For a few years, everyone seemed to think that 3D TV would be the next big thing. Networks rushed to create 3D programming and while everything looked cool, it turned out that two dimensions were enough for most people and 3D TV was pretty much gone.
You can make a next big case for 3D printing, smart homes, voice assistants, and a few other things. All of these products exist, but they are largely niche products. Now Mark Zuckerberg, creator of Facebook and CEO of what is now called Meta Platforms (META) has bet much of his company’s future that people want to be in the metaverse.
This was followed by many retail brands and fast food chains creating metaverse properties. The problem is that a virtual world can solve some real problems – a meeting in a virtual conference room can be a better experience than a Zoom meeting – but the metaverse is not a better way to get a coupon for a Wendy’s value meals.
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) followed a similar path. Many companies have jumped on board and major sports leagues and many major entertainment players are looking to digital collectibles as a source of revenue. But, people may actually want to own physical collectibles because buying some sort of NFT is a lot like buying nothing.
Meta
Real could be better than digital
Meta and the other companies working on practical metaverse solutions can actually solve some problems and create worthwhile uses. A doctor, for example, may be able to participate in a complex surgery without actually being present, and the job interview process may benefit from something more personal than a video call, but less costly than bring in candidates by air.
For real human interaction, however, it seems possible (perhaps even likely) that people will want real in-person experiences. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and social media in general are usually built on people actually doing things.
You can’t really post a video of yourself eating virtual ghost peppers or in an enviable digital location. A big part of social media is “watch me,” well, you actually have to do something to make people want to watch.
NFTs are similar. They can be called original and collectible, but isn’t the point of owning a collectible to be able to show it off? Yes, there’s the possibility of an NFT increasing in value, but whether it’s baseball cards, Beanie Babies, pogs, Pokemon cards, record albums, or something similar, the market was generally short-lived.
The two McDonald’s (MCD) and Wendy’s (MAGNIFYING GLASS) have spent considerable sums to create a presence in the metaverse. The problem – and it really is a big problem – is that you can’t actually eat in a virtual world. This is the core value offered by fast food chains. You give them money and they feed you.
A certain percentage of their customers might want to fight Hamburglar for a discount on a Happy Meal or make virtual baked potatoes at a pretend Wendy’s, but that audience seems to be quite small. The metaverse and NFTs have logical uses. Taylor Swift fans will likely buy an NFT related to her new album if it offers exclusive content or a benefit in purchasing concert tickets, but most NFTs probably aren’t.
Most collectibles make sense if you get more enjoyment out of owning the item than it costs to buy it. It’s not an easy calculation to quantify, but in most cases,
“I’ll sell it later for more than I paid” is a really bad reason to buy most things.
When a company that isn’t a tech company says it’s creating a metaverse property, I wonder if management is just chasing the next squirrel. Zuckerberg may be right or he may just be building the product he thinks people will want. He was, of course, very right about that with Facebook, but not all sequels are a hit.
Zuck may have his own ‘Empire Strikes Back’ or ‘Rocky II’, the Metaverse looks like he’s betting big on ‘Speed 2: Cruise Control’, ‘Next Karate Kid’, or even the really lamentable “Blues Brothers 2000″. .”
#Meta #Stock #Zuckerberg #onehit
