Are proponents of Brand Authenticity actually pushing authenticity?
What unbundles after the influencer?
Primary Audience: Brand,
Secondary Audience: Agency, Production,
Site Tags: Advertising, Media
Introduction
A strategist walks into a bar. She tells the bartender, what patrons really want is authenticity. Bartender says, "Yeah okay, so keep doing everything the way I am?" Strategist says, "Yeah, pretty much."
Authentic Rhetoric
Online, in publications and in the marketing-discussion place you will find no shortage of articles that marry the ideas of ‘Brand’ + ‘Authenticity.’ Many times these are second tier (or third tier) publications pushed by marketers or individuals– but not always. The idea has gained major traction and can be found in go-to publications (like Forbes or Ad Age. ) The sheer abundance of content focusing on this topic, is indicative of how viable it is to advocate for authenticity. The idea that what consumers want is authenticity.
Before exploring what Brand Authenticity is actually selling, let’s acknowledge whatever it is, it’s good rhetoric.
And makes for good headlines
It’s short, it’s punchy, it’s declarative- and it’s suggestive of solution
But. As pithy as these statements are, I'd like to reject them as loaded. What I’ve found is that in nearly all instances in which authenticity is being advocated, it is actually just a veiled advocation for using social media influencers.
Before exploring that any further, here’s a juxtaposition to show what these titles would look like, if they reflected what they’re actually advocating for.
If you look into any of these articles. Or, feel free to google your own- see if the argument holds up. But in these articles, there is an advocation for corporate authenticity in very general terms. Generalities such as consumers want brands that are more authentic in their culture, sourcing, and policies. But substantively, the only practical suggestion given is what brands can do in the social media space. And what said-marketer can do, to help them do it.
These articles are not about companies fundamentally reevaluating themselves in the name of vague 'authenticity'. They’re calls to action, for why Brands should use x service or firm to achieve said-authenticity.
Logic Gap
A) The Logical Assumption - Consumers want more authenticity.
This is widely supported by research that people like authenticity.
B) The Illogical Jump - Authenticity is the number one reason a viewer watches an influencer
C) Illogical Conclusion - Brands should hire authentic TikTok influencers
The faulty logic here assumes a causal relationship between authenticity and the appeal of the influencer. And that therefore Brands should endlessly pursue ambassadors that align with the values brands have embroidered upon their banners.
Here’s a great clip as to why asking consumers what they want is a foolproof strategy to base your business decisions on.
An Entertainment Medium
My own, un-researched, unverified, unscientific opinion here is: viewers watch content because they find it entertaining.
The viewers of Chilli The Pug are viewing because they enjoy doing so. Not because they align with Chilli The Pug's authenticity.
Appeals to identity frames like authenticity are appeals to the Superego. The higher intellectual conceptualization of the self. These are great for the consumer writing a dissertation on themselves. Not so much to those on social.
Consider what the appeal of social platforms are. They operate at a base level of novel stimulus. Appeals to the id. Appeals to the unconscious, impulsive, irrational and the convenient.
Why is it working
Hiring influencers is working simply because you are increasing exposure
Influencers are just affiliate marketing under a new banner.
The Appeal of Social: Abundance + Accessibility
Briefly consider what our draw to social media is
Content's pull
What does TikTok offer fundamentally.
An abundance of entertainment
In an accessible format
Obviously, the base-brain appeal of social is its short bursts of novel rewards. But also consider each chunk of a given influencer universe exists within a larger continuum.
A choose your own adventure, as long as the only way you go is → forward → click → → forward → forward →
The Takeaway's
Be weary of marketers promoting authenticity
Exposure itself is doing the heavy lifting, entertainment makes it permissible.
Consider the best way to achieve that. Is spend on over-segmentation the best way to get there? Or would broad-stroke, cross medium efforts be more effective? And to the chagrin of social marketers, there are channels outside of social media.
Also.
Consider competing with content creators on a production front to increase broad exposure.
Afterthoughts
The re-bundling of unbundling
What are the production formats that have been used by brands?
Initially you had the sponsorship model, in which brands sponsored whole shows, and featured their brand within said shows. Then of course you had the commercial spot model, still active today. Recently the content creator model in which creators advocate for specific brands, within social content.
Spitballing
Would the content creator model be best utilized in a sponsorship structure?
Brand Content Studios?
Micro-productions?
In-house or permalance
Could a dedicated studio approach to content creation be the most effective way to dominate the social space? Should any brand be so ambitious. Approach the influencer domain with a competitive micro-production model. Compete within the confines of 15 second 9:16 frames?
Hypothetically what might this look like?
A world where brand sponsored content-production is created on a daily basis
Don’t think: branded content
Think: a sponsored influencer, being given the production arsenal they need to thrive.
Brands would compete on an abundance & entertainment front.
This abundance wouldn't be best served in the form of constant adverts.
Even the best commercials are inherently solicitive, which makes them at odds with being entertainment.
Content that entertains
Rather, the opportunity is to make content that's number one priority is to entertain.
This isn't to say Brand Sponsored Content couldn't exist within the constraints of what's brand appropriate, and the use of brand products. But that couldn't be it's primary objective.
Consider I Love Lucy, the advertiser for Phillip Morris.
An episode of I Love Lucy, was never about Phillip Morris cigarettes.
It was entertaining all on its own, and just happened to feature the use of Phillip Morris products.
What might, a micro-production look like. One oriented towards entertaining in a social domain- but it just happens to feature brand product.
Think someone else would find this valuable?