Branding in a Post-Capitalist Era: What New Systems Support "Value" and "Trust"?

As the internet society advances, we are now in an era demanding reflection on the values of society, culture, and humanity. How will branding and value co-creation evolve in a post-capitalist society? Continuing from last time, we spoke with Hiroto Kobayashi, Chief Vision Officer (CVO) at Infobahn ( *1 ).

The Changing Relationship Between "Value" and "Money" in Post-Capitalism

Konishi: My initial interest in the concept of "brand" stemmed from how it presented a methodology for creating "meaning" and "value" centered around humanity. The internet has brought fundamental changes to both the creators of value and the methods of its creation. One major shift is the democratization of information dissemination and value creation centered around individuals. Digitalization also makes it easy to copy and infinitely reproduce value, leading to the rise of fakes and commoditization.

Furthermore, significant changes are underway regarding "money" and "trust" – the means and foundations of value exchange. Blockchain technology, central to Web 3.0, is gaining attention as a technology enabling a decentralized trust system. This system is based on individual-led connections, rather than centralized control by nations or corporations.

Kobayashi: Regarding Web 3.0, I believe it's a mistake to view it merely as a new technological concept following Web 1.0 or 2.0. To put it bluntly, tools are creating new concepts of "private ownership" and "exclusive rights" in place of laws. Code (programming instructions) is generating new value and opportunities for social reform.

We should recognize this as a major movement—a reactionary ideology coupled with democratic technology—against the web world that has been co-opted by the current capitalist system. In the early days of the internet, there was a debate that the web, spread across the globe, was a public good, and that monopolistic profit-making on it was unthinkable. It sounds laughable now, but there truly was a period when such discussions took place.

However, the dominant mindset today often falls into a state of intellectual paralysis: as long as a company's market capitalization is high, even if its methods are somewhat crude, it can silence dissent; and maximizing capital for shareholders is deemed sufficient.

Companies seem to exist solely for shareholders seeking short-term profit realization, and the term "governance" sounds like it's only for shareholders and the market. It feels like the value of employees and their families, as well as "society" and "public interest," are completely overlooked, leaving only the value as a money-making machine to be examined.

Konishi: I see. Our current capitalist society is one where "value" is tied to "money" and exchanged. But somehow, it's become like a money-driven capitalism. Where there used to be an exchange structure between "goods" and "money," now it's just money circulating. I actually think we're in an era where "value" and "money" have become disconnected. Where the more you harm society or the environment, the more you profit. We need to reclaim the "value" for society and humanity, and the appropriate exchange system for it.

However, in the Web 3.0 era, money can be "colored" with code. It's like exchanging rewards based on how money is used or what kind of value it represents. New methods are emerging to exchange diverse values that hold meaning for individuals or specific contexts— —values that were difficult to monetize in the previous anonymous currency economy. Therefore, money itself can be imbued with individual meaning and "branded," and I feel tremendous potential in this.

Kobayashi: What resonated with me was the theory proposed by the economist Bernard Lietaer ( ※2 ). The currency system we use today itself originates from "debt" (the lending and borrowing of money) and is fundamentally premised on charging people interest.

Since interest is taken from a single pie, it must be taken from someone else. Therefore, fundamentally, it's not designed around the idea of sharing with people; it's designed to encourage competition among people. While this mechanism is effective for enhancing national power and promoting competition, when brought into a community, it has the power to destroy the community's "local ties."

To address this, Mr. Lietaer argued even before blockchain that complementary currencies are necessary. A famous example of such a complementary currency is the concept of "demurrage money" proposed by the German economist Silvi O'Gesell ( ※3 ).

It's essentially money that "goes bad" if not used within a certain period. It's designed as " perishable money" to encourage early economic circulation and prevent hoarding. Today, blockchain technology makes such designs possible, leading to experiments with time-limited or purpose-specific currencies.

Creating co-creation communities by proposing "meaning"

Konishi: It's an economic system supporting the mechanisms of communities that share value. Actually, back in 2013, I wrote a book titled Brand Community Strategy (Diamond Inc.), where I proposed the concept that brands would evolve into community building—where companies and organizations connect directly with customers to co-create value together. But looking back now, I realize that perspective was still largely centered on large corporations.

We must now assume a society overwhelmingly centered on individuals. Moving forward, value will be created not by brand-led communities, but by individuals and communities themselves. Unless we think about how companies and brands can support this—how they can form platforms to enable it—I fear we won't be able to adapt to a society co-creating value five or ten years from now.

K obayashi: I completely agree. I believe community building has always been the core axis of branding, connecting the past to the future. For example, there are increasing numbers of startups creating locally-sourced craft beer. They share their "vision" – the craft beer culture and unique local value they create – with users and communicate it together. They're cultivating evangelists and prosumers while involving consumers.

However, I also believe that creating a community requires proposing "meaning." Roberto Verganti from the Politecnico di Milano ( ※5 ) proposed "meaning innovation," which is post-design thinking.

Design thinking systematized user-centric value creation methodologies, making what charismatic creators did intuitively accessible to everyone. Yet doubts linger: while it drives improvement, is it truly suited to proposing new "meaning"?

Proposing "meaning" carries responsibility and becomes part of society's grand design. I always thought it inevitable that questions about whether traditional methods suffice would arise as a post-design thinking challenge. Encountering Berganti's ideas made perfect sense. This resonated because I've been advocating "Editorial Thinking" for several years. This approach focuses not only on uncovering connections between different fields and methods for leaping ideas—things research alone can't reveal—but also on how to infuse social transformation with a will centered on new value. It's fundamentally a critique of the templatization of ideas.

Konishi: I also describe this movement—proposing new "meaning" and co-creating through communities that share its value—using the term "verb branding." Whether the leadership driving this comes from corporations or individuals remains unclear, but I wonder if it could generate a powerful force to change the world.

Kobayashi: That's precisely why we created Unchained within Infobahn—to network innovators within corporations and government agencies. We run social implementation programs for blockchain, cross-domain events, study groups, and overseas study tours.

Initially, participants in our Berlin study tours would ask before traveling, "If you find startups with amazing tech, let me know—I want to invest!" (laughs). But after attending, they start questioning, "What does our company actually want to achieve?" They realize that only by defining that purpose and envisioning the ideal society they want to create can they find co-creation partners.

Even companies with long histories often have countless "Hows" but lack a single "Why?". What I deride as "innovation play" is when companies get swept up in trends like "agile," "co-working," or "design thinking" – getting caught up in the "How" without trying to find the "Why?" That approach can't generate true innovation or build a community. Why? Because no one understands what value you're trying to provide, and no one will connect with something that could just as easily be done by Company B instead of Company A.

Konishi: I've experienced exactly that myself. Thank you for sharing such an essential and deeply inspiring perspective this time.

(After the discussion)
Moving beyond marketing tactics to consider value for society, culture, and humanity

This time, we spoke with Mr. Kobayashi on the broad theme of post-capitalist branding and the future of value co-creation. Within that, we arrived at the fundamental question: how do we realize an economic system that creates and increases meaningful "value" for people and society at this major turning point for technology and society? I became convinced that branding must also move beyond being merely a marketing tool to increase economic value for companies. It must embrace new perspectives and methodologies as a mechanism and means to co-create social value from a broader viewpoint.

※1 Infobahn: Supports domestic and international companies in all aspects of digital marketing, including launching and operating web media. Known as a pioneer in content marketing and owned media. Since 2016, it has been the official Japanese partner of Berlin's largest tech conference, Tech Open Air.

↑Back to text

※2 Bernard Lietaer: Belgian economist (1942-2019). A world-leading authority on complementary currencies (local currencies) who advocated new money systems. Major works include "The Demise of Money: The Birth of New Community Currencies" (Nihon Keizai Hyoronsha).

↑Back to text

※3 Silvio Gesell: German entrepreneur and economist (1862–1930). Major works include The Natural Economic Order. He proposed the concept of free money.

↑Back to text

※4 Demurrage Money: Famous examples include the "omusubi currency," a local currency exchangeable for rice, conceived in Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture. It operates on a system where its value decreases over time.

↑Back to text

※5 Roberto Verganti: Professor at the Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Specializes in leadership theory and innovation theory. His concept of "meaning innovation" has garnered significant attention from many companies and influenced the European Commission's innovation policies. His publications include Design-Driven Innovation (Cross Media Publishing) and Breakthrough Design (Nikkei BP).

↑Back to text