an authentic brand, continuity and multiplicity
December 16th, 2009 • posts i've written
A brand’s perceived authenticity is the product of making one crucial decision – which extreme to strive for.
Authenticity is a hot topic these days for three reasons: 1) we have and are a culture that evolves and cascades more rapidly, 2) the inability, so far, for brands to identify a clear strategy for this culture, and 3) millennial studies – the realization of a generation more versed in our modern culture that brands can’t navigate these waters as successfully as they can.
In response to the attention, we’ve written books, we’ve made complex lists and rankings of the most authentic brands, and we’ve generally beaten our heads against the wall.
Authenticity doesn’t exist – at least not in the measurable way a sale or transaction exists.
Authenticity is a negotiation of perception – of the future. Brands were built on this model of time perception – after major corporations killed off your friendly milk-man (h/t to Alex Erster Chung), we needed assurance that our shelves would be stocked with our favorite products on our next visit to the store, and that those products would maintain a standard level of quality.
In other words, brands are the result of our need for continuity. If it were a Radiohead song, authenticity would be No Alarms and No Surprises.
Brands perfected continuity. Pick a message, pick an audience, repeat. And repeat again.
But then came this darn new culture of ours. With the change came our new expectation for corporations to be more responsive – to our changing needs and to our changing times.
But the Titanic wasn’t renowned for its maneuverability.
In the face of change, brands fumbled, sure, but they also experimented. In exploring culture, Unilever discovered uncharted territory in Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty but because of their Axe ads, the authenticity of each were called into question. This giant portfolio brand was telling two contradicting stories.
We can’t refuse Unilever the right to make an Axe campaign without giving someone the right to refuse Unilever the right to make the Dove campaign. If we can say “no” to a sexist campaign, someone can say “no” to a feminist one.
Nothing should be foreign to brand. [...] This is precisely what is wrong with the authenticity argument now being promoted by Gilmore and Pine. In fact, brands have no native voice. They may have a brand heritage. Some brand meanings may come more easily than others. But there is nothing a brand must say, and nothing, within limits, it mustn’t say. Brands are designed to be exemplars of responsiveness.
In my opinion, the underlying issue was less the result of what both brands had to say in response to culture, and more of how infrequently they did respond to culture. Dove uncovered a real bit of truth but that truth had been lying around for decades waiting for someone to find it. Axe hasn’t responded to culture since their initial insight into their male consumer; they’ve followed the continuity route and have kept their heads down simply repeating the same Axe ad over and over again. Being highly responsive to culture is a pre-requisite for modern brand building.
Ultimately, the answer to the authenticity question is increased responsiveness + (continuity OR multiplicity).
Multiplicity is a term both Grant and Henry Jenkins use in contrast to continuity – from Henry’s transmedia work posted yesterday, multiplicity can be described as many differentiated versions of messages/meanings/characters being produced by the creator.
I would argue that cries of inauthenticity erupt when 1) a brand fails to be responsive and 2) falls too near the middle of the spectrum between continuity and multiplicity.
In response to culture, there should either be one ideal upheld and oft-repeated, or a shotgun approach of variations and innovations.
If you’re interested in this post, I highly recommend Grant’s new book, Chief Culture Officer.
Related posts:
4 Responses (add your comment)
-
-
Authenticity is subjective. “Just like Mom used to make” means different things to different people. That’s not to say brand authenticity doesn’t exist, but rather each brand and audience has a different view of authenticity.
Unilever holds a wealth of brands within its portfolio. Axe and Dove are sibling brands. Each has its own sense of authenticity and corresponding market. To compare the two would be like comparing brother and sister. While each is a product of the same producer and may live under the same roof, the two won’t necessarily share the same values.
If you haven’t already done so, I would recommend reading Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want by II Pine, James H. Gilmore, and B. Joseph.
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Blackcoffee® -
Sorry Bud,
I wrote my reply and left the computer without hitting submit. Upon my return I added the comment about Pine and Gilmore’s book: Authenticity.
My bad!
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Blackcoffee®
donate your two cents
NOTE: Anonymous and/or hateful comments get deleted. My blog, my rules.
I was chatting with Jerry Michalski last night and this topic came up as well. Jerry noted attribute that plays into this: vulnerability. Brands have built these massive stone wall facades that give them no lee way when the inevitable error occurs (see Woods, Tiger). If you spend years / decades building your brand to be polished to perfection, you’
re trapped in a corner. Part of authenticity is allowing yourself to be vulnerable (i.e. human). People respond to that because you’ve now put yourself, as a brand, on the same level. People will more easily empathize with another human than they will some impenetrable brand.