NFT Marketing：为何售罄仍可能伤害品牌

NFT marketing is a practitioner term for brands that sell or give away non-fungible tokens as part of their marketing, usually as digital products that extend an existing brand. It covers the token, the access or benefits attached to it, and the campaign that puts it in front of buyers.

The most useful way to judge it is with two ledgers open at the same time. Peer-reviewed research on brand NFT campaigns finds that brand strength and NFT design help predict revenue, and the same research finds a separate risk: the campaign can lower how consumers feel about the parent brand. A drop can sell out and still cost the brand something.

This entry relies on academic studies published in 2025 and US government releases from 2023 and 2024, checked as of November 2026. The largest study's campaign data covers 2020 to 2023, so read it as evidence about that period, not a live market reading.

What NFT Marketing Covers

A non-fungible token is a unique digital asset recorded on a blockchain. The University of Lucerne's summary of its NFT research makes the distinction plainly: cryptocurrency units can be exchanged one for one, while each NFT is unique and cannot be replaced by another.

In marketing, the token is rarely the whole offer. Brands attach artwork, perks, access, or community membership to it. They sell it, give it away, or tie it to a cause. When the perks are ongoing rewards or members-only access, the mechanics start to resemble a loyalty program, with one difference that matters later in this entry: a token can usually be resold by its holder.

This entry is about brands using NFTs as a marketing tool, which is a different job from promoting crypto products themselves, covered under crypto marketing.

Brand NFTs as Digital Brand Extensions

Leif Brandes and Katharina Dölp of the University of Lucerne, in a 2025 paper in the International Journal of Research in Marketing, treat NFTs as digital brand extensions. The label is practical. An extension borrows a parent brand's name and trust to enter a new category, and the classic extension questions still apply when that category is a token.

Two numbers describe the study's scope, and they measure different things. The university's news release, dated February 7, 2025, describes a market analysis of 671 NFT campaigns from more than 200 companies that sold NFTs between 2020 and 2023. The journal abstract says the revenue analysis used a novel dataset of 450 NFT campaigns. Neither figure is a count of every brand NFT campaign ever launched, and the two should not be swapped for each other.

What Predicts Revenue From a Brand NFT Campaign

Revenue is the ledger most teams already watch. One caution: the findings below are associations in observational data, not proof that changing one factor changes the result.

Brand Traits Plus NFT-Specific Drivers

Brandes and Dölp tested two families of possible success drivers. The first came from research on physical brand extensions, such as extension fit and brand equity. The second came from what gives NFTs value, such as added utility for the holder and the number of NFTs in the campaign. According to the abstract, both families helped predict financial revenue from brand-related NFTs.

The university's summary adds detail on what the most effective mix looked like. It pairs established brand characteristics, such as brand strength and image, with NFT-specific factors, including partnerships with Web3 or blockchain specialists and utility, meaning customer benefits beyond the token itself.

A famous name does not carry a token on its own. Neither does clever token design on a weak or poorly matched brand. The revenue signal sits in the combination.

Collection Size and Rarity

A second line of research looks at how supply decisions relate to price and sales. Joy Lu, Robert Mislavsky, and Haiyang Yang analyzed more than 800,000 sales across 40 major NFT collections, in a 2025 paper in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research.

Their abstract reports three patterns. Rare items within a collection sold for more on average, and that rarity premium grew in larger collections. NFTs in larger collections did not sell at lower prices on average. Larger collections also tended to generate more sales volume.

These were major NFT collections in general, not brand campaigns, and the patterns are associations, not causal estimates. Still, they show that collection size and the spread of rare features are deliberate design decisions.

The Cost the Revenue Line Doesn't Show

This is the second ledger, and it is the one most campaign reports leave out.

The Announcement Effect on the Parent Brand

Beyond the revenue analysis, Brandes and Dölp ran experiments on how NFT campaigns affect attitudes toward the parent brand. Their abstract reports evidence that such campaigns may create negative spillovers for the parent brand. The university's summary describes a behavioral experiment with nearly 3,000 participants and reports that merely announcing an NFT campaign can hurt consumer perceptions of a brand. It does not state where participants were recruited.

The same summary puts both ledgers side by side. Many brands in the analyzed campaigns did expand into a new product category and generate sales, yet they may also have taken at least short-term reputational damage from their association with the crypto market.

That has a direct consequence for measurement. Reach, mentions, and press pickup, the numbers teams often count as gains in brand awareness, say nothing about the attitude measure this research captured. A team that tracks only sales and reach will see the first ledger and miss the second entirely.

Why Premium and Luxury Brands Carry More Exposure

The university's summary adds a condition. The negative effect can be stronger when the campaign is not carefully optimized, particularly for premium brands.

Wuxia Bao, Liselot Hudders, Shubin Yu, and Emma Beuckels examined 40 luxury NFT campaigns from 2021 and 2022 through multiple case studies and grounded theory. Their 2025 paper identifies the values, attributes, and strategies of NFT-based virtual luxury. It is a framework, not a measure of campaign performance.

One plausible reading: premium brands trade on exclusivity and craft, and a launch that looks rushed or speculative puts exactly those qualities at stake.

Who Buys Brand NFTs, and Why It Changes the Pitch

Arnd Vomberg and Mats von Gegerfelt surveyed 703 NFT buyers for a 2025 study in the International Journal of Research in Marketing. Their latent class analysis identified five segments:

• Utility-driven buyers: 35%
• Tech-savvy investors: 29%
• Curious speculators: 18%
• Status-seeking socializers: 13%
• Cautious investors: 5%

These are shares of the survey sample, and the abstract does not state where respondents were located, so they should not be read as global or national population estimates. The authors describe two segments, curious speculators and cautious investors, as motivated primarily by investment, buying NFTs mainly to resell them. They report that some segments pair a high willingness to buy branded NFTs with active recommending and community engagement, and that companies can increase buyer engagement through incentivized referrals.

The lesson is about the pitch. In this sample, the largest segment was driven by utility rather than resale. Copy that leans on resale value speaks mostly to investment-minded buyers, and, as the next section shows, it is also the framing US securities regulators have pointed to.

Where the Legal Lines Sit in the US

The sources below are dated US government releases. They describe US positions only and are not legal advice.

Securities: The Offer, Not the Label

On September 13, 2023, the US Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against Stoner Cats 2 LLC for an unregistered offering of crypto asset securities in the form of NFTs. According to the SEC release, the company sold more than 10,000 NFTs at about $800 each, sold out in 35 minutes, and raised about $8 million to fund an animated web series.

The release describes how the offering was marketed. The company promoted the benefits of owning the NFTs, especially reselling them on secondary markets, and pointed to its team's production experience and well-known actors in the series. It also set a 2.5% royalty on each secondary-market transaction. The company agreed to a cease-and-desist order and a $1 million civil penalty without admitting or denying the findings.

The standard in the release belongs in any campaign brief: whether an offering is an investment contract depends on its economic reality, not its label or the object behind it. Calling a product a collectible does not settle the question. This is where marketing an NFT collection itself meets the law.

Fraud, Theft, and IP Questions

On May 29, 2024, the US Treasury released its first illicit finance risk assessment for NFTs. Its press release states that NFTs are "highly susceptible to use in fraud and scams" and are subject to theft. For a brand, that risk falls on its customers, and a publicized drop gives scammers a name and a date to imitate.

On March 12, 2024, the US Copyright Office and the US Patent and Trademark Office published a joint study on the intellectual property issues NFTs raise. According to the Copyright Office release, commenters raised concerns that buyers and sellers often do not know which IP rights are involved. The Offices concluded that existing enforcement tools were sufficient, no changes to IP law were needed at that time, and public education and product transparency mattered more.

For marketers, buying a token and receiving rights to the artwork are separate questions. Campaign terms should state plainly what a holder may do.

A Two-Ledger Check Before Launching

The research supports a short set of questions that keep both ledgers in view.

1. Utility. What can a holder do with the token besides sell it?
2. Fit. Would this extension make sense to customers if it were a physical product?
3. Supply design. Are collection size and rarity deliberate choices?
4. Brand attitude. Will attitude toward the parent brand be measured before and after the announcement, not just sales and reach?
5. Premium exposure. If the brand is premium, is execution polished enough to protect what it sells on?
6. Copy and terms. Does the copy avoid promising resale gains, and do the terms state the holder's rights?

What the Evidence Doesn't Cover

No independent benchmark for NFT marketing ROI, conversion, or retention was found in sources meeting the standard used here. Brand campaign data stops at 2023, and no named brand campaign outcome was documented in available primary sources. No Indonesian data meeting the standard was found, including on the legal status of NFTs in Indonesia. Minting costs, marketplace fees, and royalty enforcement are also outside what the research covered.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is NFT marketing?

It is a practitioner term for brands selling or giving away non-fungible tokens as part of their marketing, usually as digital extensions of an existing brand, often with perks or access attached.

Do NFT campaigns make money for brands?

Some do. In research on campaigns from 2020 to 2023, many brands generated sales, and revenue was associated with brand traits plus NFT factors such as utility. No independent ROI benchmark was found.

Can an NFT campaign hurt a brand?

Yes. In experimental research with nearly 3,000 participants, merely announcing an NFT campaign could hurt consumer perceptions of the brand, especially for premium brands with poorly optimized campaigns.

Is NFT marketing the same as crypto marketing?

No. NFT marketing here means brands using tokens as a marketing tool or product extension. Crypto marketing covers the promotion of crypto products themselves, such as exchanges or tokens.

Can a brand NFT be treated as a security in the US?

It can. In a 2023 case, the SEC charged an NFT offering as an unregistered securities offering, stating that economic reality, not the label, decides whether something is an investment contract.

Why do people buy NFTs?

Motives vary. In one survey of 703 NFT buyers, utility-driven buyers were the largest segment at 35% of the sample, while two smaller segments bought mainly to resell.

Does buying an NFT give the buyer rights to the artwork?

Not automatically. A 2024 joint study by the US Copyright Office and Patent and Trademark Office noted that buyers and sellers often do not know which IP rights are involved.

Related Terms

• Loyalty Program: structured rewards for repeat customers, the closest established model for token perks and member access.
• Brand Equity: the value a brand name adds, one of the extension factors linked to NFT campaign revenue.
• Crypto Marketing: promotion of crypto products themselves, a different scope from brands using NFTs.

Sources

• Brandes, L., and Dölp, K. (2025). Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) as digital brand extensions: Evidence on financial performance and parent-brand spillovers. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 42(3), 491-521. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2025.01.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2025.01.001.
• University of Lucerne (February 7, 2025). NFTs: New study identifies opportunities and risks for companies. University news release. https://www.unilu.ch/en/news/nfts-new-study-identifies-opportunities-and-risks-for-companies-9201/.
• Lu, J., Mislavsky, R., and Yang, H. (2025). Uncommonly Rare: Consumers Value Rarity in Digital Goods More in Larger Collections. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 10(2), 206-219. DOI: 10.1086/734834. https://doi.org/10.1086/734834.
• Bao, W., Hudders, L., Yu, S., and Beuckels, E. (2025). Virtual luxury in the metaverse: NFT-enabled value recreation in luxury brands. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 42(3), 557-572. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:42:y:2025:i:3:p:557-572.
• Vomberg, A., and von Gegerfelt, M. (2025). Unveiling investment vs. ownership perspectives among NFT buyers: A segmentation study exploring engagement patterns in NFT markets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 42(3), 536-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2025.01.005.
• US Securities and Exchange Commission (September 13, 2023). Press release 2023-178, charges against Stoner Cats 2 LLC. US government release. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-178.
• US Department of the Treasury (May 29, 2024). Press release jy2382, Treasury releases first ever non-fungible token illicit finance risk assessment. US government release. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2382.
• US Copyright Office (March 12, 2024). NewsNet Issue 1040, joint study with the US Patent and Trademark Office on NFTs and intellectual property. US government release. https://copyright.gov/newsnet/2024/1040.html.