In going back through old files and presentations, I realize I’ve been thinking about networked or ecosystem brands for quite a long time, but the real work to begin to classify them as new a typology was done in 2019. It resulted in the publishing of a paper, aptly titled, Towards a definition of ecosystem brands, which was, equally appropriately, collaboratively created and written with 3 of my other colleagues at Zeus Jones: Elsa Perushek, Jason Zabel and Gordon McIntyre.

The core idea is that all existing brand typologies exist primarily as isolated, standalone entities. We saw the need for:

Brands built specifically for a networked, ecosystem-economy. Brands built with cooperation as their standard mode of operation.

• An ecosystem brand’s value exists only as it delivers value to a constellation of other things.

• An ecosystem brand grows through interaction.

• Without interaction, an ecosystem brand dies, or at least stagnates.

• The job of an ecosystem brand, or its core value must be framed in terms of its contribution to other members of the ecosystem.

• An ecosystem brand has a long-term shared-value orientation, which is around the combined survival or strength of the brand and the ecosystem

While we were aware of Web3 at the time, we completely missed its obvious alignment with ecosystem brands and we also failed to factor in the emerging markets that are being built around quantifying and monetizing environmental and social externalities.

These omissions allowed us to think of our work as an academic exercise - brand botany - observe, classify and move on.

But these weren’t small misses, in retrospect we completely lost the lede. Re-writing this paper today (which we will do soon), I would start by saying:

The quantification and monetization of environmental externalities promises to align economic growth with environmental and social well being. The rise of web3 with decentralized value creation and capture, promises to distribute wealth more evenly and more fairly. Together, these forces will reshape the economy. They will reshape the behavior of some companies but they will reshape the expectations for all companies.

The expectations of a company’s performance and its relationships with its stakeholders are contained within its brand - therefore:

Brands are cultural objects, they are shaped in-response to the cultural ideas of their times. Their most valuable attributes like relevance, salience or velocity are measured relative to culture. This makes them uniquely sensitive to cultural shifts for better or for worse. The most powerful brands align with growing cultural ideas while the most challenged brands, fight against culture.

And culture moves fast: on a human-scale, it operates as a second inheritance mechanism, enabling us to adapt to change more quickly than our physiology will allow. I think brands (as cultural objects) operate in the same way, they are second inheritance mechanisms for companies - enabling faster reaction and evolution than their underlying structures can deliver.

Take, for instance, the value proposition that web3 brands like Early Majority offer:

• Belong - be part of something

• Get cool products for less - with free shipping

• Do good for the planet

• Have a say in the products we make - and get them personalized

• Own a piece of the company that becomes more valuable over time - and sell it if you want

I think most of us would say that this is a combination of benefits that are pretty hard to resist. They are enabled - in part - by web3 technology, but the real advantage is that they are aligned with the hopes and wishes of culture.

This is a dream proposition for ANY business and is pretty hard to compete against using traditional marketing tactics. Furthermore, this establishes clear expectations for the value I could receive from a company and shines a pretty harsh light on the value I currently receive from most of the brands I choose now.

As more new companies bring similar value propositions to other categories there will begin to be a very sharp divide between brands that align with co-ownership/ecosystem ethos and brands that don’t. This will create faster acceleration and adoption - a demand for faster evolution.

You’ve probably seen the statistic that 52% of the Fortune 500 from the year 2000, no longer existed by 2014.

While the Constellation study is careful to say that companies rise and fall for many reasons, digital disruption is clearly responsible for a large share. Research shows that since 2000, 52 percent of companies in the Fortune 500 have either gone bankrupt, been acquired, or ceased to exist as a result of digital disruption. The collision of the physical and digital worlds has affected every dimension of society, commerce, enterprises, and individuals.

The “digital disruption” this referenced was the rise of the participatory web 2.0. Indeed, Zeus Jones was launched at the start of the shift to Web 2.0. We saw that the rise of a participatory web gave rise to expectations for greater participation in all areas of culture: a larger voice in the workplace, a larger voice for underrepresented groups, a larger voice with the businesses I use. We saw how technology and culture combined to create new expectations for brands. We called these participatory, co-created brands - Modern Brands.

In the same way that some Brands - post Web 2.0 - can operate without a co-created, community-centric ethos, it’s also true that some brands - post web3 - will be able to operate without a co-ownership, ecosystem-centric ethos as well. But those brands will be the minority rather than the majority.

To me, this implies that ecosystem or decentralized brands will become the dominant typology for brands in the future; and the brands that fail to adapt will, like the vast majority of companies that came before, cease to exist.

In going back through old files and presentations, I realize I’ve been thinking about networked or ecosystem brands for quite a long time, but the real work to begin to classify them as new a typology was done in 2019. It resulted in the publishing of a paper, aptly titled, Towards a definition of ecosystem brands, which was, equally appropriately, collaboratively created and written with 3 of my other colleagues at Zeus Jones: Elsa Perushek, Jason Zabel and Gordon McIntyre.

The core idea is that all existing brand typologies exist primarily as isolated, standalone entities. We saw the need for:

Brands built specifically for a networked, ecosystem-economy. Brands built with cooperation as their standard mode of operation.

• An ecosystem brand’s value exists only as it delivers value to a constellation of other things.

• An ecosystem brand grows through interaction.

• Without interaction, an ecosystem brand dies, or at least stagnates.

• The job of an ecosystem brand, or its core value must be framed in terms of its contribution to other members of the ecosystem.

• An ecosystem brand has a long-term shared-value orientation, which is around the combined survival or strength of the brand and the ecosystem

While we were aware of Web3 at the time, we completely missed its obvious alignment with ecosystem brands and we also failed to factor in the emerging markets that are being built around quantifying and monetizing environmental and social externalities.

These omissions allowed us to think of our work as an academic exercise - brand botany - observe, classify and move on.

But these weren’t small misses, in retrospect we completely lost the lede. Re-writing this paper today (which we will do soon), I would start by saying:

The quantification and monetization of environmental externalities promises to align economic growth with environmental and social well being. The rise of web3 with decentralized value creation and capture, promises to distribute wealth more evenly and more fairly. Together, these forces will reshape the economy. They will reshape the behavior of some companies but they will reshape the expectations for all companies.

The expectations of a company’s performance and its relationships with its stakeholders are contained within its brand - therefore:

Brands are cultural objects, they are shaped in-response to the cultural ideas of their times. Their most valuable attributes like relevance, salience or velocity are measured relative to culture. This makes them uniquely sensitive to cultural shifts for better or for worse. The most powerful brands align with growing cultural ideas while the most challenged brands, fight against culture.

And culture moves fast: on a human-scale, it operates as a second inheritance mechanism, enabling us to adapt to change more quickly than our physiology will allow. I think brands (as cultural objects) operate in the same way, they are second inheritance mechanisms for companies - enabling faster reaction and evolution than their underlying structures can deliver.

Take, for instance, the value proposition that web3 brands like Early Majority offer:

• Belong - be part of something

• Get cool products for less - with free shipping

• Do good for the planet

• Have a say in the products we make - and get them personalized

• Own a piece of the company that becomes more valuable over time - and sell it if you want

I think most of us would say that this is a combination of benefits that are pretty hard to resist. They are enabled - in part - by web3 technology, but the real advantage is that they are aligned with the hopes and wishes of culture.

This is a dream proposition for ANY business and is pretty hard to compete against using traditional marketing tactics. Furthermore, this establishes clear expectations for the value I could receive from a company and shines a pretty harsh light on the value I currently receive from most of the brands I choose now.

As more new companies bring similar value propositions to other categories there will begin to be a very sharp divide between brands that align with co-ownership/ecosystem ethos and brands that don’t. This will create faster acceleration and adoption - a demand for faster evolution.

You’ve probably seen the statistic that 52% of the Fortune 500 from the year 2000, no longer existed by 2014.

While the Constellation study is careful to say that companies rise and fall for many reasons, digital disruption is clearly responsible for a large share. Research shows that since 2000, 52 percent of companies in the Fortune 500 have either gone bankrupt, been acquired, or ceased to exist as a result of digital disruption. The collision of the physical and digital worlds has affected every dimension of society, commerce, enterprises, and individuals.

The “digital disruption” this referenced was the rise of the participatory web 2.0. Indeed, Zeus Jones was launched at the start of the shift to Web 2.0. We saw that the rise of a participatory web gave rise to expectations for greater participation in all areas of culture: a larger voice in the workplace, a larger voice for underrepresented groups, a larger voice with the businesses I use. We saw how technology and culture combined to create new expectations for brands. We called these participatory, co-created brands - Modern Brands.

In the same way that some Brands - post Web 2.0 - can operate without a co-created, community-centric ethos, it’s also true that some brands - post web3 - will be able to operate without a co-ownership, ecosystem-centric ethos as well. But those brands will be the minority rather than the majority.

To me, this implies that ecosystem or decentralized brands will become the dominant typology for brands in the future; and the brands that fail to adapt will, like the vast majority of companies that came before, cease to exist.