An examination of a jargon-drenched word that refuses to die.
When intelligence is associated with artifice, parasocial relationships are as common as interpersonal ones, and economy-shifting developments happen to the tune of corporate statements, we are left craving reality, humanity and genuine connections. There’s a word for this, one that often comes veneered in the pursuit of sales, impressions and reputational gains: authenticity.
Turns out, the meaning of this word is hard to pin down, and that’s part of its appeal. Let’s take a look at what happened to a word that’s supposed to denote the genuine article but has buzzworded itself into near numbness, and determine what it takes to claim authenticity without sounding artificial.
The authenticity of authenticity
Authenticity, of course, originally had nothing to do with “being yourself” on Instagram, but with verifying whether religious texts, relics or authority figures were the real deal — that is, canonical or accepted by the Church. It’s from the Greek authentikos, meaning “original, genuine,” again typically used in legal and religious contexts. And we still see this sense today in a range of authoritative disciplines: A dinosaur fossil, for instance, can be authenticated by paleontologists.
Its roots do, interestingly, imply “doing yourself” quite literally if not in early practice: The Greek word is from the noun authentēs, meaning “one acting on one’s own authority” (autos “self” + hentēs “doer, being”).
Still, this word didn’t extend beyond the notion of ecclesiastical and institutional legitimacy until the 19th century, when thinkers like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger wrote of living authentically (true to one’s own self) as an ideal.
As is often the case, popular usage followed suit, and modern dictionaries show us its dual identity: “not false or imitation” on one hand, and “true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character” on the other.
That lofty notion of the genuine self or personal authenticity, being the “real you,” is a relatively recent twist, and it’s catnip for the internet age as users and organizations seek an antidote and antithesis to fake news, deepfakes and curated online personas. “Realness” is a prized virtue when performance, automation, misinformation and strategic obfuscation are the norm.
It’s no wonder Merriam-Webster observed in 2023 that although it’s “clearly a desirable quality,” authentic is “hard to define and subject to debate”: It can encompass everything that’s not “not real,” but evaluations of truth, reality, genuineness and credibility are perpetually in question today, so the word has become a moving target.
Performing authenticity
It certainly doesn’t help that brands, communicators and marketers have masticated and regurgitated these notions to the point of cliché, describing influencer partnerships, corporate messaging, and the tonality of ads as “authentic” (to the influencer or the brand) in the context of intentionally manufactured customer engagement and sales strategies.
Across sectors, communicators and marketers are quick to sprinkle the A-word into their narratives. AI startups strive for chatbots that can produce an “authentic brand voice.” Travel companies promise “authentic local experiences” in far-flung destinations (but don’t worry, the branded towels are right around the corner). Fashion brands sling mass-produced styles to help you express your authentic self (unique to you and the other 15,000 customers who purchased those jeans that will fall apart in six months), while fast-food chains tout the authenticity of their recipes (just like nonna used to make, but at 1 million units a day on the machine in the Ohio plant before it’s shipped to your local franchise).
Back in 2015 — yes, we’ve been beating this drum for that long, and yes, it makes me feel old too — a study in the Journal of Marketing Management aimed to pin it down, carving the concept into four dimensions: continuity, or staying true to your roots; credibility, or doing what you promise; integrity, or guided by values; and symbolism, or standing for something that resonates.
More plainly, an “authentic” brand should be genuine, consistent, honest and meaningful. But even these objectives are easy to profess and can ring hollow without evidence or by shifting goalposts.
As a result, authenticity has become an amorphous, self-designated performance art, hammered into strategic language and processes that are subject to four laps of multidepartmental approvals.
It’s no wonder anyone questions the, well, authenticity of the word itself in practice; its overuse has flung its public perception into the same distasteful category as terms like “synergy” and “circle back.”
And like other corporatisms, it lacks specificity, which makes it a convenient catch-all for success, a moving target for which brands can congratulate themselves without metrics. Even by the scholarly four-pillar framework, brands can emulate and trumpet genuineness, consistency, honesty and meaning without quantifiable results.
Everyone is chasing authenticity, yet the chase itself makes the end result feel manufactured.
Have we beaten it to death?
If you’re tempted to claim this word yourself, remember that audiences today (especially cynical younger consumers and employees) have sensitive BS-meters. They can tell when “authentic” is being used as cosmetic cover.
Unfortunately for the unimaginative, and due to its vagueness and beleaguered jargonization, we don’t have an ideal, alternative, similarly all-encompassing word. Our only recourse is specificity.
Because this word has lost its definition at large, touting it requires cranking up the resolution and ensuring you can define it yourself. It doesn’t come with any built-in metrics or accountability, so it’s on communicators to create them.
If you plan to decribe your PR or marketing strategy as “authentic,” be ready to back it up with a realistic expression of what the word itself means to your organization and the people involved in it, and what boundaries you’ve set to prevent creep beyond your definition of it.
In other words, it’s important to know what authenticity doesn’t look like so you know when you’ve reentered the realm of corporate fakery. It’s equally critical that your comms and executive teams can express how it’s defined consistently, transparently and honestly.
Ultimately, though, many organizations may do better to ditch the ambiguity entirely and tie more precise phrasing to clearer outcomes.
If it required a few followups to get a usable employee testimonial; if your CEO hasn’t even read the latest post you ghostwrote for them on LinkedIn; or if the influencer you’re working with had to remake their video twice before legal would OK it, you might do better to describe your success in more practical, results- and process-based terms.
In these instances, hanging your hat on the tangible, measurable methods you used to generate employee pride, cultivate authority, and find great collaborations might ring truer (or more authentic) for you.
Jess Zafarris serves at the editor-at-large for Ragan Communications & PR Daily and writes books about etymology.
The post Why ‘authenticity’ is such a tough buzzword to replace appeared first on PR Daily.
