Why The Word Of Year Is A Mandate For Modern Marketers

Merriam-Webster has selected “authentic” as the word of 2023. Each year, the dictionary-maker, one of the most trusted sources for understanding the meaning of words, awards this annual distinction based on search volume and context. Last year’s word of the year was “gaslight,” in 2021, the word was “anti-vaxxer,” and in 2020, “pandemic” held the top spot. If the previous honorees are any indication, the word of the year serves as a snapshot of society’s collective conscious.

Webster defines authentic as “not false or imitation.” Considering the ongoing debate surrounding the implications of AI, the concerns of misinformation, and the potential threat of deep fakes, it should be no surprise that people are curious about what’s real and what’s not. The demand for such authenticity doesn’t stop with technology and politics; authenticity also has a premium with regard to marketing as well.

People crave authenticity—from the artists they love, the influencers they follow, and the brands they consume—and marketers know this unequivocally. For this very reason, if there were ever a game of Marketing Bingo, the word “authentic” would undoubtedly have a home among the most popular jargon in the field. People’s disdain for anything seemingly inauthentic is so intense that it borders repulsion. And this aversion will drive people to not only disengage from a brand they deem inauthentic but also use their voice and social capital to discourage others from engaging, too.

But what does it mean to be authentic? With so many cautionary tales about brands that have fallen short of the authenticity standard—constructed in the minds of the public—and subsequently suffered at the cash register because of it, one would think that we’d have more concrete language to talk about authenticity. But we don’t. Therefore, today’s modern marketers must have an applicable lexicon to describe “authenticity” and a better understanding of how to safeguard their brands from being void of it.

The origins of “authentic” have a long history. It derives from the Greek term “authentikos,” meaning genuine or principled. Over 2,000 years, interdisciplinary scholars would later define authenticity as being “true to the self.” Even Webster cites “true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character” as the second definition for the term.

Authenticity scholar David Brown, Jr. interrogates the notion of being true to self as a matter of consistency and context, where the highest levels of authenticity are achieved when a person’s presentation of self transcends context. No matter the situation, be it the boardroom or the pub, they show up as themselves—a negotiation of all the complexities that make up their personhood. Likewise, for brands, the analog is that authenticity is most achieved when they, too, present themselves consistently, no matter the media context or social setting.

Take Black History Month, for example. Every February, brands across various industries use this contextual moment to celebrate, empower, and acknowledge Black Americans. However, this level of affection is practically nonexistent from many of these same brands during the other 11 months of the year. This is not an act of high authenticity. If these brands were being true to self, then they would, colloquially speaking, “keep that same energy” all year round.

Similarly, after the public execution of George Floyd, a litany of brands issued statements of repentance and introspection regarding the plight of Black Americans and the onslaught of systemic racism on their lived experiences. Instagram handles were changed to black as a demonstration of support and understanding. DEI initiatives were turbocharged, and unconscious bias trainings, like Glenn Singleton’s Courage Conversations, skyrocketed. However, once the public discourse moved on to the next topic du jour, enthusiasm waned, and those efforts were often abandoned.

This is not an act of authenticity. According to Brown, authenticity requires context transcendence. What these two examples illuminate is the brand being defined by the context, which can be eye-roll-inducing for the public—especially those from the exploited community. If you say you stand for something, then people expect you to “keep that same energy.” We can see this on display in politics, leadership, management, and even our day-to-day relationships. People want something real, regardless of the circumstances.

To that end, it’s important to note who the judges of authenticity are. While we aim to achieve the highest levels of authenticity for the brands we steward, authenticity is not self-actualized; it is awarded to us through public evaluation. That is to say, the brand is perceived as being authentic when people believe that the brand is being real. In fact, Webster’s third definition of authenticity is “worthy of acceptance,” signifying that authenticity is bestowed, not claimed.

This underscores a critical point of authenticity: marketers must not only understand the brand’s itself, but they must also be able to translate itself when in a particular setting. This requires understanding who the brand is and how the brand’s self is perceived by the public, the arbiters of authenticity.

Marketers know this intuitively. We often ask ourselves, “Is this authentic to the brand?” Or “Will this communication seem authentic?” Therefore, the implication is that people assess whether the brand is being true to itself, not the stewards of the brand. The public decides if the brand is authentic, not marketers. Therefore, the public must first know who you are and what you stand for if they are to determine whether you are indeed standing for it beyond the context. Otherwise, any act beyond your category or product would seem inauthentic for the brand.

If the foundation of authenticity is the self, marketers must establish what the brand is beyond the brand mark and distinctive assets. What does the brand believe beyond the category? What’s its point of view on the world beyond its products? On what is the brand convicted? It is impossible to be true to oneself if you don’t know who you are beyond what you do.

Take Persil, for instance. Persil is a brand that inspires families to embrace dirt as a fundamental symbol of childhood development. It just so happens to sell laundry detergent to get your clothes clean. However, the brand itself is not defined by its products. Instead, it rises above its low involvement category and operates at an ideological level.

The products reflect the people, processes, and technologies that manifest said in products. And the brand signifies its worldview defined by its conviction. The products and other marketing activities are merely examples of how the brand presents itself. This ascendance from category allows Persil to engage in activity beyond its product offering and remain true to self.

Dirt has long been the enemy of detergent brands because of its products’ functional promise, which opposed soiled clothes. But Persil, a believer that dirt on clothes signifies development, not disappointment, chose to embrace dirt as a receipt of childhood. This worldview is captured in its 20-year-long marketing campaign: Dirt is Good.

The transcendence of category has allowed Persil to partner with sustainability efforts and sports, underscoring why the brand exists in different contexts. If higher authenticity is about the consistent presentation of self, then the brand’s communications, kinetics, and partnerships should be unwaveringly demonstrative of its convictions regardless of context, occasion, or time of year.

This is no easy feat, which is why marketers continue to grapple with the concept of their brands participating in culture while maintaining authenticity. That said, it is reasonably achievable, but it starts with an understanding of self. Not just the branded products that the company creates but also the convictions that demarcate the brand’s worldview reflected in said products.

As today’s technology provides more transparency for the public to see brands in different contexts and more opportunities for bad actors to subvert the truth, it will become increasingly important for even the most average brands to navigate the complexity of authenticity with great sophistication. Suffice it to say, the word of the year is not merely a public progress bar of curiosity; it’s a signal of salience, much like Google is a database of intent. Therefore, it’s of the utmost importance that marketers take inventory of who they really are and pay mind to how they consistently live up to it.