NFTs and digital collectible brand characters
How does an NFT version of a character differ from the regular one — and what is the real value
A regular brand character is a company asset: it draws, licenses, uses in advertising and merch, fully controlling its fate. The NFT version adds what the classic mascot does not have physically: confirmed ownership of a specific instance, programmable rights (royalties, access, voting), and the opportunity for a secondary market, where growing prices work as advertising by themselves.
For business, added value is not hype, but data and loyalty: the token holder is identified in the blockchain, to whom you can address directly, bypassing social media algorithms. For the audience — status and access, not aesthetics. Smeshariki sold 5000 NFT on TON in 10 minutes precisely because rare tokens gave a tangible status within the already existing fan community, not an abstract 'innovation'.
| Parameter | Classic character | NFT character |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Only at the company | Distributed among token holders |
| Monetization | Merch, licensing | + royalties from resales, staking |
| Audience data | Through CRM and surveys | Transparent in the blockchain |
| Risk | Low, predictable | High: the market is volatile, and reputation suffers quickly |
Why Starbucks, Porsche, and Ubisoft Lost Money on Their NFTs
Starbucks Odyssey closed after 18 months; exact sales volumes were not disclosed — however, participants were required to familiarize themselves with Web3-wallets, and rewards turned out to be worse than the standard loyalty program. People are not ready to learn complex technology for a worse offer than what already exists.
Porsche stopped the 911 mint collection in the middle of the way — 2363 out of 7500 tokens were sold. Ubisoft Quartz — was an outright anecdotal case: 15 NFTs were bought out of the declared collection, with profit less than $400. The reason for Quartz's failure is telling — the serial numbers of items were not visible within the game itself, meaning the digital value did not manifest anywhere the player spends time. Chris Brown's BREEZYVERSE had 114 million Instagram followers, and 290-300 out of 10000 NFTs were sold — proof that social media audience and willingness to pay for tokens are different things.
The overall diagnosis for all these cases is the same: brands released NFTs as just another product line, rather than building relationships with the community. The technology was complex, and the utility was either questionable or invisible.
How to determine utility, rather than just draw another picture
Utility is the answer to the question 'what can the token owner do that a person without a token cannot.' If there is no answer, the NFT is not needed at all — it's better to make a limited collection of figurines, which is cheaper and clearer to the audience.
- Access: closed drops, early access to the product, invitations to offline events;
- Economy: royalties from secondary sales, discounts, cashback in tokens;
- Status: visible in-game or within-community privileges — necessarily noticeable, as in the Ubisoft case, which was a failure;
- Influence: voting on the design of new characters, participation in DAO-brand decisions.
Legal risks: where brands lose control over IP
The character is protected simultaneously by copyright and a trademark, if the latter is registered — these are two different lines of protection, and infringement of each is considered separately. When issuing an NFT, it is important to understand that selling a token does not automatically transfer rights to the image. If the smart contract does not explicitly specify which particular rights are transferred to the buyer — commercial use, modification, public reproduction — it is considered that the rights remain with the brand, and the buyer owns only the record in the blockchain, not the character.
A separate danger is partial borrowing: even a modified silhouette or detail of a recognizable mascot costume can be recognized as a derivative work. Any collaboration with a third-party artist or platform requires a written licensing agreement with a clear description of the scope of rights — otherwise the brand risks receiving claims from third parties even after the collection is launched.
Formats of interaction that actually retain owners
Coca-Cola, to celebrate International Friendship Day, released a loot box called «Friendship Box» with four NFTs — the proceeds from the auction went to charity. The format worked because it combined an emotional occasion, an element of surprise, and a clear social purpose, rather than just speculative interest in the token price.
The three models that work most sustainably are: exclusive offline events for holders (tickets, meetings, closed shows), staking tokens in exchange for regular privileges — not one-time benefits — and community participation in brand development through voting, similar to DAOs. A one-time drop without continuation of the story usually generates a spike and subsequent decline in interest — this is exactly how communities lose those who view NFTs as products rather than as relationships.
Phygital model of Adidas and the honest framework «is an NFT needed for you»
Adidas did not sell a picture for $22 million — instead, it released 30 000 NFT and built an ecosystem: a physical product, a digital avatar for metaverses, royalties from resales, and access to a community. It is exactly this combination of 'physical + digital' that distinguishes a working project from another JPEG — the buyer receives a tangible item immediately and a digital status in addition, not the other way around.
- Does the brand already have a living fan community (like Smeshariki) ready to pay for status within it?
- Can a utility be offered that is noticeable daily, rather than hidden in the blockchain?
- Is the brand ready to run a project for years, not just a single drop?
- Is there a legally clean scheme for transferring rights via a smart contract?
If the answer is 'no' to at least two of the above points — a limited collection of figurines or physical merch with a QR code will provide more trust at lower risk than a full-fledged NFT project.
How does an NFT version of a character differ from the regular one — and what is the real value
A regular brand character is a company asset: it draws, licenses, uses in advertising and merch, fully controlling its fate. The NFT version adds what the classic mascot does not have physically: confirmed ownership of a specific instance, programmable rights (royalties, access, voting), and the opportunity for a secondary market, where growing prices work as advertising by themselves.
For business, added value is not hype, but data and loyalty: the token holder is identified in the blockchain, to whom you can address directly, bypassing social media algorithms. For the audience — status and access, not aesthetics. Smeshariki sold 5000 NFT on TON in 10 minutes precisely because rare tokens gave a tangible status within the already existing fan community, not an abstract 'innovation'.
| Parameter | Classic character | NFT character |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Only at the company | Distributed among token holders |
| Monetization | Merch, licensing | + royalties from resales, staking |
| Audience data | Through CRM and surveys | Transparent in the blockchain |
| Risk | Low, predictable | High: the market is volatile, and reputation suffers quickly |
Why Starbucks, Porsche, and Ubisoft Lost Money on Their NFTs
Starbucks Odyssey closed after 18 months; exact sales volumes were not disclosed — however, participants were required to familiarize themselves with Web3-wallets, and rewards turned out to be worse than the standard loyalty program. People are not ready to learn complex technology for a worse offer than what already exists.
Porsche stopped the 911 mint collection in the middle of the way — 2363 out of 7500 tokens were sold. Ubisoft Quartz — was an outright anecdotal case: 15 NFTs were bought out of the declared collection, with profit less than $400. The reason for Quartz's failure is telling — the serial numbers of items were not visible within the game itself, meaning the digital value did not manifest anywhere the player spends time. Chris Brown's BREEZYVERSE had 114 million Instagram followers, and 290-300 out of 10000 NFTs were sold — proof that social media audience and willingness to pay for tokens are different things.
The overall diagnosis for all these cases is the same: brands released NFTs as just another product line, rather than building relationships with the community. The technology was complex, and the utility was either questionable or invisible.
How to determine utility, rather than just draw another picture
Utility is the answer to the question 'what can the token owner do that a person without a token cannot.' If there is no answer, the NFT is not needed at all — it's better to make a limited collection of figurines, which is cheaper and clearer to the audience.
- Access: closed drops, early access to the product, invitations to offline events;
- Economy: royalties from secondary sales, discounts, cashback in tokens;
- Status: visible in-game or within-community privileges — necessarily noticeable, as in the Ubisoft case, which was a failure;
- Influence: voting on the design of new characters, participation in DAO-brand decisions.
Legal risks: where brands lose control over IP
The character is protected simultaneously by copyright and a trademark, if the latter is registered — these are two different lines of protection, and infringement of each is considered separately. When issuing an NFT, it is important to understand that selling a token does not automatically transfer rights to the image. If the smart contract does not explicitly specify which particular rights are transferred to the buyer — commercial use, modification, public reproduction — it is considered that the rights remain with the brand, and the buyer owns only the record in the blockchain, not the character.
A separate danger is partial borrowing: even a modified silhouette or detail of a recognizable mascot costume can be recognized as a derivative work. Any collaboration with a third-party artist or platform requires a written licensing agreement with a clear description of the scope of rights — otherwise the brand risks receiving claims from third parties even after the collection is launched.
Formats of interaction that actually retain owners
Coca-Cola, to celebrate International Friendship Day, released a loot box called «Friendship Box» with four NFTs — the proceeds from the auction went to charity. The format worked because it combined an emotional occasion, an element of surprise, and a clear social purpose, rather than just speculative interest in the token price.
The three models that work most sustainably are: exclusive offline events for holders (tickets, meetings, closed shows), staking tokens in exchange for regular privileges — not one-time benefits — and community participation in brand development through voting, similar to DAOs. A one-time drop without continuation of the story usually generates a spike and subsequent decline in interest — this is exactly how communities lose those who view NFTs as products rather than as relationships.
Phygital model of Adidas and the honest framework «is an NFT needed for you»
Adidas did not sell a picture for $22 million — instead, it released 30 000 NFT and built an ecosystem: a physical product, a digital avatar for metaverses, royalties from resales, and access to a community. It is exactly this combination of 'physical + digital' that distinguishes a working project from another JPEG — the buyer receives a tangible item immediately and a digital status in addition, not the other way around.
- Does the brand already have a living fan community (like Smeshariki) ready to pay for status within it?
- Can a utility be offered that is noticeable daily, rather than hidden in the blockchain?
- Is the brand ready to run a project for years, not just a single drop?
- Is there a legally clean scheme for transferring rights via a smart contract?
If the answer is 'no' to at least two of the above points — a limited collection of figurines or physical merch with a QR code will provide more trust at lower risk than a full-fledged NFT project.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
