More than halfway into 2024, much has already been written about Merriam-Webster proclaiming authentic as its word of the year for 2023. And with the rise of artificial intelligence—and its impact on deepfake videos, actors’ contracts, academic honesty, and many other issues—the debate about what is meant by authentic and authenticity will only intensify.
Authentic is what brands, social media influencers, and celebrities increasingly aspire to be these days. And here in our corner of the marketing world, there have certainly been countless posts about authenticity and how it can play a central role in creating meaningful engagement with target audiences.
Now, with the benefit of hindsight, a certain clarity has settled in. In fact, I’ve come to have a problem with authentic when used in a brand context either as a personality trait or any other tool in the brand development toolkit.
When it’s called out during brainstorms in brand workshops, as it frequently is, authentic receives quick, unanimous approval (which, incidentally, should be the first clue something is wrong).
It’s easy to understand why it gets such an immediate, warm reception. Who is going to disagree with it? It’s positive. It’s convenient. It isn’t controversial. In short, it’s too easy. It ranks up there with innovative as a desirable trait that causes heads to nod in a chorus of agreement.
But, here’s the problem: Seldom, if ever, is authentic actually defined or explored.
It has, unfortunately, become a slippery word drained of meaning. Too often, it serves as a lazy catch-all for other positive attributes—which is where the attention should really be focused.
To use the words authentic or authenticity with any conviction, we must first understand what they actually mean. Merriam-Webster defines authenticity in several ways, including these:
- Not false or imitation: real; actual
- True to one’s own personality, spirit, or character
- Worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact
According to these definitions, a claim of authenticity only begs the question: authentically what?
The first definition is straightforward enough, while the second definition presumes that the traits of the personality have already been defined. When guiding clients to explore and determine their brand personality traits, we, as consultants, also advise them to review all content through the lens of their traits to ensure brand authenticity across all touch points—website content, social media, sales and marketing materials, and so on. This is an inward-looking exercise that sets the stage for the third definition.
Regarding the third definition, what body of evidence exists to make a claim worthy of acceptance based on fact? Facts, not desirability, are prerequisites for authenticity. And in the case of brand perceptions, customer research equals fact. If a company’s brand personality attributes do not align with its customer’s perceptions, the true test of authenticity has not been passed. In this case, there is work to be done to substantiate, articulate, and inform.
The next time you hear authentic called out to describe a person, culture, or brand, it might help to ask the question: Authentically what? Honest? Curious? Funny? Altruistic?
This simple question leads to adjectives that can be further explored, defined, and tested in context that is specific to the entity itself, and with much more substance than the empty vessel of authentic.
A shining example of this is Patagonia. It would be simple and easy to describe Patagonia as an authentic brand. It certainly is. But when you read founder Yvon Chouinard’s announcement of the company’s new ownership and the model he created, the more appropriate—and deeper adjective becomes clear. Patagonia is authentically committed to its only shareholder: Earth.
If we force ourselves to think deeper, push further, and work harder about the meaning we’re ultimately trying to identify, we’ll end up with a much more authentic result.