I have to confess that it doesn’t seem that way now. In Pipeline to Platform Organisations, Neil Perkin makes the point that this  (pipelines to platforms) is one of the most significant shifts in internet era business economics. And the argument is indeed right, proven by the fact that Facebook, Google, Amazon, Uber, Airbnb and even Apple to a lesser extent are all great examples of platform companies. In fact, the article he has linked to states that in 2013, 14 of the top 30 global brands were platform companies. They have been built to scale, which they have achieved to a large extent by building fairly insurmountable ‘moats’, hugely powered by network effects. And there lies my problem because they are now well on their way to becoming platform monopolies (euphemistically called ecosystems) – the new intermediaries on the very web that was supposed to help level the playing field. Arguably, it’s becoming increasingly clear that a fight against them based on efficiency/network effects is either doomed from the start, or becomes unsustainable.

So what can be the ‘think beyond’ that I mentioned in the first paragraph? Simplistically, it’s just a value system and a world view that the brand upholds – what I’d call a brand protocol. Quite obviously, the business basics – a differentiated product, competitive pricing, distribution – are assumed. This protocol currently finds a place on everything from office walls to websites to t-shirts, and logos, mission statements etc but is probably the last thing on the mind of the brand’s custodians. So how is it ever going to change?

I found an interesting possibility in this excellent post by Jeremy Epstein titled Blockchain-based digital tokens – the new brand logo? It brings out the difference between the web model, followed by the companies mentioned earlier, where the rules are intentionally simple, giving application developers a chance to add a lot of value, and the blockchain model, where the rules can be much more robust, and the data is immutable and shared. As Jeremy explains, the latter is a ‘fat protocol‘ (coined by Joel Monegro) in which developers can write algorithms that are native to the protocol, in essence reducing the role of the intermediary. He uses the example of Storj, which has built a protocol to facilitate the renting and leasing out of hard disk space, to show how value can be created, and communities can govern themselves, using a token model. Demand for the tokens will increase not based simply on the actual service delivered, but on whether the values of the underlying protocol are consistent with the beliefs of the consumer. He actually uses Uber as an example to illustrate how the business economics can get affected by the value system the brand upholds.

The danger I see is that existing platform monopolies will try to subvert it and use it to their advantage. A great example would be Zuckerberg’s new manifesto for Facebook – a global community that works for everyone by developing the social infrastructure for community. As Ben Thompson writes in this insightful post Manifestos and Monopolies it’s bad enough for Facebook to have so much power, but the very suggestion that Zuckerberg might utilize it for political ends raises the costs of inaction from not just opportunity costs to overt ones. Between Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and Whatsapp, (and Oculus in the future) he has enough tools to create universal protocols, and hold brands to ransom at a scale much more massive than what happens now.

Theoretically, the blockchain is an excellent way to take the subcultures that thrive on the web to an economically viable and participative model. On the brand side its values are codified in the fat protocol, giving its employees and consumers a clear operating system to refer to. On the consumer side, my consumption as per my beliefs, thereby allowing the brands (businesses) that share my value system to thrive. A sway outside of the value system ends up in consumers shifting loyalties. But it also means a complete flip compared to what we have now – brands being radically transparent and consumer identities being protected instead of being tracked incessantly. All this, without a central authority. That’s the world consumers and brands should be working towards – tokens over monopolies!

In Scarcity Thinking in Marketing, I’d written about how, in an era of ‘infinite’ consumption choices, attention is arguably the most precious commodity for a brand. Also, as Faris pointed out in his excellent post, it is a zero sum game, and we’re approaching “peak attention”. We’re also well on our way to manipulating (read fracking)  it. State of the art marketing technology (say, programmatic) can sift through a consumer’s data from multiple sources, and use interest, intent and a bunch of other contexts to deliver an ad at the precise point when he/she can act favourably.

Very few brands, however, are close to this level though. Having the data is in itself a huge step, converting that to actionable insights is even huger! Data can be true, but not necessarily accurate. (read) Also, arguably marketing tech is still a wild west with snake oil salesmen. But more importantly, even if we assume that all the brands will finally get there, it then becomes a ‘square one’ driven by who can pay the most. In that respect, I do not see this as a sustainable advantage. Arguably again, at that point in time, new tech might come up with a potential of first mover advantage, but the way I’ve seen the digital marketing narrative evolve, it is probably an optimisation play than anything else. e.g. In the early days of Facebook marketing, much was made about storytelling and organic Likes, but look where we are now! Similarly, something radically different like VR is now being talked of as paradigm shifting storytelling opportunity, but until proven otherwise, I’ll be cynical. 

Is there an alternate path to this arms race? In Marketing in the Post-Truth Era, the author refers to Kahnemann’s System 1 and System 2 approaches of the brain – System 1 being fast, automatic, and intuitive and System 2 being slower, and analytical. The context there is asking marketers to use their System 1 to make decisions, but I have a slightly different take. In terms of consumer decision making , attention scarcity and marketing based on catching the customer at the right point with the right messaging aligns perfectly to System 1. But I would argue that focusing on System 2 of the consumer’s brain might be more profitable in the long run, and my argument is that the way to doing it by building a brand with a world view.

What does that mean? To begin with, going beyond vision and mission statements and actually articulating a character in day to day interactions with the customer. Beyond CSR and posturing into backing intention with action. It also means not being “everything to everyone”, and being mindful of the choices it makes across the facets of business. And this worldview need not be consistent across time, after all the world and its citizens keep changing their views, but it does need to be cohesive and maintain an integrity of intent. Will it polarise users? Yes it will, and that is the point. Apple was a classic example until it wasn’t. I have seen Cleartrip executing this regularly. (examples 1, 2, 3) The endgame, if you can call it that, is to be the first port of call when the user has a consumption intent in the brand’s category. Not because of an ad that he/she saw, but because of a deeper attachment to what the brand stands for. Obviously I’m taking product, pricing and convenience as hygiene factors here. The first question I get asked when I discuss this is whether it will scale. And my reply is that maybe not, but scale, and the rate of growth are themselves conscious decisions!

The more I think of it though, it cannot be an either/or. But given that we’re already well into the era of algorithms navigating our life for us – literally in the form of self driving cars and metaphorically through the fake news we see on our feeds – it is difficult to visualise brands which would want to be distinct and do the hard work required for the System 2 approach. However, if you’re interested,  David Carr gives you a good place to start.

Or maybe, in the medium term, the user will  decide this for us by building his/her own consumer ‘stack’ and move from paying attention to being paid for attention. Hello, blockchain. (read)