Journal of Marketing Communications

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Beyond blockchain: How tokens trigger the

internet of value and what marketing researchers
need to know about them

Horst Treiblmaier

To cite this article: Horst Treiblmaier (2023) Beyond blockchain: How tokens trigger the
internet of value and what marketing researchers need to know about them, Journal of
Marketing Communications, 29:3, 238-250, DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2021.2011375

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2021.2011375

Published online: 08 Dec 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1395

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmc20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS
2023, VOL. 29, NO. 3, 238–250
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2021.2011375

Beyond blockchain: How tokens trigger the internet of value

and what marketing researchers need to know about them
Horst Treiblmaier
Modul University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The rapidly growing importance of blockchain technology has Received 19 June 2021
taken many scholars and industry professionals by surprise. Its Accepted 22 November 2021
emergence has sparked a multitude of innovative, yet largely KEYWORDS
untested use cases and business models that have the Blockchain; Distributed
potential to substantially transform the marketing landscape. ledger technology; Token;
More specifi- cally, blockchain as the base technology in Tokenization; Token
combination with toke- nization has the potential to Economy; Non-fungible
fundamentally transform marketing communication by changing token; Internet of Value
the ways in which companies and their customers interact.
While academic research still ponders how blockchain can be
best incorporated into existing research streams, the industry
tests numerous ideas on a trial-and-error basis. Blockchains
comprise a diverse array of complex and rapidly developing
technological building blocks, which makes them hard to
understand and integrate into existing marketing frameworks,
models, and theories. In contrast, a specific focus on tokens
facil- itates understanding and classification. In this paper, we
clarify the terminology surrounding the emerging token
ecosystem from a marketing perspective, illustrate how tokens
can potentially impact the marketing profession, and recommend
approaches for their integration into academic research.

Introduction
Apart from a few computer scientists and cryptographers, hardly anyone took notice
when Bitcoin, the first successful online implementation of a public and permissionless
blockchain and also the first so-called cryptocurrency, was conceptually introduced in
2008 (Nakamoto 2008), and the corresponding source code was released in 2009.
Beginning in 2015, the business and economic potential of blockchain technology
gained serious attention (Swan 2015; Tapscott and Tapscott 2016). The hype that
followed was characterized by exaggerated expectations and the rise of numerous
legitimate but also dubious business models and fundraising schemes, many of which
caused substantial losses for investors and led to the so-called blockchain winter in
which the useful application of blockchain technology was occasionally questioned
(Kharpal 2018). Nonetheless, in the wake of this hype, the technology (or rather its
various components) matured along with its regulation and enforcement (Drylewski et al.
2021), and businesses have now gained a more thorough understanding of what
blockchain can and cannot

CONTACT Horst TreiblmaierModul University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING 2
actually achieve. Recently, various scholars have highlighted the technology’s great
marketing potential, namely, its ability to completely transform the way in which
com- panies interact with their customers (Antoniadis, Spinthiropoulos, and Kontsas
2020; Boukis 2019; Gleim and Stevens 2021; Rejeb, Keogh, and Treiblmaier 2020; Wang
et al. 2021).
In spite of the substantial interest in blockchain, numerous misconceptions still
exist that are partly caused by the complexity of the technology and partly by the
existence of many blockchain variants that differ fundamentally in their respective building
blocks. The confusion starts when it comes to defining blockchain and differentiating it
from dis- tributed ledger technology or in determining the total market capitalization
of the so- called cryptocurrency market or crypto industry (as a sum total of all
cryptocurrencies). The latter is regularly calculated by multiplying the assumed market
supply by the current market price, ignoring the fact that the actual market supply
frequently does not corre- spond to the total available supply, since private keys have
been irrevocably lost, and the current market price (as expressed in fiat currency) does
not correspond to the revenue that can be gained if all units of a particular
cryptocurrency are exchanged into fiat money. Conte de Leon et al. (2017, 286) wraps
it up nicely: ‘Many of the statements [about blockchains and DLTs] may be misleading.
These are the desired emergent proper- ties of a complex system, not assured
properties’.
Other misconceptions pertain to the governance structures of blockchain and the
fundamental principles of reaching consensus among participants. For example, the
widely known proof of work algorithm, which requires the use of substantial computing
resources to produce a piece of data (‘the solution’) and forms part of the Nakamoto
consensus in Bitcoin, is not the only way to support the consensus process in
distributed networks. This specific algorithm is but one potential procedure for
selecting the next block producer, and its vast energy consumption (which is a frequent
concern of critics) is caused by the substantial economic incentives triggered by the rise of
Bitcoin’s evaluation as opposed to its being an intrinsic feature of blockchain (Treiblmaier,
2021a). Numerous other consensus algorithms, such as proof of stake (i.e., validators are
selected in propor- tion to the amount of cryptocurrency they lock in a special contract) or
proof of authority (i.e., validators are selected based on their approved identity), differ in
their underlying procedures and also in the degree to which they allow for public
participation and ensure the finality of transactions.
In order to fully assess the potential of blockchain as well as its relevance for
marketing research and practice, it is therefore crucial to first define the core terms
and to develop research suggestions that abstract from the idiosyncrasies of specific
technologies and their respective implementations. Instead, the focus must lie on the
outcomes of blockchain that are actually relevant for marketing researchers and
profes- sionals. In this paper, we therefore suggest that marketing experts focus
on the potential of tokens, which represents a higher level of abstraction and allows
one to concentrate on applications rather than getting distracted by the details of
infrastruc- ture, network, or protocol layer.
This paper is structured as follows: In the first section, we will provide the
necessary definitions, starting with blockchain and distributed ledger technology before
moving on to tokens, Internet of value, and related terms. Next, we briefly summarize
previous research on blockchain in marketing, followed by a section in which we
illustrate how
 2 H.

the blockchain technology stack yields interesting properties that allow for the creation of
various token types. Additionally, we briefly discuss some marketing use cases for various
types of tokens. Next, we suggest a roadmap for marketing before concluding the
paper.

Definitions
When it comes to the impact of distributed ledgers, the dialogue in both academia and
industry is often complicated by the use of unclear jargon, which can be facilitated
through the uniform use of relevant terminology. In this regard, the International
Organization for Standardization (2020) provides a comprehensive list of relevant
defini- tions, ranging from the term ‘asset’ (i.e., ‘anything that has value to a
stakeholder’) to an exact description of ‘distributed ledger technology’ (i.e., a ‘ledger
that is shared across a set of DLT nodes and synchronized between the DLT nodes using
a consensus mechan- ism’) as well as ‘blockchain’ (i.e., a ‘distributed ledger with
confirmed blocks organized in an append-only, sequential chain using cryptographic links’).
Therefore, it can be said that DLTs comprise blockchains; however, we will only use the
more popular term ‘blockchain’ in the remainder of this paper, independent of the
underlying data structure. In academia, alternative definitions for blockchain tend to
focus on its important emerging properties (e.g., ‘blockchain is a digital, decentralized,
and distributed ledger in which transactions are logged and added in chronological order
with the goal of creating permanent and tamperproof records’ (Treiblmaier 2018,
547)). The International Standardization Organization (2020) also gives a fairly
parsimonious definition of ‘token’ as a ‘digital asset that represents a collection of
entitlement’. A more refined definition is provided by Sunyaev et al. (2021, 457): ‘a
token is a sequence of characters that serves as an identifier for a specific asset
(e.g., personalized usage rights) or asset type (e.g., a cryptocurrency).’ Coins can be
differentiated from tokens in that the former are native to a specific blockchain (e.g.,
Bitcoin), while the latter are built on top of one. However, we subsume all
cryptocurrencies that have payment functions as payment tokens, indepen- dent of the
layer of the blockchain on which they reside. In this context, tokenization refers to the
generation of digital representations of assets, which represents value that can be
easily created and shared online.
From a broader perspective, the ‘Token Economy refers to the system of incentives
based on cryptocurrencies that reinforce and build desirable behaviors in the
blockchain ecosystem’ (Liu 2019). The main application of tokens can be seen in the
straightforward creation and transfer of value without intermediaries, which brings forth
the ‘Internet of Value’, which is defined as ‘the instant transfer of assets that can be
expressed in monetary terms over the Internet between peers without the need for
intermediaries’ (Treiblmaier, 2022).
In summary, value transfers over the Internet in the form of tokens are enabled by
an underlying distributed ledger (or blockchain), thus creating the so-called Internet of
Value. From a marketing perspective, the relevant use cases and their defining character-
istics (e.g., value transfer without intermediaries) are better conveyed by focusing on
tokens or the Internet of Value as opposed to blockchain technology, which merely
constitutes the technical building block. In other words, blockchain provides the
under- lying infrastructure to enable the transfer of value and other desired features,
such as shared data access and data security.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING 2
Blockchain and marketing
Hitherto, blockchain technology has been given relatively little attention in leading
marketing journals, which contrasts starkly with the substantial levels of current and
predicted industry investments (Grand View Research 2021) and alerts from
researchers that blockchain is ‘a technology that marketers need to be acutely aware of
and prepared to utilize’ (Gleim and Stevens 2021, 123). These authors also suggest
numerous blockchain research opportunities and raise marketing-relevant questions in
areas such as crypto- currencies, digital platforms, supply chains, online advertising,
and market research. Similarly, Krafft, Sajtos, and Haenlein (2020) mention blockchain
as one technology that recently surged as part of the so-called Fourth Industrial
Revolution, a term coined by German scientists to denote a high-tech strategy for
their government. Specifically, Industry 4.0 refers to the combination of modern smart
technology (e.g., Internet of Things, machine-to-machine communication) with
traditional industrial platforms and manufacturing (Moore 2019).
From a marketing perspective, Gupta et al. (2020) emphasize the potential of this
digital transformation in assisting with customer interaction and improving the effi-
ciency of online advertising. Kumar and Ramachandran (2020) see blockchain as an
important part of an upcoming, technology-enabled reality. In a recent paper from Cui
et al. (2021), blockchain gets more than just an honorary mention as a tool that can
remedy pending privacy issues and whose efficiency can easily be tested for different
Internet user types (Sheehan 2002). Bleier, Goldfarb, and Tucker (2020) further elaborate
on this topic and suggest various applications of blockchain that can be used for
resolving digital privacy concerns. Taken together, all of these applications will sub-
stantially shape the way in which companies will communicate with their customers in
the not-too-distant future.
More in-depth research can be found outside of the core marketing community. For
example, in a Harvard Business Review article, Ghose (2018) briefly outlines what
block- chain could potentially mean for marketing, and Rejeb, Keogh, and Treiblmaier
(2020) suggest specific areas in which it can impact the profession. These include the
fostering of disintermediation, combating click fraud, reinforcing trust and
transparency, enhancing privacy protection, empowering digital marketing security, and
enabling creative loyalty programs. When it comes to practical implementations and their
impact, Ying, Jia, and Du (2018) present a case study of an airline’s blockchain-enabled e-
commerce platform, and Wang et al. (2019) explore its capability for value creation with
loyalty programs. All things considered, the reception of blockchain in marketing
research has been comparatively lukewarm to date, which can be attributed not only
to the complexity of the technology but also to the difficulties of integrating it into
existing frameworks of theory-based research.

Tokens
As outlined above, tokens as identifiers of assets or asset types provide the ideal means for
easily transferring value, thus opening up new opportunities for redesigning relationships
among companies and their customers. Most notably, this is exclusively done online
and, in many (envisioned) use cases, without the need for dedicated intermediaries.
 2 H.

Figure 1. Blockchain technology stack, properties, and token types.

Token technology
Figure 1 illustrates the underlying blockchain technology stack on the left (Anwar 2018),
its emergent properties in the middle, and the resulting token types on the right. The
six properties of a distributed ledger as shown in the figure – namely, flexibility,
opaqueness, policy, performance, practicality, and security – can be further unraveled
into 40 (mostly technical) characteristics. In this context, flexibility refers to the degrees of
freedom associated with deploying applications and customizing a blockchain, opaqueness
refers to its level of untraceability, policy refers to the ability to guide and verify correct
operations, performance refers to the accomplishment of tasks, practicality refers to the
achievement of goals with respect to social and socio-technical constraints, and security
refers to the uncompromised functioning of the ledger and the integrity of its stored
data (Kannengießer et al. 2020). In a nutshell, the underlying technology stack
determines the emergent properties of block- chains, which can then be used to better
describe the respective tokens and the emergent use cases. Additionally, it is noteworthy
that most underlying blockchain characteristics (e.g., interoperability, traceability,
compliance, degree of centralization, scalability) are generally continuous properties
rather than being absolute. As such, blockchain-based solutions are best conceived of as
potential improvements across these characteristics as compared to extant approaches,
which are dominated by centralized database systems.
It is also worth noting that the outcome of Figure 1 are specific token types rather than
blockchain features, such as shared data access, that may sometimes be of special interest
to marketing experts. However, we assume that, more often than not, it will be the
resulting token rather than the underlying technology that attracts their attention.
Shifting the focus of attention away from the blockchain layer and towards the token
layer serves to abstract from the technical complexity and hide the idiosyncrasies of
the respective protocol and its realization. In other words, tokens incorporate the
features that marketers are interested in, and the Internet of Value allows for their cheap,
easy, and fast distribution. This enables new business models and market structures, many
of which rely on peer-to-peer networks rather than on hierarchic governance models,
and are predicted to substantially transform existing market structures.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING 2
Table 1. Token classification (Treiblmaier 2021b) slightly modified from Euler (2018) and Oliveira et
al. (2018).
Class
Payment Token Utility Token Investment Token
Role/Purpose
Right Value Toll Function Currency Earnings
Exchange
Representation
Digital Physical Virtual Legal
Supply
Fixed Schedule-based
Incentive System
Enter Platform Use Platform Stay Long-Term
Fungibility
Fungible Non-Fungible

Having identified blockchain-based tokens as potentially powerful tools for

conveying marketing value in the future, we now turn our attention to a classification
of the most relevant token features from a marketing perspective. Similar to blockchain
itself, tokens are not homogeneous artifacts, and they can be differentiated along
numerous categories as shown in Table 1. Their most prominent distinguishing feature
is their intended use, enabling their separation into three token types: payment
(means of payment), utility (consumption of a company’s offerings), and investment
(assetization of goods and data and the creation of either a loan or equity). In practice, it
is especially the differentiation between the latter two types that can be complex, but
this distinction bears significant implications since investment tokens are subject to
more regulatory scrutiny than their utility counterparts.
Token roles and purposes are not restricted to value exchange as they can also be
the representation of a right, toll, function, or earnings. Tokens can therefore represent
digital, physical, virtual, or legal artifacts. Depending on its underlying design, a
token’s supply can be fixed (as is the case with Bitcoin) or flexible. From a marketing
perspective, the incentive a particular token represents is particularly interesting.
Here we differentiate between enticing consumers to enter a platform, to use a platform,
or to establish a long- term relationship, the latter of which might be particularly relevant
for loyalty programs. One more important feature, fungibility, refers to the
interchangeability of a particular item and is explained in more detail in the section
below.

Token applications in marketing

As of 2021, the Token Economy has already arrived, and the industry is eager to adopt
it, with an estimated market size of $24 trillion by 2027 (Mozaic Markets 2021). This
devel- opment is driven by innovative startups as well as by powerful incumbents who
sense the opportunity to redesign their communication and distribution processes and
want to strengthen their relationships with their customers. In this respect, payment
tokens can revolutionize payment processes by eliminating intermediaries, which not
only reduces transaction costs but also allows for direct transactions between
companies and their
 2 H.

customers as well as among private individuals. Investment tokens can open new
oppor- tunities for fundraising and directly involving consumers. This could open up
new ways of crowdfunding (Cai 2018) and innovative forms of user involvement at the
early stages of product development. However, from a marketing perspective, utility
tokens might turn out to be the most interesting and flexible token type since they
allow a plethora of application scenarios, and they are not as strictly regulated as
investment tokens.
Loyalty programs whose relevance for marketing performance have long been con-
firmed by the academic community (Antoniadis, Kontsas, and Spinthiropoulos 2019;
Bıçakcıoğlu, İpek, and Bayraktaroğlu 2018; Santos, Coelho, and Rita 2021) are an illustra-
tive example of a popular token use that connects multiple parties, such as customers,
companies, and platform providers. Utility tokens represent gateways for users to
enter the respective network and to consume the benefits that the program offers.
The application of security tokens in such programs might be hampered by legislation,
but it would be fairly easy to imagine programs in which security token holders are
offered special benefits, which nicely illustrates the combination of several token
types. For example, this might be an appealing option for luxury companies, such as
LVMH, Prada, and Cartier, to not only use blockchain technology for tracking and
tracing products in their supply chains but also to offer privileges to the members of
their shareholders club by using tokens (LVMH 2021). Additionally, tokens can facilitate
the transfer of accrued value across different platforms and bonus programs, which
could make individual programs much more attractive to consumers (Boukis 2019).
This can exert a positive impact on the financial position of the firm (Agrawal et al. 2018;
Antoniadis, Kontsas, and Spinthiropoulos 2019, 2020). In this regard, the exploration of
token-based gamification offers unprecedented opportunities, which, in turn, can help
to boost loyalty among customers (Antoniadis, Kontsas, and Spinthiropoulos 2019; Deloitte
2016; Galvez, Mejuto, and Simal-Gandara 2018). Conceptually, the technical
implementation does not differ much from solutions that allow for the tokenized transfer
of virtual assets across different computer games.
Recently, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have gained a lot of popularity among consumers
and organizations alike (Thaddeus-Johns 2021). In a nutshell, they represent a unique
asset that is not interchangeable and, being based on blockchain, is easily
transferable. Patel (2021) recommends that companies take advantage of these
specific features by creating unique brand experiences, increasing brand awareness,
encouraging interaction, and stimulating interest in their brands and products. This can
be done by having tokens represent either real-world items or digital products whose
supply is (artificially) limited. Using them to arouse emotions and to create bonds
between companies and their customers offers exciting new opportunities for
marketing managers but also for researchers who want to explore how customer
relationships can be created and strengthened.
It is also important for marketing experts to understand that tokens based on
the Ethereum blockchain, which is currently the dominant programmable platform
that provides the technical infrastructure for numerous applications, can be easily
differen- tiated. In this respect, ERC stands for Ethereum Request for Comment, which
refers to application-level standards that can be created by anyone. The following
number repre- sents an identifier of the respective proposal and also hints at the
capabilities of the token. For example, ERC-20, the most popular standard to date,
indicates fungible value-bearing
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING 2
tokens that can be easily sent and received among peers. ECR-223 fixed some short-
comings of ERC-20 and, amongst other things, prevents token transfers to contracts
that are not able to receive them. ERC-721 introduced NFTs, and ERC-1155 provides a
standard interface for smart contracts that are able to manage multiple token types. While
market- ing experts are unlikely to be interested in specific implementation details, it is
still helpful for them to understand the core features of dominant token types as
exemplified above. Furthermore, it is important to mention that as of autumn 2021, the
Ethereum blockchain is undergoing a transition from a consensus mechanism that is
based on an energy- intensive proof of work toward a proof of stake. This transition is
predicted to reduce the amount of energy needed to create and secure the chain by
about 99.95% (Beekhuizen 2021) and will counter the argumentation of skeptics that
blockchain solutions are not sustainable due to their vast energy consumption. Finally, it
is noteworthy that numerous other blockchains exist or are currently under development
that can be deployed for tokenization, such as Cardano, EOS, Algorand, and Hedera,
just to name a few.

Marketing research roadmap

Blockchain is but another technology that changes the way in which companies
and consumers can exchange and record data via the Internet. In this regard, it
provides a further step in the evolution of the Internet from an Information Economy
(Web 1), which allowed for one-way communication, via the Platform Economy (Web
2), which enabled two-way communication and led to the emergence of social media
and e-com- merce via dedicated intermediaries, ultimately creating the Token
Economy (Web 3), which empowers peer-to-peer transactions and automated
contract execution. In a nutshell, the business and economic disruptive potential of
Web 3 might be comparable to their previous counterparts (Voshmgir 2019).
In this regard, Figure 2 provides a high-level overview that sketches several envisioned
changes, which might result from widespread blockchain adoption. The unidirectional
arrow for Web 1 illustrates the emergence of the World Wide Web (WWW) as an
informa- tional medium, allowing for directed communication, which later
transformed into two- sided communication in Web 2. On top of these developments,
the blockchain-based Web 3 now allows for the execution of contracts and the direct
transfer of value, which might make intermediaries obsolete (as depicted by the
institution shown in the top of Figure 2). Additionally, it might also provide consumers
and companies with improved

Figure 2. Blockchain-based B2C marketing transformation.

 2 H.

information quality all along the supply chain by enabling shared data access. To give just
one example of why this is relevant for marketers, Garaus and Treiblmaier (2021) show
how increased visibility in food supply chains might help to strengthen trust in retailers
and influence consumer choices.
Marketing research builds on long-standing traditions and relies on a multitude of
frameworks and models, many of which are based on sophisticated behavioral and
cognitive theories (Hornik, Cohen, and Amar 2009; Moorthy 1993). Similar to the
emergence of the WWW, the underlying principles of marketing might not be
fundamentally altered by blockchain, but it is crucial that marketing practitioners
and scholars consider how best to integrate this ongoing transformation into their
existing portfolio of tools, methods, and theories. Therefore, companies need to
consider whether their product and service portfolio, including activities such as
advertising and creating social media content as well as its production and distribu-
tion, are configured so as to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the
Token Economy. For example, they might develop new business models based on
disintermediation and allow final consumers to gain more insight into their supply
chain. Tokens can create new forms of product offerings and might trigger transpar-
ent, company-wide loyalty programs that were previously thought to be impossible.
Core marketing concepts, such as (perceived) security, privacy, loyalty, and trust,
might be fundamentally altered by the Token Economy, and companies might
benefit from this development by signaling their offers to consumers in novel
ways.

Conclusion
The Internet of Value and its underlying technological (e.g., blockchain) as well as
application-related (i.e., tokens) foundations have not fully arrived in marketing research
yet. While previous research has emphasized that the impact of blockchain might be
substantial and has outlined several important research topics, the question remains as to
how this phenomenon can be usefully classified and incorporated into existing research
streams. In this paper, we define important core terms and propose a shift in focus
away from the underlying technology and toward the bigger picture, namely, the use of
tokens to create and transfer value. This opens up a plethora of new options for
marketing researchers who may not be interested in the complexities of the underlying
technology, but rather in the design and impact of the applications that can be built on top
of it. In this regard, tokens are a specific implementation of a blockchain-based use case
and abstract from the intricacies of the underlying technology. Their features (e.g.,
value transfer, community building) and impacts (e.g., customer satisfaction, loyalty)
reside on a higher level of the protocol stack and are easier to incorporate into existing
frameworks, models, and theories.
In this paper, we do not offer a new token theory, but rather recommend that the
properties of tokens are embedded into existing research and, most specifically, become
part of a comprehensive agenda for digital marketing (Kannan and Li 2017). This will help
marketing scholars to build on their existing theoretical and methodological research
repository and to investigate how constructs of interest change through the application
of tokens and the widespread adoption of the Internet of Value. Thus, marketing experts
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING 2
need to understand the properties of tokens and the ways in which they can
impact relationships among companies and their customers.

Authors’ contributions
This is a single-authored paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Notes on contributor
Horst Treiblmaier is a Professor in International Management at Modul University Vienna,
Austria. He received a Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from the Vienna University of
Economics and Business Administration and worked as a Visiting Professor at Purdue University,
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), University of British Columbia (UBC), and the
University of Technology in Sydney (UTS). His research interests include the economic and
business implications of blockchain and the evolution of the token economy. He teaches
blockchain-related topics and is a frequent speaker at academic conferences and industry
events.

ORCID
Horst Treiblmaier http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0755-5223

References
Agrawal, D., N. Jureczek, G. Gopalakrishnan, M. N. Guzman, M. McDonald, and H. Kim. 2018.
“Loyalty Points on the Blockchain.” Business and Management Studies 4 (3): 80–92.
doi:10.11114/bms. v4i3.3523.
Antoniadis, I., S. Konstantinos, and S. Kontsas, 2020. “Blockchain Applications in Tourism and
Tourism Marketing: A Short Review,” Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, in:
Androniki Kavoura & Efstathios Kefallonitis & Prokopios Theodoridis (ed.), Strategic Innovative
Marketing and Tourism, pages 375–384, Springer. https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/prbchp/978-3-
030-36126-6_41.html
Antoniadis, I., S. Kontsas, and K. Spinthiropoulos 2019. Blockchain and Brand Loyalty Programs:
A Short Review of Applications and Challenges. International Conference on Economic
Sciences and Business Administration Bucharest, Romania, 5, 8–16. 1.
Anwar, H. 2018, August 7. Web 3.0 Blockchain Technology Stack: The Comprehensive Guide. 101
Blockchains. Accessed 16 April 2021. https://101blockchains.com/web-3-0-blockchain-
technology-stack/
Beekhuizen, C. 2021. A Country’s Worth of Power, No More! Ethereum Foundation Blog Accessed 27
September 2021. https://blog.ethereum.org/2021/05/18/country-power-no-more/
 2 H.

Bıçakcıoğlu, N., İ. İpek, and G. Bayraktaroğlu. 2018. “Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love: The
Mediating Role of Brand Loyalty.” Journal of Marketing Communications 24 (8): 863–877.
doi:10.1080/13527266.2016.1244108.
Bleier, A., A. Goldfarb, and C. Tucker. 2020. “Consumer Privacy and the Future of Data-based
Innovation and Marketing.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 37 (3): 466–480.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.03.006.
Boukis, A. 2019. “Exploring the Implications of Blockchain Technology for Brand–consumer
Relationships: A Future Research Agenda.” Journal of Product & Brand Management 29 (3):
307–320. doi:10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1780.
Cai, C. W. 2018. “Disruption of Financial Intermediation by FinTech: A Review on Crowdfunding and
Blockchain.” Accounting & Finance 58 (4): 965–992. doi:10.1111/acfi.12405.
Conte de Leon, D., A. Q. Stalick, A. A. Jillepalli, M. A. Haney, and F. T. Sheldon. 2017. “Blockchain:
Properties and Misconceptions.” Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 11 (3):
286–300. doi:10.1108/APJIE-12-2017-034.
Cui, T. H., A. Ghose, H. Halaburda, R. Iyengar, K. Pauwels, S. Sriram, C. Tucker, and S.
Venkataraman. 2021. “Informational Challenges in Omnichannel Marketing: Remedies and
Future Research.” Journal of Marketing 85 (1): 103–120. doi:10.1177/0022242920968810.
Deloitte. 2016. Making blockchain real for customer loyalty programs | Deloitte US. Deloitte Center for
Financial Services. 1–16. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/financial-services/articles/mak
ing-blockchain-real-customer-loyalty-rewards-programs.html
Drylewski, A. C., E. J. Fisch, S. D. Levi, J. K. Liu, P. B. Morrison, and S. Toms 2021. As
Blockchain Technology and Cryptocurrency Mature, so Do Their Regulation and Enforcement |
Lexology. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Accessed 21 April 2021.
https://www.lexology.com/ library/detail.aspx?g=5e4d8c23-2f39-4824-9b61-8f83163c2cbc
Euler, T. 2018. The Token Classification Framework: A Multi-dimensional Tool for Understanding and
Classifying Crypto Tokens. Untitled INC Accessed 20 November 2020. http://www.untitled-inc.
com/the-token-classification-framework-a-multi-dimensional-tool-for-understanding-and-
classifying-crypto-tokens/
Galvez, J. F., J. C. Mejuto, and J. Simal-Gandara. 2018. “Future Challenges on the Use of Blockchain
for Food Traceability Analysis.” TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 107: 222–232. doi:10.1016/j.
trac.2018.08.011.
Garaus, M., and H. Treiblmaier. 2021. “The Influence of Blockchain-based Food Traceability on
Retailer Choice: The Mediating Role of Trust.” Food Control 108082. doi:10.1016/j.
foodcont.2021.108082.
Ghose, A. 2018. “What Blockchain Could Mean for Marketing.” Harvard Business Review Digital
Articles Accessed26 4 2019 https://hbr.org/2018/05/what-blockchain-could-mean-for-marketing .
Gleim, M. R., and J. L. Stevens. 2021. “Blockchain: A Game Changer for Marketers?” Marketing Letters
32 (1): 123–128. doi:10.1007/s11002-021-09557-9.
Grand View Research. 2021. Blockchain Technology Market Size Report, 2021-2028. Grand View
Research. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/blockchain-technology-
market
Gupta, S., A. Leszkiewicz, V. Kumar, T. Bijmolt, and D. Potapov. 2020. “Digital Analytics: Modeling
for Insights and New Methods.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 51: 26–43. doi:10.1016/j.
intmar.2020.04.003.
Hornik, J., E. H. Cohen, and R. Amar. 2009. “Theory Construction and Data Analysis in Marketing
Communication: A Facet Analytical Approach.” Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (1):
35–54. doi:10.1080/13527260802012804.
International Standardization Organization. 2020. ISO 22739:2020(en), Blockchain and Distributed
Ledger technologies—Vocabulary Accessed 5 May 2021. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:
iso:22739:ed-1:v1:en
Kannan, P. K., and H. Li, Alice. 2017. “Digital Marketing: A Framework, Review and Research
Agenda.”
International Journal of Research in Marketing 34 (1): 22–45. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.006.
Kannengießer, N., S. Lins, T. Dehling, and A. Sunyaev. 2020. “Trade-offs between Distributed Ledger
Technology Characteristics.” ACM Computing Surveys 53 (2): 42:1–42:37. doi:10.1145/3379463.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING 2
Kharpal, A. 2018, March 6. Blockchain Is “One of the Most Overhyped Technologies Ever”, Nouriel
Roubini Says. CNBC. Accessed 16 December 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/block
chain-nouriel-roubini-one-of-the-most-overhyped-technologies-ever.html
Krafft, M., L. Sajtos, and M. Haenlein. 2020. “Challenges and Opportunities for Marketing Scholars in
Times of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 51: 1–8.
doi:10.1016/j. intmar.2020.06.001.
Kumar, V., and D. Ramachandran. 2020. “Developing Firms’ Growth Approaches as
a Multidimensional Decision to Enhance Key Stakeholders’ Wellbeing.” International Journal
of Research in Marketing. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.09.004.
Liu, K. 2019. Token Economics #2: Comparison Review of Token Economy. Accessed 5 May 2021.
https://hackernoon.com/token-economics-2-comparison-review-of-token-economy
-8759dd70783
LVMH. 2021. LVMH Partners with Other Major Luxury Companies on Aura, the First Global Luxury
Blockchain. LVMH Accessed27 September 2021. https://www.lvmh.com/news-documents/news/
lvmh-partners-with-other-major-luxury-companies-on-aura-the-first-global-luxury-blockchain/
Moore, M. 2019. What Is Industry 4.0? Everything You Need to Know. TechRadar Accessed24
September 2021. https://www.techradar.com/news/what-is-industry-40-everything-you-need-to
-know
Moorthy, K. S. 1993. “Theoretical Modeling in Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 57 (2): 92–106.
doi:10.1177/002224299305700207.
Mozaic Markets. 2021. Mozaic Markets: Token Economy Accessed7 May 2021. https://mozaicmarkets.
com/token-economy
Nakamoto, S. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. 1–9 Accessed 26 November 2018.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Oliveira, L., L. Zavolokina, I. Bauer, and G. Schwabe 2018. To Token or Not to Token: Tools for
Understanding Blockchain Tokens. International Conference of Information Systems (ICIS
2018), San Francisco, USA. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-157908.
Patel, N. 2021, April 1. How Brands are Using NFTs. Neil Patel Accessed 15 April 2021.
https://neilpatel. com/blog/non-fungible-tokens/
Rejeb, A., J. G. Keogh, and H. Treiblmaier. 2020. “How Blockchain Technology Can Benefit
Marketing: Six Pending Research Areas.” Frontiers in Blockchain 3 (3): 1–12.
doi:10.3389/fbloc.2020.00003.
Santos, Z. R., P. S. Coelho, and P. Rita. 2021. “Fostering Consumer–Brand Relationships through
Social Media Brand Communities.” Journal of Marketing Communications 1–31. doi:10.1080/
13527266.2021.1950199.
Sheehan, K. B. 2002. “Toward a Typology of Internet Users and Online Privacy Concerns.” The
Information Society 18 (1): 21–32. doi:10.1080/01972240252818207.
Sunyaev, A., N. Kannengießer, R. Beck, H. Treiblmaier, M. Lacity, J. Kranz, G. Fridgen, U.
Spankowski, and A. Luckow. 2021. “Token Economy.” Business & Information Systems
Engineering 63 (4): 457–478. doi:10.1007/s12599-021-00684-1.
Swan, M. 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy. 1st ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly and
Associates.
Tapscott, D., and A. Tapscott. 2016. Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology behind Bitcoin Is
Changing Money, Business, and the World. New York, NY: Portfolio.
Thaddeus-Johns, J. 2021. What are NFTs, Anyway? One Just Sold for $69 Million. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/what-is-an-nft.html
Treiblmaier, H. . 2018. “The Impact of the Blockchain on the Supply Chain: A Theory-based Research
Framework and A Call for Action.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 23
(6): 545–559. doi:10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0029.
Treiblmaier, H. . 2021a. “Do Cryptocurrencies Really Have (No) Intrinsic Value?” Electronic Markets.
doi:10.1007/s12525-021-00491-2.
Treiblmaier, H. . 2021b. “The Token Economy as a Key Driver for Tourism: Entering the Next Phase of
Blockchain Research.” Annals of Tourism Research 103177. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2021.103177.
 2 H.

Treiblmaier, H.et al . 2022. “Defining the Internet of Value.” In Enabling the Internet of Value—How
Blockchain Connects Global Businesses, edited by N. Vadgama, J. Xu, and P. Tasca. London,
UK: Springer Nature. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030781835.
Voshmgir, S. 2019. Token Economy: How Blockchains and Smart Contracts Revolutionize the Economy.
Berlin: BlockchainHub.
Wang, H., M. Zhang, H. Ying, and X. Zhao. 2021. “The Impact of Blockchain Technology on Consumer
Behavior: A Multimethod Study.” Journal of Management Analytics 8 (3): 371–390.
doi:10.1080/ 23270012.2021.1958264.
Wang, L., X. Luo, and F. Lee. 2019. “Unveiling the Interplay Between Blockchain and Loyalty Program
Participation: A Qualitative Approach Based on Bubichain.” International Journal of
Information Management, 49 (December): 397–410. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.001
Ying, W., S. Jia, and W. Du. 2018. “Digital Enablement of Blockchain: Evidence from HNA
Group.”
International Journal of Information Management 39: 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.10.004.