Honest and authentic brands?
The renowned illustrator Christoph Niemann provided a compelling example that, in my view, serves as a commentary on society, humanity, and authenticity. He depicted a spectrum where one end represents reality and the other end represents an abstract version of reality. Niemann suggested that people prefer comfort over authenticity. In the middle of this spectrum (he titled The Abstract-O-Meter) lies comfort, as illustrated by a two-dimensional arrow and a heart. At the reality end of the spectrum, there is a heart with an arrow piercing through it, creating a graphic and unsettling image. On the abstract end, the heart and arrow are too obscure to be easily recognized. Therefore, Niemann’s depiction of a two-dimensional arrow going through a two-dimensional heart in the middle of the spectrum is where comfort can be found. I found this concept both fascinating and coherent.
If we acknowledge that brands are created by people for people, as I believe, and that a brand reflects many aspects of a company, including its underlying principles, then it is essential for a brand to be genuine from the start, based on enduring core values. The recent emphasis on authenticity and honest brands suggests that many brands may not be entirely truthful or authentic. However, just as individuals who strive to be honest and authentic must carefully choose what they reveal to the public while maintaining their authenticity, the same principle applies to brands.
Therefore, discussions surrounding authenticity, honesty, and brands prompt us to consider their implications. Should brands expose their vulnerabilities and show more transparency to build loyalty? Or, is it more effective for them to be selective in their public image, highlighting their strengths instead?
I came across an explanation for a genuine and truthful brand — A genuine brand is open, reliable, and sincere in its messaging and actions, fostering trust and loyalty among its clientele. It entails establishing a brand identity that is based on authenticity rather than on unrealistic or aspirational advertising — this not only perplexes me but also prompts the question, what have brands been focusing on all this while?
A strong and reputable brand possesses enduring core values, well-established philosophies, and manifestos. While it is conceivable for core values to undergo changes, I firmly believe that brands have the ability to adapt to evolving times and circumstances. Despite the potential shifts in people’s behavior and mindset, they continue to operate based on fundamental human tendencies, as they remain human and not a distinct species.
In simpler terms, is our role not in marketing and advertising? Are we not responsible for aligning a company’s actions with the needs of the people by creating experiences that resonate with their psyche? In other words, forming a brand? Is it not our purpose to find the balance between reality and abstract by inspiring aspirations in the minds of our target audience? Should we not explore the realm of psychological influence, or are we suddenly feeling guilty about influencing decisions? Or are we feeling guilty about doing business?
All this talk about honesty and authenticity seems to be more relevant to poor products and services that have been sold to people, resulting in dissatisfaction. This suggests that these companies did not take the time to understand the people they were trying to reach, and instead relied on assumptions rather than facts.
If we don’t start with quality business and product development, effective process mapping, and exceptional services, then marketing will become a forced attempt to persuade people to buy, rather than them willingly choosing your offering as the better option. This will lead to guilt about influencing decisions and ultimately, criticism of the brand’s authenticity, honesty, and how it is represented in communication, marketing, and advertising.
Brand and marketing have distinct roles, and advertising has its own separate purpose. Failure occurs when brand and business management are mixed up or misunderstood.
