The Metaverse Territorial Brand: A Contemporary Concept

Definition

The “Metaverse Territorial Brand” integrates core and interconnected elements into a virtual, interactional, experiential, and immersive space known as the metaverse. This type of brand encompasses the connection with immersive territories that may or may not be digital twins of real territories. It also encompasses two interconnected physical scales: the territorial and the regional, involved in another type of emerging territorial scale, known as the metaversal scale. Therefore, the “Metaverse Territorial Brand” is a digital-immersive extension of the territorial brand of physical territories, encompassing specific geographical and cultural aspects, but directed to the metaverse environment. This brand is a symbolic digital construction, but also a multifaceted one that incorporates discursive and visual elements, articulated by the social actors of the immersive territory, aiming to create a specific and distinct identity for a space in the metaverse. When talking about social actors in the metaverse (users), we highlight that this set of actors may or may not be the same as the physical territory. It is also important to highlight that both the territorial brand directed to physical territories and the “Metaverse Territorial Brand” are formed from the power relations of a given set of social actors. Therefore, without the strategic intention of a plurality of social actors that stimulate these relationships, there is no type of territorial brand involved.

1. Introduction

The rapid evolution of digital technologies in recent years has transformed the way society perceives and interacts with spaces [1,2,3,4,5]. One of these interactions concerns a space known as the metaverse. The concept of the metaverse, a shared digital environment that allows for immersive and interactive interactions, has gained prominence as an extension of the physical world. In this context, the creation of the “Metaverse Territorial Brand” emerges as an innovative strategy to promote and value territorial identities established or still under construction in this digital-immersive environment of the metaverse [1,6].

Thus, the Metaverse Territorial Brand can be understood as a symbolic and multifaceted extension of the traditional territorial brand, incorporating specific geographic and cultural elements into the metaverse environment [1]. This type of brand seeks to create a distinctive and engaging identity for the digital-immersive territory, using visual and discursive representations articulated by a given set of social actors. However, the full understanding of this concept and its practical application is still under development, following the development and discussions of the metaverse itself.

Almeida’s [1] study, entitled “Cities and Territorial Brand in the Metaverse: The Metaverse Seoul Case”, presents a detailed analysis of the case of Seoul, a city that positions itself as a pioneer in the use of the metaverse to, among other purposes, strengthen its territorial brand, as regards both the city’s physical brand and the brand that extends to the metaverse. Based on the study, the author explores how the city of Seoul uses the metaverse to promote its territorial identity and attract local–-global engagement, as well as the impacts of this strategy on urban development and the revitalization of the city. What is striking about Almeida’s [1] study is that to achieve these goals, the Seoul local government uses the metaverse as a kind of urban laboratory with a digital and immersive character. In doing so, some situations stand out, such as the emergence of two concepts, the metaverse city and Metaverse Territorial Brand.

At the present time, the territorial brand is confronted with significant challenges in its transition to the digital environment, particularly in the context of the metaverse. The primary challenge lies in effectively translating a territory’s identity, values, and culture into an immersive virtual space, where the user experience is radically different from the physical environment [1]. In the metaverse, the tangible elements that constitute territorial identity—such as landscapes, historical heritage, and cultural traditions—are reinterpreted to ensure an authentic and graphically attractive immersion. In this regard, the extant place branding practices remain deficient in terms of offering clear guidelines for this transposition. This deficiency gives rise to fragmented and occasionally disconnected communication with the target audience. It is important to note that the application of the concept of a Metaverse Territorial Brand is still in its infancy, with technical and creative challenges preventing full adoption and limiting its impact in multiple dimensions. In order to effectively translate the essence of a territory into a digital-immersive environment, it is essential to adopt a more rigorous methodological approach that ensures the integrity and relevance of the territory are maintained.

In addition to the practical issues, there is the social dimension that requires attention. The potential of the Metaverse Territorial Brand to reinforce or mitigate socio-territorial inequalities must be considered. The development of a digitally immersive territorial brand, for instance, has the potential to extend the global reach of lesser-known regions, thereby promoting their heritage and culture. However, if implemented inappropriately, a territorial brand may serve to reinforce existing stereotypes, marginalize local cultures, or direct attention toward richer and already well-established regions, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities. It is thus imperative that the metaverse approach to territorial brand be inclusive, respecting cultural diversity and ensuring a fair representation of all the territories involved. In this context, the concept of “Metaverse Territorial Brand” still requires significant advancement in terms of both practical application and social impact. This justifies the gap in the literature and the relevance of this study.

By addressing the practical and social constraints on the Metaverse Territorial Brand, the practical implications of the study become significant. Furthermore, the findings not only enhance the comprehension of the Metaverse Territorial Brand but also provide transparent avenues for managers and policy developers to enhance their actions in an evolving digital and immersive space.

2. The Metaverse as a New Frontier of Territorialization

The twenty-first century has been marked by an explosion of emerging technologies, driving profound social, cultural, environmental, and economic transformations. Among these technologies is the metaverse, an immersive virtual space that promises to revolutionize the way human beings interact, work, learn, and relate [7,8,9,10,11]. The metaverse, in addition to reshaping the individual experience, also offers new possibilities to reconfigure territorialization, expanding the concept of territory beyond traditional physical limits.

Thus, with the advent of immersive territories, such as the metaverse, there is a need to rethink the concepts of space, identity, and belonging. These new immersive digital spaces challenge geographical boundaries and open paths for innovative forms of social organization and regional development, such as the insertion of the metaversal scale proposed by Almeida [6]. In this context, the construction of a Metaverse Territorial Brand also presents itself as a potential tool to guide and boost these territorial transformation processes [1].

However, Almeida [1,6], when reflecting on the possibility of the Metaverse Territorial Brand in the context of regional development theories, highlights the importance of considering the theoretical perspective of Raffestin [12], who defines the territory as a space delimited by the power relations of social actors. For Raffestin [12], power relations not only structure and shape the territory, but also shape the way it is perceived, interpreted, and used by society.

In this way, the Metaverse Territorial Brand, as proposed by Almeida [1], is no longer just a marketing tool and becomes an instrument for building and negotiating power relations in immersive digital spaces. It represents a potential channel to broaden the debate on social organization in the metaverse and explore how power relations can manifest and transform in this new context. By doing so, a plurality of discussions are raised, such as in the following topics: cultural and territorial identities, culture as a power structure, development, immersive territories, and governance in the metaverse, among others. This also leads to the inter- and transdisciplinary nature of the Metaverse Territorial Brand concept, which makes it even more challenging.

3. Conceptual Visions

The origin of the term “metaverse” comes from a work of fiction, “Snow Crash”, published in 1992. The term has also gained breadth in games, such as Second Life, Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft, and in cinema films, such as The Matrix and Avatar [3,13,14]. According to Almeida [6], there is currently not just a single metaverse, but dozens of existing metaverses, approximately 200 metaverses that are not interconnected with others. There is a certain evolution in the term metaverse such that, from a fictional space for literary works and multiplayer games, it becomes an interactive three-dimensional space, but mainly immersive, where extended real-life experiences can be carried out [6].

The state-of-the-art formulation presented in Almeida [1,6] deepens the concept of the Metaverse Territorial Brand in the emerging context of the metaverse itself as an environment of immersive digital territories. The importance of the symbolic value of the territorial brand, the articulation of social actors around territorial identities, and the creation of cultural value through these brands is evidenced in the work of Almeida [15], which cites the important elements required to constitute a territorial brand for physical territories (countries, regions, states, cities, streets, etc.) and that Almeida [1] extends these elements to immersive territories, such as the metaverse.

To reinforce the conceptual foundation and in light of the paucity of research on this topic, the discussion presented in this study, on the concept of the “Metaverse Territorial Brand” [1], builds upon the tenets of other well-established theories, which, although not explicitly addressing the metaverse, can serve as a foundation for a comprehensive theoretical discourse. Some of these theories concentrate on place branding, city branding, and territorial brand. Notable contributions to this field include the works of Anholt [16] and Govers and Go [17], which provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the evolution of territorial identity construction over time. These theories, which underscore the significance of a unified and genuine narrative for the advancement of a territory, can also be applied, with the requisite adaptations, to the context of the metaverse, where digital representations necessitate authenticity and consistency.

Furthermore, an examination of the digital economy and the emerging technologies of augmented reality, virtual reality [18,19,20,21,22], and digital twins [11] can reinforce the conceptual foundation of the Metaverse Territorial Brand [1]. These concepts provide tools for reinterpreting territorial brand in a digital-immersive space such as the metaverse, thereby ensuring that the territorial narrative remains dynamic, interactive, and accessible to a global audience. It is crucial to maintain consistency in the narrative for effective territorial brand in the metaverse, as it serves as a powerful tool for shaping and negotiating power relations in immersive digital spaces [6].

The distinctive characteristics of the Metaverse Territorial Brand include the necessity for flexibility and innovation in the creation of virtual identities that are both immersive and faithful to the physical territory [1,6]. Consequently, theoretical discourse on digital immersion and the influence of virtual sensory experiences [9,23] constitutes an indispensable element for the establishment of a territorial brand within the metaverse context. Such experiences have the potential to foster a more profound emotional attachment to the territory, thereby enhancing engagement and fostering loyalty on an unparalleled scale. In this context, Almeida’s [1] conceptualization of a metaverse territorial scale that is discrete from physical territorial scales is particularly noteworthy.

In addition, the Metaverse Territorial Brand is integrated with theories on virtual spaces and the user experience in the digital environment. Theories by authors such as Dwivedi [9] and Cardoso [24] on digital immersion and usability in the metaverse are particularly useful for understanding how the Metaverse Territorial Brand can be explored and optimized to maximize presence in the metaverse. This scenario entails an investigation of the manner in which individuals engage with brands and territories within a three-dimensional and immersive environment.

It bears noting that, while the preceding work made a notable impact on the field, the present approach endeavors to advance the discourse by integrating diverse theoretical perspectives and extending the application of the concept of territorial brand to other digital domains, including the metaverse. This theoretical expansion reinforces the article’s conceptualization and extends its academic scope. Furthermore, the 7C’s Model of Customer Interface [25] can be a valuable tool in the proposed discussion of the Metaverse Territorial Brand [1]. It can assist in understanding how digital interactions can be optimized in the metaverse. The 7C’s model encompasses seven fundamental elements of the user interface: context, content, community, customization, communication, connection, and commerce. It may be possible to incorporate these elements into a territorial brand, provided that the requisite adjustments are made, given that such a brand is present in an immersive digital environment. However, in this case, modifications are required to facilitate such an incorporation.

Vygotsky [26], the author of the theory of the construction of meaning, posits that verbal language is a potent instrument. This theory underscores the necessity for signs to be conveyed between individuals so that they can be mentally represented and subsequently decoded. In light of this theory and in alignment with Almeida’s [1] conceptualization of the Metaverse Territorial Brand, we underscore the convergence of meanings between the brand and immersive users in the formation of an emotional and experiential foundation within the metaverse territory. In other words, it is emphasized that a territorial brand in the metaverse must also provide opportunities for users to explore and internalize the values and characteristics of the territory in an immersive manner, thereby creating emotional and cognitive associations that reinforce its identity. In this way, the metaverse can provide a novel avenue for the co-construction of meaning, wherein users can shape their experiences and interactions in personalized ways, thereby contributing to the narrative of the “Metaverse Territorial Brand”.

It would be remiss not to mention Aaker’s [27] theory of brand identity, when considered in the context of a territorial entity, and Anholt’s [16] Place Branding model, which addresses the inherent complexity of developing a unified identity for a given location. These theories also provide insight into the ways in which a territorial brand can be adapted and reinforced in a virtual, immersive environment such as the metaverse, where immersion and sensory experience can enhance branding strategies.

3.1. The Basis of the Territorial Brands

The concept of “Territorial Brand in Regional Development”, first presented by Almeida [15], emphasizes the cultural and symbolic aspects of a territory in addition to its economic potential. He recognizes the territory from Raffestin [12] as a complex space shaped by the power relations between social actors and not defined only by political borders. In the case of the “Metaverse Territorial Brand”, it goes beyond the physical limits of the territories into the symbolic territories of immersive digital spaces.

The central elements of a territorial brand, as defined by Almeida [15], form an interconnected and essential set for the construction of a brand based on the theories of regional development. These elements can be present in the “Metaverse Territorial Brand”, created in and for the metaverse. The analysis of each of these elements deepens the understanding of their role in the consolidation of a territorial brand, including in their application to the “Metaverse Territorial Brand”:

• Brand: The territorial brand is the visible element, the face of a territory, translating its unique identity into a visual (logo) or verbal (discourse about the territory) symbolic representation, embodied in a logo, a phrase, or an image. It should be noted, however, that brand and logo are not synonymous, and the brand is something more complex than just its visual identity (logo). To have a brand, it is mandatory to have the four elements mentioned by Almeida [15]. The brand embodies the values, culture, history, dreams, and aspirations of the social actors who create it. This representation becomes a powerful discursive tool for communicating the message encoded in the territorial brand. For a territorial brand to be representative, it needs to be authentic and reflect what a given set of social actors call the “soul” of the territory, avoiding becoming just a superficial marketing product. When it becomes a product of marketing only, it has only the logo that identifies a place, losing the sense of brand in its breadth of stratagems, as predicted by Aaker [27]. In addition, the brand must be able to attract, conquer, and identify the different audiences with which it seeks to communicate, whether at a local, national, international, or global level, or, in this case, on the metaversal scale, another concept created by Almeida [6].
• Territory: The concept of territory, as defined by Raffestin [12], transcends mere geographical delimitation, encompassing a complex network of power relations between the social actors who inhabit it. For Raffestin [12], power relations not only shape and delimit the territory, but also influence social interactions, the organization of society and the construction of the identity of space. In a holistic analysis, territory is not limited to its physical borders, but encompasses the economic, social, cultural, historical, and political dimensions that characterize a given space. Therefore, the territory is a living and dynamic space, in constant evolution and reconfiguration, shaped by the action of social actors and their constant interactions. It is noteworthy that territory differs from place and region, with territory having a political nature.
• Strategic Connections: Building and consolidating a territorial brand requires the collaboration and involvement of diverse stakeholders, both inside and outside the territory. It is essential to establish strategic relationships with agents in the private, public, and civil sectors, seeking synergies and the harmonization of objectives. Strategic connections imply continuous dialogs, information sharing, and the co-creation of actions and projects that strengthen the territorial brand. The success of a territorial brand depends, to a large extent, on the ability to cultivate and strengthen these connections with the different actors that participate in the territory [15].
• Double territorialities (of the brand and of social actors): Territoriality encompasses the elements that define the identity of a territory: practices, values, and symbolic representations that shape the perception of the place. In the case of physical territories, territoriality is expressed in the local culture, in the identity of its inhabitants, and in the traditions and customs that characterize them [12]. The territorial brands of physical territories usually bring together these elements of identity and express them through their own visual languages and narratives, with the aim of communicating a unique and authentic message about the space [15]. In a metaverse territorial brand, territoriality becomes even more complex, once the elements of the metaverse are added to it, such as the digital interface, the immersive experience, and virtual or augmented reality technologies [1]. Therefore, while in the territorial brand of physical territories, the territoriality is twofold; in the “Metaverse Territorial Brand” the territoriality is threefold.

In terms of conceptual vision, it is also essential to highlight that the concept of territorial branding directed to physical territories originates from the intersection of several areas, such as territorial and regional development, place branding, branding, administration, marketing, and others [1]. Therefore, the territorial brand is a multifaceted concept that is commonly associated with economic development and diplomacy [16]. However, Almeida’s [1] analysis of the territorial brand based on theories of regional development reveals another fundamental aspect of this concept: its cultural nature. In this way, the territorial brand, as a cultural product of regional development [15], transcends economic growth and development, encompassing the power relations that, according to Raffestin [12], delimit a territory. The concept of territory is also complex and multifaceted and can refer to different contexts. In the case of the territorial brand directed to physical and immersive territories (metaverse), it is Raffestin’s [12] concept of territory that applies, as he defines territory as a space shaped by power relations between social actors, and not only by political limits, but also for example the borders between countries. The territory is characterized by its multidimensionality and capacity for transformation, being reformulated based on the power relations that are established or built in a given space.

As the literature on the Metaverse Territorial Brand [1] is still in its infancy, studies such as place branding and city branding can provide a robust foundation for the discussion, especially when integrated into the context of the metaverse. The concepts of place branding and city branding have already been the subject of extensive research in the literature, with authors such as Simon Anholt [16] and Kevin Keller [28] investigating the construction of the image of nations and cities. These studies examine the ways in which places utilize narratives and symbols to cultivate a distinctive identity, thereby attracting tourism, investment, and global prestige. The brand of a place is not solely concerned with economic matters; it also encompasses political and diplomatic issues [16] and power relations [15].

Nevertheless, until recently, these concepts were firmly rooted in the physical realm and traditional media. The advent of the digital era and, more recently, the metaverse, has initiated a transition towards the creation of brand identities that can transcend physical space and exist meaningfully in the virtual domain [6]. It is important to note that the incorporation of the metaverse into place branding studies is still a nascent but promising area of inquiry. Recent studies are beginning to examine the ways in which cities and territories can establish their identities within the immersive digital environment of the metaverse. This space offers interactivity, personalization, and immersive experiences for users. As evidenced by the works of Lee [29], Park and Kim [22], and Lee and Jo [30], the metaverse represents a novel frontier for the territorial brand. It enables localities to create digital replicas or extended versions of their cultural heritage and urban infrastructures.

The concept of the digital twin is pertinent in this context, wherein cities and territories recreate their physical environments in the metaverse to facilitate interactions that are not feasible in the tangible world. Such initiatives may encompass a range of activities, from virtual tourist visits to immersive cultural interactions, with the objective of promoting the identity of the place in an innovative manner.

It is important to note that, although the metaverse presents novel challenges and opportunities, there is a paucity of studies examining how territorial brands can leverage the benefits of this emerging virtual-immersive ecosystem [1]. The absence of explicit directives and the necessity for methodological frameworks for the construction of unified territorial identities in the metaverse illustrate a significant deficit, thereby substantiating the importance of this research. The current state of the art thus demonstrates that while branding theories have been extensively developed in the physical world, the incorporation of the metaverse still necessitates further investigation. This study makes a contribution to the field by addressing this intersection and proposing ways to build effective territorial brands in an immersive digital environment, the metaverse.

3.2. The Formation of the “Metaverse Territorial Brand”

The formation of a “Metaverse Territorial Brand” involves a synergy of strategies implemented by a given set of social actors. In the case of the city of Seoul, in the metaverse, Almeida [1] states that the initial use focused on urban marketing, positioning the city as the first global city in this new environment. In this context, the first Positioning Law, described by Ries and Trout [31], points out the importance of being first in something, and the city of Seoul applies it by positioning itself as a pioneer in building a city in the metaverse.

Secondly, building a brand seeks to strengthen the reputation and identity [27] of a place [16], highlighting it in its context, both digital and physical [1]. The primary function of a brand is to identify with the product it represents [16], but to become a brand, it is necessary to transcend the logo and create strategic connections, both internal and external [15].

Finally, the metaverse territorial brand can serve as a catalyst for the transformation of the physical territory, through, for example, urban revitalization projects implemented from the metaverse environment. In this context, the “singular laboratories” that integrate the metaverse with real corporate and government strategies from digital twins emerge. However, the metaverse territorial brand does not always seek the transformation of the physical territory and can generate transformations in symbolic territories. This is the case for places that will cease to exist in the physical world but will persist in the metaverse, exemplified by Tuvalu, as highlighted by Almeida [6].

Therefore, the “Metaverse Territorial Brand” can be considered a digital extension of the territorial brand, encompassing specific geographical and cultural aspects, directed to the metaverse environment. This symbolic and multifaceted construction integrates discursive and visual elements, articulated by the social actors of the territory, aiming to create a specific and distinct identity for that space in the metaverse. Regarding the social actors of the metaverse (users), it is important to emphasize that this set of actors may or may not be the same as in the physical territory.

Brands, although not a new phenomenon, have become increasingly relevant in the promotion of territorial brands, with involvement in urban-territorial development planning and processes [32]. In addition, the metaverse territorial brand must be flexible and adaptable, able to evolve in response to the changing needs and interests of metaverse users (social actors). This requires a continuous monitoring and adjustment approach, using user feedback and analytics to inform improvements and innovations. Therefore, the territorial brand applied in physical territories and the “Metaverse Territorial Brand” have similarities, with the main difference being the type of territory that each brand represents, and the strategies adapted to a recent reality, still in constant development, such as the metaverse.

Furthermore, there is a necessity for a more distinct delineation between the notion of the Metaverse Territorial Brand and the conventional interpretation of a brand. Indeed, while the concept’s roots are firmly planted in the traditional territorial brand, the metaverse introduces a host of new dynamics that extend and modify the scope of this concept. To clarify these distinctions, it should be noted that there is a distinction between the physical experience and the immersive experience. In a traditional context, the territorial brand depends mainly on tangible elements such as the landscape, architecture, cultural events, and the direct contact of individuals with the territory. These elements shape the perception of the place and create emotional and sensory associations that strengthen the brand.

In contrast, the metaverse offers an entirely digital, immersive experience, which presents both challenges and unique opportunities. In this context, the concept of territorial identity must be reimagined within a three-dimensional digital environment, where users can engage with the space in ways that are not possible in the physical world. In this context, the metaverse territorial brand becomes multisensory in a different way, whereby users can “navigate” through territories, take part in virtual events or interact with avatars and symbolic representations of the place. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt an alternative methodology to ensure the brand’s authenticity and relevance in this digital and immersive environment.

The traditional brand operates with a linear temporality, which is to say that the experience of the territory occurs within a fixed physical space and time. In the metaverse, the territorial brand can be experienced continuously and interactively, without the limitations of space or time that are inherent to traditional brand experiences. The extension of the brand concept acknowledges the dynamic and evolving nature of the user experience with the territorial brand in the metaverse, which contrasts with the more static interactions typically associated with traditional brands, such as a physical visit to a physical location.

While traditional territorial brands are often constrained by geographical and physical accessibility limitations, the metaverse offers a greater potential for scalability. In addition, territories that are poorly accessible or lack the requisite physical infrastructure can be promoted on a global scale through the metaverse, thereby reaching audiences that would otherwise have no opportunity to experience the place in question. This aspect serves to enhance the scope of the territorial brand, extending it to a global arena without the typical constraints associated with spatial, infrastructural, or logistical limitations.

According to Feijó-de-Almeida [32], the power relations present in territorial brands boost the representation and reputation of territories. This dynamic generates another type of market, the symbolic-territorial one [15], which also extends to the metaverse, with the existence of the “Metaverse Territorial Brand” driven by social actors (users in the metaverse). Social actors, with their roles and representations, are key players in territorial brands, as they build relationships that involve collective interests. In this sense, territorial brands mediate promises of symbolic value for social actors, claiming aspects of the space they produce collectively, sometimes in harmony and sometimes in conflict. Feijó-de-Almeida [32] emphasizes the crucial importance of the presence of social actors, because, without them, territorial brands lose their sense of existence, being discursive instruments of these actors to make the worldview they seek to implement collectively viable.

The “Metaverse Territorial Brand” fulfills the same function as the traditional territorial brand, with social actors playing the same key role, whether they are applied in the metaverse or in the physical world. This reinforces the importance of this discursive instrument in the production and use of territories, including immersive territories, such as the metaverse.

It is imperative to emphasize that merely incorporating the term “metaverse” into the concept of a territorial brand is insufficient in and of itself. The proposal of the ‘Metaverse Territorial Brand’ concept in Almeida’s [1] represents a significant departure from mere superficial adaptation. The proposed concept is a crucial response to the profound transformations that the metaverse introduces into the processes of creating, disseminating, and experiencing a territorial brand, as well as into the very transformation of the territory and society.

In the context of the traditional territorial brand, the experience of space is constrained by the physical characteristics of the landscape, necessitating the physical presence of individuals to interact with the place and absorb its identity and culture. In the metaverse, this dynamic undergoes a radical transformation. The experience of space is digital, immersive, and replicable, thereby enabling users to interact with a virtual representation of a territory in a more flexible and creative manner. The concept of the Metaverse Territorial Brand acknowledges that, despite sharing a similar objective with that of the physical brand, the tools, modes of interaction, and types of experiences offered are markedly distinct. In this way, the concept of the Metaverse Territorial Brand represents not merely an extension of the traditional brand, but rather a response to the profound changes in the ways of interacting, experiencing, and building territorial identity in an immersive virtual environment. It is essential to comprehend how territories can establish their positioning in an immersive, collaborative, and borderless space such as the metaverse. In this way, the concept of the Metaverse Territorial Brand draw’s attention to the new opportunities and challenges that emerge in this immersive digital environment, emphasizing a shift in perspective beyond a mere adaptation of terminology.

4. Conclusions and Prospects

The concept of the “Metaverse Territorial Brand”, created by Almeida [1], is a pioneering proposal in the face of the recent changes that technology has produced in contemporary society. This proposal arises as a response to the need to think about the territory, in its physical and immersive dimension, in a context of growing interconnection between the real and virtual worlds. It is also important to realize that research on territorial brands goes beyond the commodification of spaces and economic capital, involving other discussions, such as politics and culture, and more recently, the immersive territories present in the metaverse. The territorial brand, in this context and in the new environment, transcends the traditional idea of a mere marketing instrument and becomes a catalyst for socio-territorial processes. Therefore, brands linked to physical territories or metaverses consider the plurality of their spaces, adopting specific strategies for the construction and consolidation of discourses of social actors in socio-territorial transformation.

By appropriating different tools and languages, territorial brands in the metaverse allow the creation of narratives that connect the physical and digital worlds, opening up new possibilities for the regional, social, cultural, and economic development of territories. This fusion between the physical and the digital requires the creation of new strategies and management models, which consider the unique challenges and opportunities that the metaverse offers in the constitution of immersive territories.

The “Metaverse Territorial Brand”, by proposing a reinterpretation of the territory, invites us to rethink the concept of identity and belonging in a digital context. These immersive territories, with their own systems of interaction and culture, present new challenges for the construction and strengthening of collective identities, stimulating other modes of social and political participation and engagement.

Ultimately, the concept of the “Metaverse Territorial Brand”, introduced by Almeida [1], raises important questions about the future of territories in an era of accelerated immersive digital transformation. This proposal stimulates the debate on the role of territorial brands in the construction of collective narratives, in the creation of new socio-spatial relations, and in the promulgation of development models that integrate the real world with the immersive digital world.