Two days ago I shared the questions I had on consistency vs. authenticity when it comes to branding.
What is more important when building a brand? Consistency or authenticity? Or is authenticity an easy - and only? - route to consistency? Is it the need for consistency that drives the quest for authenticity? And does social networking make it easier to build a brand or harder because of more touchpoints and moments of truth?
Wikipedia gives the following meaning of authenticity:
- Authenticity refers to the truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions.
- Authenticity is a technical term in existentialist philosophy, and is also used in the philosophy of art and psychology. In philosophy, the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. Authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite these pressures.
The only applicable definition in Merriam-Webster is the similar to the philosophical definition.
Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore in their book Authentity use the following criteria for authenticity:
- Is the offering true to itself? This describes the relation between the organization and its output.
- Is the offering what it says it is? This describes the relation between the organization and its customers.
Check out their Real/Fake Matrix in the vote box (right side; look for explanation)..
From a philosophical perspective it would seem that in order to be authentic one has to withstand external pressures. Keeping customers in mind, which is what most companies should do, in itself clashes with being authentic.
I like to believe that most independent artists (painters, photographers, writers, poets etc.) are authentic. They produce what they think they should without taking into account if there is a market for it. Of course if there isn't they will be the stereotype of the starving artist. With this definition it is clear that any organization with stakeholders cannot ever by authentic.
It is obvious that Pine and Gilmore adapted the meaning of authenticity to their needs by adding the second criterion. A criterion that makes sense. As an organization you want to keep your promisses. Be it your brand promiss of the promiss of quality or price, service etc. It is important because if you don't keep your promisses your customers will be gone before you know it.
I however, think that that is more a question of consistency than authenticity. Harmony of conduct or practice. In other words: practice what you preach in all those moments of truth. Of course authentic behavior leads to consistency. But the question is if there are other ways to consistency.
Being authentic in itself means nothing. Being true to one's own personality, spirit or character, means that you should be true to the good and the bad in you. But it is the bad or negative charactertraits of a person or organization that can lead to not making true on our promiss. Authenticity has a downside too. Although excentricity to an artist may be a plus.
Being authentic with flaws and excentricities gives a competitive advantage as it is hard to immitate such traits. And every organization or person even, is looking for a competitive edge. At the same time however, there are umpteen thousand books, articles, classes, workshops etc. etc. to improve and change ourselves and our organizations. Is that being true to oneself? Somehow it doesn't feel that way.
So being truly authentic in the sense of being true one's personality, spirit and character is not always desirable. It leads me to prefer the term consistency to authenticity.
Have I answered my own questions now?
- What is more important when building a brand? Consistency or authenticity? I think we are looking for consistency and are confusing that with authenticity.
- Or is authenticity an easy - and only? - route to consistency? I think authenticity is a route to consistency but it is not an easy one as the content of authenticity has many shapes and sizes. How do you control the dark side of your authenticity? Should you control the dark side of your authenticity?
- Is it the need for consistency that drives the quest for authenticity? Maybe. I don't know. Maybe the term authenticity is misused and hyped. Maybe we like to believe that everything is possible and makeable; even authenticity. Which is a contradiction in itself: makeable authenticity.
- And does social networking make it easier to build a brand or harder because of more touchpoints and moments of truth? Social networking may offer a whole new range of possibilities but consistency is harder when there are more touchpoints.
This is what I think. What do you think?
