It’s become conventional wisdom in marketing circles that consumers crave authentic brands. People say they’re tired of polished corporate messaging.
So what’s going on? Consumers aren’t lying or even confused. When someone says they want an “authentic brand,” that word is doing a lot of work, maybe too much work.
What Does Authenticity Actually Mean?
Are consumers asking for authenticity of values? Brands that actually stand for something real, that won’t shift their position based on the latest trend or focus group?
Or are they talking about authenticity of tone: talk to me like a human being, not a corporate press release?
Or do they mean authenticity of aesthetic: show me unfiltered behind-the-scenes content, the “reality” of the people and processes behind the product?
Maybe it’s all three. Maybe it varies by category. Aesthetic authenticity may matter more for a startup than for a pharmaceutical company. Maybe a 25-year-old defines authenticity completely differently than a 55-year-old. Maybe what feels authentic in one context reads as performative in another.
The Research Challenge
This creates a challenge for market researchers. Ask “Do you prefer authentic brands?” and you’ll get an overwhelming yes. But that yes isn’t particularly useful if it means ten different things to ten different people.
Moreover, even when consumers can articulate what they mean by authenticity, they may not know how much they’re willing to trade for it. Will they accept a higher price for values authenticity? Will they tolerate slower service for relational authenticity? These trade-offs matter enormously for brands making strategic decisions.
The work, then, is treating authenticity as a multidimensional construct rather than a single variable. Which specific dimensions actually drive behavior in which contexts? What happens when different types of authenticity conflict, e.g., when being authentic to your values means your communication can’t be as warm and relatable?
Beyond the Paradox
Qualitative research can unpack the different meanings consumers attach to authenticity across categories and demographics. Quantitative methods, particularly conjoint analysis and behavioral observation, can reveal which dimensions actually influence choice and how much consumers will trade off for each type.
The paradox may simply be what happens when we use one word to describe multiple distinct consumer desires, each carrying different meanings in different contexts. Treat authenticity as one monolithic thing, and you’ll keep getting contradictory results. Break it apart into its components, understand what each dimension means to consumers, measure what actually drives behavior and the paradox might just disappear.