I’ll never endeavor to be one of those folks who meticulously dissect the merits of Superbowl ads, so I’ll just make two points and leave it at that:
Consumers really don’t need a count-down to the “reveal” of your ad. They’ll probably ultimately find your ad entertaining, but let’s not pretend like anyone is on the edge of their seats waiting for…an advertisement.
Crypto made a major push to be considered mainstream.
Reactions to Coinbase’s “bouncing QR code” ad can roughly fall into two camps: Those that think it is a creative rejection of typical ad norms, or those that view it as the type of ad that, not entirely unlike a bunch of NFTs being being displayed in Time Square, is what someone who doesn’t know much about marketing would consider a good ad. What is undoubtedly true, like a Bored Ape on a 30k square feet screen, is that both executions are first and foremost an expensive flex. In the emerging world of web3, flashy displays of wealth are the norm, because commercialization is entirely leading the way.
I was kicking around in the heady early days of web2, when social networking sites were still finding their footing. The prevailing discourse revolved around how these technologies would change the world. We still have the claims to change the world here at the dawn of web3… though less through apparently noble ends like “connecting the world” and more towards “revolutionizing finance/ownership/etc.” A more commercial tone indeed, due in part to the fact that both previous iterations of the web had commercial concerns bolted on as an afterthought, post early aspirations for enabling open information or communication. Fool me once, fool me twice and all that – now folks know there is gold in those (virtual) hills.
This revenue-forward tone has given rise to a wellspring of opportunistic experts and consultants attached onto all things metaverse, NFT, or web3. Web3 will not, as it turns out, come on the back of a quiet revolution, another product of the stereotypical Silicon Valley garage (now valued at more than a 5 bedroom house in any non-coastal metro). It’s less the quiet hum of engineers in an open-floor plan office than carnival-barkers plying wares towards brands and business decision makers who are made to feel like opportunities are slipping through their fingers due to literal (albeit virtual) land grabs.
If it feels like the mainstream view of all things web3 is incredulous at this point, one shouldn’t be surprised, and not due to the tried and true rationalization that “people don’t get it.” At this point, the scale and sophistication of anti-blockchain arguments are dramatically outpacing those in favor of these technologies (perhaps best represented by Dan Olson’s feature-length take-down). The pro-arguments are often mired in techno-fetishist babble that ends with an exasperated “you just don’t get it,” which is the intellectual equivalent of taking your ball and going home.
Without better articulation of the merits of these technologies, the hyper-focus on commercialization has yielded an ecosystem where everyone appears to be grifting to make a buck because… a great number of folks are merely grifting to make a buck. Whatever good faith attempts at building the infrastructure of web3 and demonstrating the value of these applications that exist, whether it be cryptocurrencies, NFTs, metaverse, or some combination of these headline-dominating terms are at significant risk of being drowned out.
This has had the knock-on effect of dominating conversations in adjacent industries, where gaming is an example that touches a bit of all these trends, and has had the most severe backlash from consumers therein. As previously noted, blockchain technology layered onto games has occasionally tended to not really yield games so much as gamified jobs in app form. While there are accounts that play to earn games like Axie Infinity have yielded meaningful income to residents in some areas of Southeast Asia, the game is currently undergoing some massive shifts to pull its economy out of a potential death spiral. Even if successful, one only need a few terms swapped around and you’ll find a compelling argument that it’s a Pokémon-flavored analog of Marxian exploitative capitalism, right down to borrowing means of production (Axie) from wealthy owners.
As much as the influence of web3 in gaming is an example of how this dialogue can be strained, one can take cues from gaming towards solutions. Legendary game technologist John Carmack warned of the potential of “architecture astronauts” in the emergence of the metaverse - it’s not hard to grasp onto the possibilities from a 10,000 mile view in proverbial space, but a much smaller number of folks have the know-how to zoom in on solving the problems to craft real outcomes. The conversation around the potential of web3, complete with a number of attempts to cash in on mere early potential, has seemingly outpaced those to make them real, and the entire web3 project is the worst for it. There has been an overcorrection in the desire to not have the commercial and financial opportunities afforded by web3 be the domain of a few distinct platforms at the deficit of technical solutions that are additive and valuable for the consumers that would use them.
As it stands now, we have all the downside and none of the upside of a distributed web3 - an abundance of scams and virtual fortunes lost via something as simple as a DM on Discord, but few freedoms that decentralization promises (and where much of the decentralized tech still lives in a handful of server warehouses owned by big tech companies anyway). The point is not that web3 is doomed, that early proofs of concept shouldn’t be built, or that none of these technologies are without merit – it’s that the prevailing conversation is very loud in a very unproductive way, because it is leading with speculative commercial intent and fostering a deep cynicism amongst consumers. The reaction of game-players towards blockchain technology in gaming is an early warning signal that marketers and technologists should both heed.
What’s needed is less hyperbole amongst astronauts for the short-term gain of enamoring marketers or other early adopters, less extravagant marketing flexes and calls to FOMO in order to pump assets in the short term, and more focusing on building a compelling view on the tangible value these technologies can provide. Ideally a view that provides solutions for problems or adds value proportionate to the trade offs or concerns in applying these new technologies (and there are many). This is as true for introducing web3 to general consumers as related technologies into spheres of gaming: The best guidance when speaking with the occasionally cynical legions of gaming fans is to demonstrate value aligned with their needs first and foremost. While one of the most viable routes for blockchain games may be “minting” new gaming fans more motivated by earning, existing fans will require that these new technologies demonstrate their worth, given that much of what blockchain purports to accomplish is already possible in existing (albeit centralized) technologies. The road to web3 remains very long, shouting about how early on the path we are isn’t doing much for making the trip any more pleasant, focusing on the unique virtues of the destination might.