“Authentic”: When a Word Used to Reassure Ends Up Creating Distrust

Reading time: 7 minutes

“Authentic” is probably the most frequently used word in communications in recent years.

It appears in product claims, founder biographies, creator briefs, and the editorial guidelines of entire brands.

Let's think about it: a word that seems to be used as an answer to everything, yet gradually ceases to refer to anything specific.

What exactly does that mean in practical terms?

How is the concept of authenticity defined?

This article explores what remains of the concept of authenticity when it becomes a recurring trope, and how one can convey something authentic without having to state it explicitly.

1. A word that answers everything

The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer Here’s a statistic that helps explain why this word has become so prevalent. Globally, 68% of people fear that business leaders knowingly tell falsehoods or make gross exaggerations—the highest figure recorded in twenty-five years of data collection. Given the widespread distrust of corporate communications, promising authenticity has become a way to reassure people.

The problem is that a promise alone does not resolve the mistrust that gave rise to it. If that mistrust stems from the perception that companies say things that aren’t true, claiming to be authentic is tantamount to asking for trust in advance from the very people who have stopped granting it on principle. As we noted in the article To communicate or not to intervene, consistency between what an organization says and what it does is what builds or erodes trust over time. Authenticity follows the same logic when it comes to language: it is recognized, not explicitly proclaimed.

2. The Paradox of the Aesthetic Code of Authenticity

Over the past two years, a backlash against overly polished content has taken hold: a demand for rawer, less contrived material that is perceived as closer to reality. The phenomenon of “de-influencing,” which began as a critique of overly polished and enthusiastic sponsored content, has become a recognizable style, featuring creators who also highlight a product’s limitations, show behind-the-scenes footage, and use a conversational tone rather than a promotional one. As reported by Pulse Advertising, this trend appears to represent a permanent shift in the way digital audiences evaluate commercial content, rather than a passing fad.

The proliferation of AI-generated content has accelerated this trend. According to an analysis by Digiday, only 26% of consumers today prefer AI-generated content over content created by people, compared to the 60% recorded in 2023. There is a growing demand for imperfection, a visible creative process, and a recognizable voice—all tangible, human characteristics.

Here, however, a paradox is emerging. The raw tone, the unpolished shots, the informal captions, and the admissions of limitations have themselves become a recognizable code—a style that can be replicated, planned, and even outsourced to an agency. When this happens, the aesthetic of authenticity risks becoming just as formulaic as the glossy aesthetic it replaced. The most attentive audience notices this, because the difference between something spontaneous and something that imitates spontaneity remains perceptible, even when it’s difficult to articulate precisely.

3. Claiming to be authentic is often the first sign that you aren't

The moment a brand claims, in a press release or a post, to be “authentic,” “genuine,” or “real,” it is engaging in an act that, by definition, contradicts what it claims. Authenticity is a quality that the public recognizes from the outside, based on signals that the brand does not directly control. That is why it is difficult to effectively claim it for oneself.

A frequently cited example is Patagonia, which for decades has integrated environmental activism into the very fabric of the company—from its product pages to its business model, right down to its decision to allocate profits to climate causes. When the company communicates a position on an environmental issue, that position is backed by years of consistent decisions that preceded it, making it credible regardless of the language used to express it.

The opposite risk, well documented in the literature on performance marketing, concerns cases in which a brand enters a social or cultural conversation unrelated to its business, with a message that professes values not supported by verifiable practices.

The public's reaction in these cases often goes beyond mere indifference, because the gap between what is said and what is known about the company becomes the news in itself.

4. How to Convey Authenticity Without Mentioning It

If declaring something “authentic” produces the opposite effect of what was intended, the question becomes: How can we create content that the audience perceives as authentic, without using that word or its variations? Certain linguistic and narrative choices help achieve this result by focusing on specificity rather than on making a declaration.

The first one involves replacing adjectives with details.

A phrase like “We believe in sustainability”It offers the reader nothing to verify.".

A phrase like “In 2024, we switched packaging suppliers after testing six alternatives over a six-month period” conveys a concrete, time-bound, and verifiable choice, through which the reader can form their own opinion.

The second point concerns the narrative of the process, alongside the result. A decision presented as a foregone conclusion—with no room for maneuver, no attempts made, and no alternatives considered—conveys an image of perfection that the public tends to perceive as distant. Describing the process—including the approaches that didn’t work—conveys an image of real work, one with which it’s easier to relate.

The third point concerns acknowledging limitations. Content that specifies who a product or service is not intended for, or which aspects could still be improved, builds a level of credibility that no positive claim can match. It’s the same principle behind “de-influencing”: trust also stems from what a brand chooses not to sell at all costs.

The fourth point concerns the voice. A text authored by an organization as a whole communicates differently than content written in the first person by someone who actually made a decision or had an experience. When a text presents the perspective of a specific person, including their name and role, the reader has a concrete point of reference to which they can relate what they read, and this changes the way that content is perceived.

5. What does this mean for those who write press releases and content?

For those who write press releases, editorial content, and positioning materials, this line of reasoning translates into a few concrete practices.

• First, don’t overuse the word “authentic” and its variations in the materials themselves: its use tends to take up space that should instead be reserved for the content.
• The second is to base every statement on something that can be verified—whether through a fact, a date, a name, or a concrete choice.

As we had described in the article When brands become publishers, a brand's own channels provide the ideal platform for describing processes and decisions in a level of detail that a traditional press release does not always allow.

• The third point concerns consistency over time. A single piece of carefully crafted content does not create the same impression as a sequence of content that, over time, reflects choices that are consistent with one another. Perceived authenticity is less a property of a single piece of content and more the result of an accumulation of coherent materials, each of which adds a piece to the picture that the audience constructs on its own.

Those working in communications cannot control whether an audience will perceive a brand as authentic. They can, however, provide enough material—consisting of details, processes, and recognizable voices—for the audience to reach that conclusion on its own.

Read also: To communicate or not to intervene: the strategic question that PR cannot avoid e When brands become publishers: owned media, PR and the building of authority over time.