So, it raises the question… in a connected world, where disruptive innovation continues to evolve the relationship between people and brands, how can brands ensure that virtual isn’t disrupting personal experiences, but rather, enhancing them?

A brand relationship is not the same as a human relationship. It is more abstract. You cannot meet a brand at a café and have a conversation over coffee – a brand ambassador perhaps – but not the brand itself. Therefore, a brand relationship does stand a better chance of being buildable and maintainable in an entirely virtual world.

Some brands naturally have a more physical presence, like Apple, which brings a different dynamic to the customer experience. But lucky for brands, it’s not about finding the right balance but about finding out what works best for them and the products and services they offer. Brands can try different things – virtual or physical, measure the responses, and adjust.

What we are seeing now, with the likes of Nike’s acquisition of creator-led studio RTFKT, is the bleeding edge of brand experience. RTFKT describes itself as a community of collectors, investors, artists, gamers, and fans. It has evolved Nike into the Web3 strategy elite, with the creation of its Dot Swoosh platform where people can buy, show off and trade phygital and virtual products, unlock access to events, and co-create products. This is not simply a platform for Web3 natives to hang out, the experience is designed to be as simple, safe, and inclusive as possible so anyone can participate.

Relationships are formed in all sorts of different ways now, for example through gaming platforms, where people meet in the virtual world and then progress that relationship into the physical world. However, this is more of a human-to-game-to-human relationship, and arguably, without the game and its social features those same relationships would never have occurred, and they wouldn’t opt to maintain that relationship. Virtual can act as a substitute, not a replacement, for human relationships.

But what these experiences and technologies should do is make an experience better for humans. That’s the real potential we’re dealing with. Technology that enhances and advances human connection and relationships with the brand itself. Virtual worlds and experience technologies that are driving these, such as the game engines are being enhanced all the time, new hardware and form-factors are improving all the time and humans are extremely adaptable. Two generations ago, no one spent their working hours behind a screen. Today it is ubiquitous. So, over the long run, all bets are off when it comes to virtual.

However, I feel that we need to reframe this – because at the same time as everything else – what it means to be human has also evolved. The introduction of technology has changed what it means to be human, and now we have an entire generation of people that no longer delineate between face-to-face social apps, discord, Twitch, Roblox, and many others. Yet they all have one simple thing in common: they just want to connect and have a more intimate personal relationship. And arguably, that’s what technology has driven to date.

Virtual can only go so far – so if you don’t make the brand interaction meaningful, the relationship will wither. So, it’s less about finding a balance and more about the pivotal role technology needs to play in looking for innovative ways to bring people in society closer together and helping them connect on a more intimate and personal level.