflix, and even Web 1.0 brands like Match.com struggled to compete - eventually conceding defeat by buying OK Cupid in 2011.
But the real acceleration in Modern Brands occurred when it became clear that - as artifacts of a new media landscape - they delivered growth and efficiency that traditional brands simply couldn’t match.
These last 2 factors combined to create a death spiral for traditional brands who relied upon traditional marketing tactics. They were forced to spend more to achieve less growth and benefited from lower engagement and emotional attachment as their brands became less and less culturally and creatively relevant. Web 2.0 was a culling of the herd, very literally splitting the brand world into those that adapted and those that did not.
Only 13 of the top 25 brands in 2003 are still in the top 25 today. And I think the same dynamics will start to play out with Web3 brands who can simultaneously bring fresh, new interesting ideas and creativity to their communities while also gaining huge efficiency and effectiveness from their marketing - because they are optimized for the new cultural landscape AND the new media landscape.
As with the advent of Web 2.0 Modern Brands, we’re already seeing many of the signs. The playbooks for Web 2.0 brands are becoming less and less effective, and in may cases are not working at all.
Perhaps the most clear example of this comes from a client we worked with through our Web3 dev partners at Future Proof - Bud Light.
Famously, their recent influencer marketing approach failed in dramatic fashion - leading to a 30% drop in sales. Ironically, this campaign was initiated in an attempt to reverse a long decline in sales and while the political environment has definitely influenced its failure, its reliance upon well understood and cynically-viewed influencer marketing absolutely factored into its rejection. It was seen - perhaps rightly - as a disingenuous move that was clearly aimed at acquiring new customers while alienating the customers it already has.
In contrast, we collaborated on a smaller Web3 campaign to bring additional value to their existing community by bring an NFL survivor pick ‘em contest onto the blockchain. This campaign generated higher than expected engagement and drove digital, non-beverage revenue through its NFT marketplace.
Most current examples are early like the ones I’ve shared above. But the big mainstream cases for a new kind of branding are being worked on right now (some of them by us). If history is any guide the transition from brands built for Web 2.0 to brands built for Web3 won’t be gradual.
Brands that fail to adapt will feel old and stop working literally overnight. I’d argue they already do and already are.
Adrian HoPositional vs. Relational Strategy, flow and distributed cognition in teams.
There’s an incredibly fascinating debate taking place within football (soccer) between two very different strategic approaches. On the one side - the reigning and dominant style for the last 20 years is Positional Strategy which places team structure, space and shape above individual creativity. Sequences are practiced over and over again until they are memorized, simply to be executed at the appropriate times. This is a top-down, orchestrated and highly planned strategic method that is desig...
Adrian HoValue in a web3 world
While it’s generally agreed that web3 will generate an explosion of value similar to the last iterations of the Web, the nature of that value creation is less clear. In traditional economies money is made by hoarding money and moving it, but web3 has been expressly designed to break these patterns. As a result, it’s far easier to see how web3 (also like previous iterations of the Web) will destroy value more than create it. The challenge may be our definition of value and (IMO) one of the big...
Adrian HoEvolving emotions
For me, an essential part of realizing human potential post-AI is an intentional evolution of our emotions. I mean this in the sense that we must develop emotional responses that fit the threats and opportunities presented in tomorrow’s world if we are to thrive and decide in it. This is challenging on a number of fronts because that would require the intentional re-training of emotions and we understand very little about emotions and even less about how they can be learned. Describing the co...
Adrian HoPositional vs. Relational Strategy, flow and distributed cognition in teams.
There’s an incredibly fascinating debate taking place within football (soccer) between two very different strategic approaches. On the one side - the reigning and dominant style for the last 20 years is Positional Strategy which places team structure, space and shape above individual creativity. Sequences are practiced over and over again until they are memorized, simply to be executed at the appropriate times. This is a top-down, orchestrated and highly planned strategic method that is desig...
Adrian HoValue in a web3 world
While it’s generally agreed that web3 will generate an explosion of value similar to the last iterations of the Web, the nature of that value creation is less clear. In traditional economies money is made by hoarding money and moving it, but web3 has been expressly designed to break these patterns. As a result, it’s far easier to see how web3 (also like previous iterations of the Web) will destroy value more than create it. The challenge may be our definition of value and (IMO) one of the big...
Adrian HoEvolving emotions
For me, an essential part of realizing human potential post-AI is an intentional evolution of our emotions. I mean this in the sense that we must develop emotional responses that fit the threats and opportunities presented in tomorrow’s world if we are to thrive and decide in it. This is challenging on a number of fronts because that would require the intentional re-training of emotions and we understand very little about emotions and even less about how they can be learned. Describing the co...
Co-founder and chairperson at Zeus Jones zeusjones.com. Managing partner at Demos demosfunds.io.
Co-founder and chairperson at Zeus Jones zeusjones.com. Managing partner at Demos demosfunds.io.
Subscribe to Adrian Ho
Subscribe to Adrian Ho
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
No activity yet