Hands off the topic of authenticity
“People increasingly see the world in terms of ‘real’ and ‘fake,’ and want to buy something real from someone genuine, not a fake from a phony. Now more than ever, the authentic is what consumers really want.” (from the book “Authenticity: What Consumers really want” by Gilmore/Pine). The list of such quotes from blogs, books and lectures is endless. Authenticity is in. It is the new favourite word of the brand-family, above all of the social media fans among them. And there is hardly a single agency briefing where it doesn’t rattle around under the theme brand attributes. The conclusion is clear to see with Google: Authentisch – 3 million links
Authentic – 250 million hits
Markenauthentizität – 435 thousand links
Brand Authenticity – 12 million links
Social Media Authentizität – 270 thousand links
Social Media Authenticity – 6.9 million links Admittedly: the Americans are, in the case of authenticity, superior to us Germans in terms of numbers. But we are in the process of catching up quickly. I certainly can’t hear that little word “authentic” anymore. For despite the fact that there are quite different things that can be read about the theme, it still seems these days, if you listen into a German brand-maker’s meeting room, that it is a theme which is, above all, used in abundance and not really thought about: “Our brands must by all means be (remain, become) authentic.” Why? What does that mean for the brand behaviour? Who judges what “authentic” is? And according to what criteria? Most of these questions remain unanswered. You can’t argue with authenticity. Quite the reverse: who wouldn’t want to embody the following definition of authenticity on Wikipedia: “when referring to people, authenticity means that the actions of a person are not determined through external influences, but are founded in the person themselves.” However: even in the personal brand of Lobenstein there’s a problem with authenticity. Of course I imagine that the true Lobenstein shines through in everything I do, say and write. But I have family, friends, clients, readers, followers. Not influenced by external influences? Get real! To top it all, according to Margaret King and Jamie O’Boyle from the Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis, people invent and thereby define anew what is authentic for them at around 35-40 and again between 55-60. Even as a person it’s difficult enough to be sustainably authentic and remain so! How much more difficult must the authenticity business be for brands? What distinguishes real authenticity from this engineered, marketing pseudo-authenticity, which even my youngest daughter with her 10 years can decode as being fake and not credible? In their study in 2000, the scientists Michael Kernis and Brian Goldman developed 4 criteria as benchmarks for true authenticity (see, among others, http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200804/dare-be-yourself)
- Awareness: We have to know our strengths and weaknesses as well as our feelings and motives, so why we behave in this or that way. Only through this self-reflection are we in the position to consciously experience and influence our actions. From a brand perspective: self-reflection is not exactly an established talent among brands, blowing your own trumpet about your particular capabilities is. And you see that. Authenticity is something different.
- Honesty: Those who want to be authentic have to look reality in the eyes and also accept uncomfortable repercussions – whether verbal or visual. From a brand perspective: the talent of dealing with uncomfortable repercussions can be seen every day on numerous social platforms. It is completely understandable. Community Management, eye to eye dialogue and in real-time? Rather not!
- Consequence: those who have values should act according to them. The same goes for once-firm priorities or for the case that you incur disadvantages through acting this way. Hardly anything looks more dishonest and artificial then an opportunist. From a brand perspective: brand opportunism can be seen every day on supermarket shelves and display windows under the pretext of brand stretching or spreading. Stretched to the point of being unrecognisable in the constant hunt for the next, supposedly just-within-reach users: only a few brands still really stand for recognisable values and the resulting consequent actions.
- Sincerity: Those who want to be truthful have to show the good grace to display their negative sides as well. From a brand perspective: most brands have no negative sides per se. At least, not officially. And they certainly won’t be a component of a discussion with a target audience. End marketing announcement.
Brands don’t have to be authentic in order to be successful. As even when it is apparently the dictate of the hour in the era of social media: it isn’t enough to want to be authentic and then to act as if you are. Either be really authentic, but then with all of the above consequences, or keep your hands off from the business of authenticity. Precisely in times in which brands can’t hide themselves or their actions from the watchful eyes of the net, target audiences decode staged marketing authenticity in record time and reject them. There are other paths into the hearts and minds of potential target audiences. Paths which many brands could tread much more credibly than if they keep running after the hype of genuineness. Paths which would spare all of us a pair of quite overrated links as potential results on Google.
