ThinkingSparks

The alibi of schmauthenticity

Tom Asacker has problems with the concept of authenticity. He thought about it for a long time and wrote an article to express his point: Authenticity Schmauthenticity! He doesn’t believe in it. He believes that consumers want a great experience even if the inauthenticity hits them in the head.

I posted on authenticity before and referred to Tom here and here and here again. All my posts on authenticity can be found here. Basically my point is that most consumers do not care about authenticity, but:

1. Consumers do care about the consequences of organizations not being authentic; they do not like to be taken for a fool.
2. Being authentic means living up to your promise. A lot of organizations don’t. Again, consumers care about not having their expectations lived up to.
3. Authenticity makes it easier for for brand and organizational culture and behavior to align and be consistent over time. Especially for organizations that bring an experience. Inauthenticity requires good actors to give a consistent performance.
4. Authenticity has to do with Corporate Social Responsibility. Inauthentic CSR is worse than no CSR at all. Just like claiming authenticity when one is not is a big no-no.
5. All in all authenticity in itself means nothing. There can be good authenticity and bad authenticity.

So I think there is more of a nuance to the concept of authenticity then Asacker’s presents. His position creates an alibi for every organization that wants to be untruthful or even misleading; the consumer doesn’t want authenticity or truth. If organizations are given this alibi not to be genuine, where will that lead? To tobacco companies bamboozling their consumers into the false belief that smoking is a pleasant experience without any effect on their health…..? I think we passed that point a long long time ago…………………

Nip tuck marketing

I wrote about attending the launch of the Dutch magazine Vrouw the other day. The day after the lunch I checked on Telegraaf (the largest Dutch newspaper) what their journalists had to say about the launch.

Apart from my observations on networking, I observed the event and its goings on. There was a fair amount of people. I would estimate between 80 and 100. In next day’s newspaper (which is the same publisher as the magazine) they made it seem that the launch had been overrun by an enthusiastic crowd of female readers. They were bending the truth a little I would say. And of course it’s not the only organization that does it. Individuals do it too.

Some time ago I read an interview with an acquaintance of mine in a business magazine. I do not know him well enough to know all his inner secrets, but I know enough. Enough to know that he wasn’t completely truthful in the interview. I have seen other people do it too. And I have seen people believe them.

I understand why people and organizations do it. It makes for a better story. When I know the truth behind the story however, I wonder if misrepresenting the facts makes for a better story. I sure do not see the benefits in some cases. What about being found out? Is enhancing the truth understood? Is it ok and accepted just like fake boobs and botox filled faces?

Nip tuck marketing sure is at odds with the whole concept of authenticity. Can these two concepts exist together or are they mutually exclusive? Who offers an opinion?

Culture based brand or Brand based culture?

The other day I was reading an article in which the Dutch consultancy Business Openers was quoted. They call themselves the pioneers of Internal Branding in the Netherlands. I am not sure if they really are pioneers, but apparently they like to position themselves as such.

If I interpret them correctly, they use the brand as a basis for culture change. They call that ‘internal branding’. I agree with them that behavior has to match the promise, but I am not sure if I agree with their views on causality. I am also not sure if this is what internal branding is.

On their site (in Dutch) the working through this process with Albert Heijn (grocery retailer that is part of Ahold) is described. What struck me is that in the whole process the starting point is the external brand. From the external brand the brand values are inferred. These then are the basis for behavior. Hopefully resulting in a brand based culture.

I always wonder if that works. Everyone involved in change of (organizational) cultures knows that it may take some time to replace one set of values by another. An organizational culture already had a set of values driving behavior before the brand values where conceived. So unless an organization has a (soon to be) dysfunctional culture, why not do it the other way around: a culture based brand? Build on the good behavior that is already there. It has the same results of living up to the promise, it is authentic and you avoid the long period of the culture change process. And the pain and resistance that comes with change. Don't get me wrong. I am not against change. But if it ain’t broke why fix it?

I fear the incessant and continued internal branding process being fueled by external advertising or brand agencies, the changes in those, the changes in marketing or brand directors that each want to do it better, different than their predecessors. It is something that comes natural. And with every such change, the organization has to change along with it. It might keep ‘internal branding’ consultants busy but I am not convinced that it is the right way to align organizational behavior and brand promise.

Any insights anyone?

Authenticity by consumer demand?

In response to my post if creating shareholder value excludes authenticity, Tom Asacker, wonders if consumers care one way or the other if companies are authentic or not. Seth Godin writes:

Consumers are begging to be sold on the authentic. The easiest way to do that, of course, is to be authentic. And yet, ever since they replaced the sugar in Coke with corn syrup, who knows any more... Being inauthentic is tricky, unpredictable and often wrong. But it also works.

The fact is, most of the people want to be fooled, just about all of the time.

I question Seth on a number of points:

1. Either consumers want authentic or they want to be fooled. Which one is it?
2. Which fact proves that people want to be fooled? I would really like to know.
3. I personally hate being fooled or being treated like a fool. So I do not understand the statement that most people want to be fooled most of the time. Is that a conscious choice? In some situations? Sometimes? Or an unconscious acceptance that being fooled is just a fact of life? As long as a person doesn’t know that he is being fooled, ignorance is bliss? It must be, because knowing that you are fooled makes you feel like a fool. I think consumers don’t want to have that feeling. It is the feeling that someone has gotten the better of you..
4. Maybe it is the wish of the consumer to be fooled that has driven businesses to the lack of authenticity? I don’t think this is congruent with the power that business has or the lack of power consumer may feel.
5. Authenticity by consumer demand, claims Seth Godin, Asacker wonders if consumers care one way or the other. I think they do not necessarily explicitly care about authenticity, but they care about the consequences of businesses not being authentic. These consequences can be bad, like: Organizations not living up to their promise, Poor service, Poor products, Crappy apologies when something does go wrong,  Poor leadership, Phoney corporate social responsibility, Weak brands. Weak non-performing organizational cultures,  Enron, Ahold. The list can go on and on………..So while consumers may not demand authenticity per se, they demand the outcome of authenticity. Especially if experience is what a company sells to its customers. Fellow customers are part of the experience and authenticity is needed to pick the customers that both enjoy and enhance the experience.
6. Being authentic isn’t easy and becomes more difficult with the number of employees in an organization, number of different geographical locations of the organization, number of business units etc. etc. Besides, if it was easy to be authentic, we would not be discussing it now. Authenticity would then be a given.
7. Authenticity to me is a component of Corporate Social Responsibility. The latter is not possible without the first. Surely, Seth Godin doesn’t preach corporate social unresponsibility or suggest that consumers would want that that type of behavior from business?

I think authenticity is important, but it is also a very difficult concept to reconcile with the way business has been done.

Does creating shareholder value exclude authenticity?

In the ethics of economics the concept of normative theories is used. A normative theory is that which is a leading principle for the organization. There are two of those theories as far as I know. One is the stockholder theory and the other one is the stakeholder theory.

The stockholder theory was first described by Milton Friedman who saw it as the responsibility of businesses to increase its profits for its owners. R.E. Freeman is responsible for the stakeholder theory which basically states that there are more parties that have interests in the organization than investors, suppliers, employees and customers.

With either theory the interest of others (except employees; they form the organization) is the driving force behind the actions of businesses who subscribe to any of these two theories. And some people say that especially a stockholder theory and corporate social responsibility is mutually exclusive. Journalist Johann Hari seems to think so. The only responsibility the organization has is to make money for the stockholders. And there are others that claim the opposite. It is very well possible to follow both theories at the same time.

But as in my book being authentic is part of being CSR, can you be authentic and further other people’s interests on purpose? Doesn’t being authentic mean that you do your thing regardless of what other people think of it? Which in itself means that other people’s interests do not matter to you. Unless of course looking out for other people’s interests is part of your value set. The nature of these interests (economic, environmental etc. etc.) then start playing a role and how do you weigh these? Which interest is more important?

And how does talking of authentic brands work within organizations that are driven by creating shareholder value? Must authentic brands be socially responsible or can they be authentic without being CSR?

Stuff on which I need to do some more thinking. Several bloggers (Asacker, Lehew, Arruda, Branding Strategy Insider, BrandXpress) have written about authentic brands, I value their opinion and those of their readers. I invite their input.

Ludicrous example of Corporate Social Responsibility

In the latest issue of ODE magazine there was a small news item called Eco-friendly fire. The item discusses the paradox of corporate social responsibility within BAE Systems, Europe’s #1 weapons manufacturer (and the world’s #4). Following is what they say on CSR with regard to their products:

We aim to design products that are safe to handle and transport. For example, RO Defence, a BAE Systems company, has developed a range of insensitive munitions, using new explosives that are significantly less likely to explode in an accident.

Lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people. Our RO Defence site at Radway Green is developing lead-free ammunition which will be available in 2005.

There have been concerns that the use of depleted uranium in weapons may cause harm. In 2003, we stopped using depleted uranium in our products. Our depleted uranium manufacturing facility at Featherstone is being decommissioned in compliance with standards.

It makes me wonder. How weird is it to say that there may have been concerns that the use of depleted uranium in weapons may cause harm? Weapons are intended to do do physical or mental harm, may it be in attack or defense.

If it is your company’s business to produce and sell weapons how can you even hope to be seen as ethical by starting a CSR program? You may strive to do less damage, but is that moral? At what amount of damage does being moral stop or start?

A spokesman for the Campaign Against Arms Trade thinks the whole thing is laughable. I agree and believe that one aspect of being moral is authentic. Producing weapons such as an Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System and worrying about causing harm with your weapons sounds contradictory to me. They simply can not be a product of the same value set; "our conscience is not impeded by our values to produce weapons, but we worry about the damage we do?".

Corporate social responsibility with BAE Systems sounds like load of crock to me.

Authenticity or originality

In my post Authenticity or Marcom Ploy I reacted to the alleged heroicness of Dove that Jennifer Rice ascribed to them. My point was that Dove wasn’t all that responsible. In talking on authenticity Tom Asacker through Seth Godin tells us that Dove comes from the same company as Axe does. However, they each portray women in a totally different way.

As Asacker says, Dove works with contemporary culture but I submit that neither Axe nor Dove works with its company culture. The two different images of women and beauty cannot stem from one culture I would think. Of course Unilever could say that the women in the Axe commercials are men’s fantasies (what does that say on their image of men?) or that very often the men in these commercials aren’t exactly George C. or Brad P. It still makes one wonderabout the authenticity of Unilever.

Authenticity can be used as a marketing ploy. The problem is that sooner or later people see through your veil of so called authenticity as it is not authentic at all. It may fool some people for a long time but eventually it will fall short.

Asacker questions if marketers need authenticity or originality. Based on good old strategy theory I would think you need both. You need to distinguish yourself from the competition. So it would have to be original. You would also need something called fit. Ultimate fit can only exist if an organization is authentic. The problem arises if there is no demand for the organization’s supply of authenticity and originality.

As to answer Seth Godin’s question. Someone’s personal authenticity can be his or her writing tracks. I write to sharpen my thoughts and read other peoples’ stuff to develop my own thoughts further. I hope others would do the same with my writing. It makes it clear if there is reading demand for my thought supply.

Good authenticity, bad authenticity

There is a lot of talk on authentic brands. The word authenticity runs the same risk as quality. When we talk about quality, everyone implies GOOD quality. When authenticity is discussed, everyone implies that this is a good thing. But authenticity isn’t necessarily good. Nor does it mean good.

                     

If we start equaling brands to organizations I think there are a lot of authentic brands that perform well but aren’t necessarily good for us. I think of Al Qaeda, IRA, ETA, the mafia, street gangs etc.

These groups are authentic in the sense that they are true to their values. They have a strong culture and they have hangers-on who share their values. They would qualify as an authentic brand. However, it makes clear that being authentic doesn’t say anything about the intrinsic value of that authenticity. So authenticity by itself means nothing and neither does the term authentic brand.

Insincere apologies vs. authentic rudeness

After I lived in the USA and came back to Holland I was shocked to see how horribly some Dutch companies treated their customers. Be it in a store, bar, restaurant or call center. Of course this doesn’t apply to everyone and I think things have become better over the years. Although I still can be in utter amazement about the way customers are sometimes treated. See my post on Vodafone. I still enjoy visiting the USA, where I can bask in the service and attention I receive at so many places of business.

Maybe it is a cultural thing. Americans know how to give good service (by nature?) and the Dutch don’t. Of course when you say that to a Dutch person most likely the reply will be that Americans are fake. This prejudice seems to be solely based on the American way of greeting people: How are you? Many Dutch for some reason think this is insincere and shallow and hence the label fake. Unjustly so in my opinion.

We Dutch can learn something from the Americans when it comes to giving good customer service. Seth Godin wrote about the cheapest form of good customer service: the apology. In his post he questions the sincerity of the apology. The example he gives is great. It prefer sincerety and authenticity. I however accept insincere apologies above authentic rudeness any day!

Authenticity or marcom ploy?

I always enjoy the Mantra Brand blog even though I do not always agree with the author. Her post of January 10 is interesting. It is about Heroic Brands and it names some examples of companies that are or have heroic brands. I have some questions about that.

Why is a brand heroic if it takes into account the interest of others instead of just the organization? Why is that an act of heroism? Isn’t it an act of morality to consider how your actions influence other people’s interests? And since when is someone a hero when he or she is moral? Being moral should be normal and not an exception to the rule.

Corporate sustainable responsibility is the new factor in competition. Porter just wrote an article in HBR about it. The problem is that CSR – or being moral, as I see it – is seen as a tool to beat the competition. So how authentic is it to do well only as a means to a commercial and self serving end?

Mantra Brand gives some examples of brands that are heroic. One of them is Dove. I like the Dove commercials as they feature normal women, with everything that is beautiful and not ideal (at least to top model standards) about their bodies. But being responsible is more than a series of commercials with pear and apple shaped women with cellulite. According to Skin Deep the Dove products contain ingredients that may be harmful to people’s health. Check out the report. Apparently being responsible only goes skin deep.