Finding Relevant Use Cases for ‘the Metaverse’: A Business Guide
And a reflection on the dangers of the word ‘metaverse’
How can I use “the metaverse” for my company?
When will “the metaverse” be mainstream?
What are the first steps we should take to implement “the metaverse” in our business?”
These are a few of the first questions I am often asked about “the metaverse”, an endlessly “air quotes”-deserving phenomenon subject to a stunning level of hype and attention over the last year. These questions are reasonable because they help businesses make strategic decisions about how (and whether) to allocate time, energy, people, and money to the concept.
I want to address these questions but also explore the trap hidden inside them — one I’ve seen sow chaos and confusion across the business landscape ever since a certain someone renamed ‘the facebook’ to…. something else.
Last year I wrote an introduction explaining what the metaverse is. I’d recommend starting there, as this is a followup to that article. The core idea is that the word should be thought of as an umbrella term for a bundle of technologies which include things like spatial computing (like AR/VR), game engines, virtual worlds, and virtual economies which are all converging into one big set of changes to our life online.
The trap in calling this all ‘the metaverse’, however, is that the word is an imprecise and confusing tool for describing what we’re talking about. As an example, a client recently shared how someone on their team believed that the metaverse, by definition, necessarily had something to do with VR headsets. That person was then confused when later shown a proof of concept which involved flat screen-based 3D environments — but in no way required VR headsets.
The way I’ve come to think of using the right words to describe these technologies is like excavating an archaeological site. If we understand that words are themselves a technology, then to articulate what you want to do, you need to be precise. Much like excavators use the right tool for specific jobs — trowels for digging in tight spaces, sieves to sift through soil, brushes for sweeping away dirt — we need to be specific with our word-tools to explain what we‘re trying to achieve.
Do you want to use augmented reality to improve your field operators’ efficiency and safety? Or VR for onboarding or to train new hires? Or do a brand activation inside a virtual world like Roblox? I’ve seen every one of these examples referred to by a company as a ‘metaverse’ initiative. So if you tell your board about a metaverse project, one person might be thinking VR training while another is expecting you to open a store in Roblox. Inside your business, we should use specific terms without referring to any of it as ‘the metaverse’.
To go back to those questions about use cases, timelines, and first steps, the answer to all of them — and any other one with the word metaverse in it — is:
“Well, it depends.”
So what does it depend on? It depends on which part of the vast territory now subject to the label “metaverse” you care about.
The first and biggest demarcation to make is whether or not we’re talking about using these tools inside our company or something having broadly to do with the consumer internet.
When I advise clients within the same company, the marketing team, with a consumer internet related understanding of the metaverse, will want to talk about different things than the business operations people focused on internal uses of things like AR/VR hardware and simulation tools. You’ll also start seeing the term “industrial metaverse” — an enterprise term which is evolving to refer more specifically to digital twins and their various applications.
Next we have to make a distinction between whether we’re focused on the hardware or the software. This might sound painfully obvious, but that example of someone believing the metaverse necessarily meant VR headsets showcases how we still have to be clear about what we mean by ‘metaverse’.
Finally, there’s an important distinction between augmented and virtual reality, and I keep those categories to achieve some level of order and simplicity. With augmented reality I’m talking about using AR in the real world somewhere. With virtual reality I mean a static, unmoving, virtual experience requiring either a VR headset or a flat screen-based 3D environment. These aren’t perfect definitions and the words ‘virtual worlds’ might be a better label for those flat screen environments. There are limitations to this framework, in that further distinctions are possible in certain places (especially the categories of AR and VR), but I’m keeping it simple.
Each one of these patches on this confusing looking map is often a unique set of companies, with different technology sets, and with different trajectories and timelines for when they might be mainstream. While these patches do intersect and inform each other, and many companies/products will overlap, this is a visual reminder that ‘the metaverse’ refers to many different things, and why colleagues should use the word as little as possible.
So if you’re asking questions about when this stuff becomes mainstream or how to use it in your company, then the first thing to consider is where on this map you plan to hang out. And figuring out the right patch for your company depends entirely on what business problem you’re trying to solve.
By the way, not to point fingers at anyone directly contributing to the ‘metaverse’ word confusion, but let’s take a quick peek over at the latest ad campaign from our friends in Menlo Park.
This ad alone (taken from instagram) is fascinating to me. There’s limited visual cues as to what might be referred to as “the metaverse”, but I’m left to assume the idea is to use AR to help firefighters navigate inside burning buildings (which is a cool use case I’ve seen demos of). This use case could certainly be considered a ‘metaverse’ application, but as far as I’m aware, that kind of hardware/software, with certain safety and other compliance requirements, is far from the consumer stuff Meta is actually working on?
This is such chaotically indiscriminate use of the word metaverse that I can only assume their communications strategy is your classic ‘cast-a-wide-net’ approach. Meta wants you to think of them (and only them) whenever you see the term used. Maybe that will work, but it isn’t helping anyone at the businesses I talk to understand what the metaverse actually is.
Let’s now shift to some of the commonly understood use cases companies can explore today?
For companies thinking about enterprise uses:
- Giving field operators or onsite personnel, AR “assisted reality” ways of enhancing their visual understanding of the work they do with their hands. This is already becoming mainstream. (Scope AR is a company I’ve followed in this space).
- Training and development is already the killer app and mainstream use case for enterprise VR. The go-to example is StriVR which spun out of Jeremy Bailenson’s lab at Stanford University and draws on his research (and DICE model) for where VR training is most useful.
- Digital Twins (loosely related to the topic of the metaverse because of the 3D spatial interfaces now used to interact with these software simulations.)
- Remote Collaboration. This topic deserves further demarcating between different business functions. There are already very good platforms for industrial designers and engineers to collaborate in spatial 3D spaces together. These are different from the platforms that may one day be used by the general desk worker who merely want zoom calls, but in augmented reality or inside a video game.
For companies thinking about use cases within the consumer internet:
- Brand and marketing activations
- New sales and customer relations channels
- Selling virtual cosmetics (apparel, dance moves, or other cosmetic virtual items)
- Online communications channel
In my view, consumer internet virtual worlds are an extension of the existing internet. Most companies have decades of experience interacting with customers using websites and apps; and virtual worlds are like ‘metaverse’ websites.
Headlines like Nearly 7 million People Have Visited Nike’s Metaverse Store grab attention today, but would you click on the article if the headline said 7 million people visited a Nike website? If we consider that in some sense, this ‘metaverse store’ is just a version of Nike’s online retail, this shows an indication of the current hype but one day it shouldn’t be so newsworthy.
My advice to companies is to treat this as a strategic communications exercise. Do an audit of your existing website and ask questions like, who is my audience and what am I trying to communicate or do with them? From there you can explore whether it makes sense to build your ‘website’ as an avatar-based 3D virtual world.
My clients often bring up that they’ve heard JP Morgan opened a lounge in Decentraland and they wonder if they should be following their example. I’ll address that here: I think it’s a good early experiment by the company to learn in this space, and it showcases an early stage of what’s possible. It got attention because of the hype, but given the hype has gone, companies need to think more about functional uses. It’s function today is the same as a website, since it’s a place to go to learn more about JP Morgan.
The final question I’m often asked is, “so what is the first step we should take?”
Here is the 3-step answer I give:
- Identify what problem you want to solve. The cliche advice to startups to avoid being ‘a solution looking for a problem’ applies here. Start with the problem. So often, I see my clients get excited about the latest technology that they fixate on the tool as something they simply have to deploy. This has been especially true for ‘the metaverse’. It’s critical that companies focus on what they are actually hoping to acheive as the starting point and ongoing north star. Forget about chasing after some buzzword. Instead chase after solving some problem.
- Be specific about what tools help solve that problem. Here’s where a metaverse swear jar is essential. Try to use the no-no word as little as possible. Do game engines help you simulate a design process better? Call it that. Would opening a virtual retail branch of your bank inside a virtual world help you connect with customers? Describe it that way. Let the press or marketing team package it as ‘the metaverse’ to the public if that helps things, but for internal discussions, be precise with your colleagues about what you are doing.
- Start with small and iterative proofs of concept. The biggest challenges I see inside companies working to deploy any of the use cases I’ve described often have little to do with the tech. The challenges are far more ‘change management’ related. There are significant operational and management challenges associated with deploying this stuff. The larger the project, the more complexity involved, and the larger the likelihood it will fail. Start small, experiment, and find out whether the tool even solves the problem. If it does then you have evidence and momentum to expand the concept in a gradual way.
One of my former clients through Singularity University, who leads Digital & Technology efforts at a large well known consumer brand recently shared his work creating an internal taxonomy for his company. Following his efforts immersing himself in these topics over the last year, he has created the following categories to align senior decision makers in navigating through their internal efforts in this space:
- Consumer metaverse: things like brand marketing, virtual events, etc
- Industrial metaverse: essentially internal business operation tools like predictive maintenance for their equipment
- Collaborative metaverse: using virtual world platforms as a communication tool for anything from job fairs, onboarding, and general remote collaboration
This type of internal thought leadership is possible because this person oversees the topic in a holistic way, from a cross-business function perspective, which is something I don’t always see happen at large companies. This particular taxonomy may work for this company, but it doesn’t mean it would be the right way to segment the ‘metaverse’ at yours.
The key point, however, is that they have created more specific terms that work for them. They’ve shown up to the excavation site with a toolbelt full of terms to help better align everyone. Other companies should do the same.
It’s clear that what we call something matters greatly. Words leave an impression in our mind shaping the outlines and details of the thing being referred to, and they inform how we approach engaging with that thing. In the case of the metaverse, it’s a dangerous business term to rely on because the picture formed in the minds of those hearing it is still too variable and unclear today.
Metaverse tally: this article uses the no-no word 42 times(!) Meta will cover my share of the jar payment.
