This post is a bit different, but it’s a good excuse to formulate my thoughts around a topic that’s been on my mind for a while: blockchains. This is in response to a scholarship competition hosted by SociallyInfused Media exploring the idea of, “How Digital Marketing Will Change in the 2020s.” Naturally, I’m going to frame this with my own ag / science / marketing perspective. But first, let’s start with a general overview.
So first, what is blockchain?? Is it just another annoying trend like bottled water, Bieber fever, or tickle-me Elmo?
I don’t think so. Blockchain has recently shifted from esoteric theory of the past, to fundamental operations of every individual on the planet in the near future. There are lots of experts out there who can go in-depth explaining it, but essentially (from what I understand but…I am admittedly no expert) a blockchain is a digitized, de-centralized ledger system that is next-to-impossible to reverse-engineer, hack, or plagiarize. At the moment, the most relevant example would be crypto currencies such as Bitcoin or Etherium, which are made possible (and so attractive because of) blockchain structure. Check this brief explanation:
It is timely to consider a blockchain in the context of digital marketing, even before the pandemic. In recent times, consumers’ preferences are shifting to value things such as values-driven consumption (expecting retailers to act with honesty, integrity and transparency), integrity-driven leadership (leaders who don’t elevate their bottom lines over employee and customer satisfaction), relationships with the company (consumers want to be seen, heard and understood), and product origin and ethics (consumers want to know what goes into a product, how it’s produced and how far it’s been transported). Today’s consumer is indeed hyperaware of historically subliminal marketing tactics…
But how does this hyper-awareness of marketing & shifting values fit with blockchain?
I started thinking about this in the last couple years after I published a review paper in 2014 on the topic of “PHA-derived bioplastics.” A review – NOT primary research. In other words, I surveyed available data at the time, synthesized it into a cohesive document, and drew my own conclusions and predictions from the existing data. Nothing too spectacular – I mean it was well done, sure…
…but it’s still a review paper. Yet, according to ResearchGate (think of the site as a hybrid between LinkedIn and Google Scholar) it’s been referenced many times. In other words: other publications or articles are referencing a my review that is a culmination of references; or, referencing referenced material…an ‘Inception’ of references!
But when references are referenced, and those referenced references are referenced…it’s sort of like a game of telephone: the further a message moves from its origin, the higher the risk of distortion and losing its original meaning.
Blockchain would mitigate this (increasingly) fragile veil of applying the label “science” to just any old publication or post, especially online. A blockchain approach would immediately filter out the original from plagiarized versions, poorly-attempted replications, or simply from secondary sources referencing the original. For example, let’s say there is a lab doing novel research; let’s say they publish their results “Lab-Awesome_Original-Publication001” in a peer-reviewed journal.
No matter where you look, this publication is the same. Now, if I referenced it in my paper mentioned above, the blockchain would label it as:
“Lab-Awesome_Original-Publication001_REF1″
…because it’s once-removed from the original source. Currently, publications use a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number which is essentially the same (or like an ISBN number for books), but here’s where a blockchain would differ: A future paper that references mine (which is already referencing the original) would be labelled as:
Lab-Awesome_Original-Publication001_REF1_REF2″
or, another publication at a later date (or, “downstream”), referencing this most recent one (which is now twice-removed from origin), would be labelled as:
“Lab-Awesome_Original-Publication001_REF1_REF2_REF3″
…and so on. A publication that is, at first glance, “peer reviewed” (reviewed by several qualified professionals in the relevant field) is immediately recognized as the origin, or as a downstream version, AND how far from the origin (how potentially distorted) the publication is in front of you. And, maybe most importantly, blockchain will allow credit to be given where credit is due. This importance has been written about recently, and intelligently distributing content could be a make-or-break when it comes to building and marketing a brand – especially online.
Although I believe publication authentication via blockchain will be one of the simplest and most practical applications in this era of fake news, poor journalism, or lazy research – considering shifting consumer attitudes, and the capacity for blockchain traceability – there are some interesting developments that could unfold outside the context of vetting publications. Let’s briefly consider a few use cases.
Because plants naturally reproduce themselves (ie. they have baby plants in the form of seeds), obviously seeds can be stored, planted, and reproduced each season, perpetuating the species. With a nudge or two from plant breeders over time, each generation can achieve tailored traits for a given trait or end-use. There are massive amounts of resources that go into plant breeding from both public and private funding in Canada (and many other jurisdictions); to achieve the formal label of “certified seed” requires stringent standards are met. The Canadian Seed Growers’ Association has a great explanation of the various standards of seed quality and the process to allow declaration of the different quality of seed in Canada. That process would be a great fit for blockchain: seed lots could be assigned production numbers and tracked through the value chain, which would protect premiums paid by producers, while strengthening consumers’ perception and confidence in the industry. These standardized seed qualities are why producers will pay for seed that could otherwise be bin-run.
In practical terms, bin-running seed would occur when a crop producer would buy the seed once, plant and grow the crop, and after harvesting, keep a small percentage in the bin to plant that seed again the following year (and repeat). This does happen with certain crops, so in some cases, a very good variety was bought several years ago. Incentive to buy new varieties happens when a better-performing variety is released (due to higher yield, better pest resistance, or improved drought tolerance, as a few examples). The genetics can become somewhat diluted over time, since natural mutations occur just as they would with any plant growing in a natural (not controlled in a lab) environment. Seed from other crops is bought annually, since the either the hybrid vigour / herbicide tolerant trait(s) is/are not feasible, or it is a legally-protected intellectual property (a registered commercial variety), respectively. (In Canada in recent times, there is a lot of debate about how to ensure enough resources are channeled back to breeding programs when seed is bin-run year after year, while not financially destroying a farming operation…it’s a complex topic and personally, I can understand well both sides of the argument). Anyways – blockchain could have a place here too: a producer could document how “pure” the seed is relative to the original seed lot, and/or different royalty tiers could be created relative to that. The buyer could request documentation to justify paying a small premium in some cases. In other cases, where the seed cannot be bin-run, it would be an easy mechanism to verify hybrid seed was indeed fairly purchased to produce.
Generally, blockchain is interesting for another reason: it exposes the conflict between socialism versus capitalism. Over-regulation (attaching blockchain to every form of transaction) could result in very low margins; I’m not saying capitalism should always maximize profits at the cost of anything else, but a true capitalist system is the equalizer between what the masses are willing to pay (it’s their choice after all) and what price the supplier/producer can put it on the market for. Look at those fidget spinner things:
…if a quick scan of a QR code on the package (documenting the supply chain via blockchain concept) revealed that they were produced by slave labour in China inexpensively outsourced, packaged and shipped for a few pennies, and you’re paying ~$8-10, do you think they would have resulted in a 9-figure industry?? Or from an emotional/human perspective, maybe it also introduces a large-scale version of too much information (TMI) from a “user experience” perspective.
It will be interesting to see how blockchain applications unfold in the world of marketing, whether it’s in the context of promoting new retail products online or in-store, in supply/value-chains in commodity trading, or simply in digital publications related to these industries. Regulation always seems to lag behind technological developments, and blockchain could be a very revolutionary shift that current marketing Code of Ethics will need to encompass. Like it or not, it looks like blockchain is here to stay. Best to stay informed on how it will impact your industry!
