The anticipation of Web3's failure was evident through its marketing efforts, demonstrating that even billions of marketing dollars may not induce a significant shift in sentiment.
Regardless of substantial financial backing, sometimes even mammoth marketing budgets fail to instigate a perceptible shift.
Reflecting back to the time preceding the crypto crash of last year, there was a significant buzz around Web3; some even jumped the gun and started discussing Web5.
To be candid, the hoopla made little sense to me.
Despite being astute, I admit, I'm not all-knowing.
Like many others that were bewildered by overhyped concepts such as Clubhouse and crypto, I initially assumed that Web3 must have merits that I fail to comprehend.
The fact that a fair number of bright minds vouched for it led me to believe that it must have some substance.
Is Web3 a Giant Marketing Failure?
Today, the context appears different.
The once-promising term Web3 has lost its sheen.
Despite giants like McKinsey & Company continuing to label Web3 as the "next" iteration of the internet, it no longer seems to have the potential it once claimed.
The big predictions around Web3 now look naive and misleading.
Today we are left deciphering its legacy as a marketing failure.
Irrefutable Ambiguity: Defining Web3
One of the issues that troubled me as an everyday consumer was the ambiguity in the definition of Web3.
It is seemingly evident that not even the evangelists of Web3 had a clear understanding of it.
The crux of the confusion lies in the discrepancy between the technology and the intent.
Is Web3 about empowering the users in previously unseen ways, or is it simply about selling NFTs and using blockchain?
Discrepancy between Definitions and Implementations
As an example, let's consider an article by McKinsey where they state that in Web3, users will have the power to control their own information without the need for today's intermediaries.
Recommended by LinkedIn
This differs sharply from Web2, which centers control in tech corporations.
However, what they cite as instances of Web3 is the use of Web3-related technologies like blockchain and NFTs by tech giants like JPMorgan, Nike, Securitize, and 100 Thieves.
This reflects a dichotomy in definition and implementation of Web3.
Lack of Genuine Decentralization
Despite the confusion in the definition of Web3, let's revisit the Web3 endeavor undertaken by Nike.
If there was any brand that could successfully implement Web3 or NFTs, it would be Nike — a widely revered brand with billions in annual revenue and having a passionate consumer community.
However, in reality, Nike's .SWOOSH campaign — a Web3-enabled platform — failed to generate any significant traction.
Their latest sale of OF1 NFT boxes contributed a meager 0.0019 percent to their annual revenue.
This reflects the limited acceptance of Web3 among consumers.
Lessons from the Failed Attempt to Promote Web3
The unimpressive run of Web3 helps infer valuable lessons about marketing and hype creation:
Years have passed since the term Web3 was coined, yet till date, the conversations around it are nothing more than speculations about its "potential."
Much-anticipated innovations are yet to take shape.
The high expectations associated with Web3 now seem like a mirage based on speculations rather than actual value.
Welcome to the Graveyard of Overhyped Concepts
The way Web3 has panned out serves as a reminder that genuine innovation rarely requires extensive marketing.
In reality, real innovation asserts its presence effectively, leaving an indelible mark.
