The Metaverse has a definition problem

It’s been a rough year for the metaverse, and it’s probably easier to pick out the silver linings and future-building aspects of brand activations as opposed to direct KPI success.

So what’s worked?

I think the brands that have been successful in the metaverse have been those that have taken a thoughtful approach to understanding the platform and its audience. Brands that have created authentic experiences for users, rather than just trying to sell products, have got the most traction and made the most positive noise.

The standout brand in the space is Gucci. Of all the early-adopter brands, it feels the most committed. Some of its attempts haven’t landed, but some have gained traction — making a lot of noise in the space. The most recent collab with Yuga Labs and getting into the Otherside feels like a tipping point in terms of sentiment. Most brand activations have been met with fair levels of scepticism, but this seems to be the real deal. The BAYC and wider web3 community are excited about what’s to come.

For more standalone activations, gamification or outright placement in existing games feel like the best way to drive attention and engagement. Complete action, receive reward. If gaming is the solution, then brands should approach the metaverse with the same open mindset as a new player. Games, challenges, or social hubs can help foster user engagement and create a sense of community within the metaverse — but they must be fun. A grind for a collectible won’t spark conversation and the meta-narrative.

What hasn’t

I think some brands have struggled in the metaverse because they are trying to force traditional marketing tactics into a new, unfamiliar environment. Old rules don’t apply, and many brands are playing catch up. Human connection remains the same core truth, but this time communication comes from all angles. Rather than the traditional Brand > Consumer, community comes first.

Brands that have simply tried to sell products or push traditional advertisements have not resonated with users. Additionally, some brands have failed to understand the unique culture and norms of the metaverse, resulting in campaigns that feel out of touch or inauthentic to the community.

The metaverse, and web3 at large, requires commitment. Any brand that’s approached the metaverse as a single point of entry with no long-term plan generally falls by the wayside. People aren’t going to come to your space if there’s no two-way conversation or activity. Imagine organising to meet up with a mate and suggesting that you hang out in a shop for a few hours with no way to purchase or do anything else. It’s not realistic in real life, and it’s certainly not in a digital environment.

If a brand simply wants to create a space to hang out, it should just make a Twitter Space or Discord. Even then, there needs to be some form of shared goal or activity.

Is the metaverse for all brands?

Whether or not the metaverse is relevant for a brand depends on its goals and audience. Some companies may find it difficult to create authentic experiences within the metaverse, while others may find it to be a natural fit. Ultimately, it requires a deep understanding of the platform and its users, as well as a willingness to experiment and take risks.

My advice to brands is to keep improving, learning, and involving yourself in the community. The only way to win is a healthy level of humility and commitment. Brands can no longer buy success, they have to earn it with hard work and time.

As we’re seeing with the gradual evolution of brands in social media — there are specific channel strategies that need to be considered. Some companies are best set in Instagram, some Twitter — ‘everyone’ TikTok (rolls eyes). The metaverse is another channel, and one that requires careful consideration.

What can brands learn from this?

I think with all things, time and commitment are the main takeaways. The technology currently doesn’t match the dream — and in many ways the hype from 2022 may have hindered rather than helped the narrative.

We were sold the ‘future’ and instead got rubbish graphics and incredibly limited engagement. There are also the incredible advancements in AI recently which have redirected almost all attention for brands and the public alike.

If a brand wants to set foot in the metaverse, it must ensure the space it creates aligns with its core values. If you’re a luxury brand seeking to cement that — consider the partners and spaces you’ll occupy which reflect this sentiment.

More consideration, more involvement with the community, and more time is required to get this right. For brands in the short-term, I see more value in micro-verse activations. Highly curated and controlled game-like experiences for fans. While this negates the value of interoperability, it does enable greater opportunities for stickiness. Build the castle before the kingdom.

What do clients want?

I’m finding that we spend more time talking brands out of using the metaverse, than selling it to them right now! We spend time consulting and discussing the true reason as to why the brand should step foot in the space, and the ‘why’.

For every project we ask, ‘why would I do this?’, ‘is this interesting?’ and ‘why web3?’.

The truth is that for companies to excel they need to commit to the space long-term. It’s a long journey and it all starts with building out a community and establishing their voice in the (small) web3 community.

I think at this stage we’re not in the position to bring the masses in. Rather, it’s about establishing the brand’s values and aligning those with relevant partners and creatives in the web3 space.

See Gucci with Yuga, Tiffany with CryptoPunks.

At ScienceMagic.Studios, we’re interested in building long-term narratives and value for brands, rather than quick one-off executions leading nowhere.

For brands to successfully play in this space they must be willing to give up the traditionally protectionist IP mindset. They must be willing to give a product to the community and let them decide where it goes. This is something we’re now seeing with the likes of Nike’s .swoosh — giving the community ‘free’ reign over their iconic Air Force Ones. It’s a model I’m certain we’ll see other brands jumping on very soon.

So what comes next?

With the rate in which AI is advancing and making inroads into our daily life — I see the integration of the two becoming invaluable. One of the current main issues with metaverses is the perceived lack of interaction and agency for a user. Creating AI non-playable characters within the space could add that element. Fill the environment with ‘people’ to help reduce the empty sensation. Interact with the characters to start chats — all live and within the brand’s tone.

Like the cliche ‘a brand is more than its logo’, the metaverse means far more than a single shared space. I’d argue that the metaverse is a shared narrative, not a space. A non-fixed digital environment where you feel purpose and belonging. Interaction is based over a shared goal or viewpoint. Its why games like Fortnite and Roblox persist while Decentraland is seeing a gradual drop off. Its why we go for a coffee, the pub, or play games to socialise. A meta-narrative is that third space.

It’s an idea in the open, a shared consciousness, digital interactions, a decentralized narrative written by its contributors. It’s the ‘meta’ I’m interested in. Micro-communities spinning up around ideas, discussed in Twitter spaces or Discord groups. It’s art projects built in the open with contribution actively encouraged. In its purest form the metanarrative is the act of detaching personal ownership of an idea with shared goals of a wider group.

The metanarrative is an open-source digital story. Taking this analogy further: if a brand is to take part effectively, they must avoid writing the entire book and hoping people will like it.

A web3 brand provides some plot points and then lets the community write the full narrative.