I'm in a lot of conversations these days regarding "being authentic", and how important it is as a brand. I completely agree. Offhand I can't think of anything more important actually. Of course this wouldn't be much of a blog post if that was the end of the story would it?
Where I think many people go astray is in their perception, or definition, of what constitutes "authenticity" at the brand level. For example, and this ties in very nicely to my
previous post about whether you can outsource your "social media voice", many people confuse a brands authenticity with that of an individuals. I suspect this might be due to the blurred perceptions of individuals vs. brands in social media, as well as the idealistic attitude many of the social media pundits initially take, but that's just a theory.
The argument goes something like this: "How can someone who is not a part of the company speak on its behalf and still be authentic?". My response is: "What do the two things have to do with one another?". What an individual thinks, whether they are inside or outside of the company, is not really relevant to the brand. Perhaps an easier analogy to make would be a news reporter (I suppose in this day and age even this is in question though). The fact that they have their own personal belief system does not color their reporting. They are speaking on behalf of a brand, and that brand has certain ideals, certain traits, and a tone of voice.
If we look at the individual reporters point of view as the qualifying criteria then they would be seen as being "inauthentic". They are not speaking as they would choose to as an individual, therefore what they are saying is to some degree manufactured and shaped so that their overarching corporate brand is represented in a very specific way. Basically, they aren't being true to themselves. But the reality is that for the *brand* to be authentic the reporters job is to be consistent within that brand. We normally don't associate words like "manipulate", "scripted", "presentation", etc. with authenticity but at a brand level those are perfectly acceptable terms. There is nothing inherently negative, or evil, about manipulation. Every advertisement, every sales pitch, every action by a company is a form of manipulation. It doesn't make the company disingenuous, nor the individual who is delivering the brand message. What matters is that the *companies* brand is being upheld. The manipulation is a form of unstated societal contract, we know it occurs and we ask for it, we just don't think about it in those terms.
If one of your companies brand messages is "to be green" then as long as the company is upholding that promise they are being authentic, it doesn't matter that half of the employees drive Hummers and throw trash out their car window. They are not being held to that brand ideal, the company is.
There are some exceptions to this rule, but they are self-created for the most part. As part of the brand, company figureheads are generally expected to demonstrate consistency of belief for example. Another example might be professional athletes, who are commonly penalized by their organizations for not upholding that organizations publicized ideals. {As a side note, I've always been fascinated with that particular example as the penalties themselves are actually a form of branding (and a successful one). i.e. "Look at us, we are such a highly esteemed organization that we will publicly skewer anyone who falls from grace".} A final example of an exception would be those companies who choose to make their corporate culture a part of their brand. Google's "Do No Evil" policy for instance. It does not require that their employees are good 100% of the time, it does however mean that the public would have the right to hold Google employee activities to a higher standard with more culpability.
So it's fine if you want to withhold your seal of approval from a company you think is not being authentic, just make sure that you're judging them by the right criteria.