Marketers are not doing enough to address growing consumer skepticism
The front of a can of Dalston’s rhubarb soda proclaims, “Real pressed rhubarb & sparkling water.” Yet this soft drink is just 4% rhubarb; there is more apple juice than rhubarb in every can. Such statements are so common as to seem entirely normal – but I wonder if we have crossed a line in consumers’ willingness to swallow such claims.
Marketing agencies may be to blame, as one contributor to a recent Reddit discussion in r/DigitalMarketing suggested. “Lately I’ve been seeing more marketers making completely unrealistic claims when pitching to companies,” they wrote. “Stuff like ‘we’ll 3x your revenue with our ad strategy’ or ‘our emails will completely transform your business in 30 days.’” These are, the contributor noted, wild promises that collapse under scrutiny – and they are corrosive of trust.
The Marketing Society calls trust “marketing’s most valuable and vulnerable currency,” but points out that we live in “the skepticism era.” It can take years to build trust, but just minutes to destroy it – and it seems to me that marketing leaders aren’t doing enough to preserve this precious asset.
That’s surprising, because trust is central to an idea that the industry is increasingly reliant on: authenticity. A recent survey by Stackla in the US, UK and Australia found that 90% of consumers said authenticity is important to them when deciding which brands they support.
As ever, numerous definitions are available, but I think of authenticity as honest, transparent content created to communicate a brand’s true values and actions. It’s based on noble sentiments – and when done right, it should build both trust and brand preference. But for consumers living in the skepticism era, who may be scrutinizing every promise and questioning every claim, there is an inherent weakness in my definition. It focuses on content creation and communication – but of course, actions speak louder than words.
It may be time, therefore, to underpromise and overdeliver. Spending a little less on communication budgets and more on product and performance would be a step in the right direction. However, there is a challenge here. Many companies have become slaves to performance marketing – the latest incarnation of the long-running tension between finance and marketing directors, with their contrasting focuses on short-term (quarterly) results and long-term relationships. It is the difference between sales now, versus lifetime value. In many companies, the balance of power has shifted toward the CFO and performance marketing – which doesn’t bode well for authenticity.
The final problem with authenticity is a collective one. The era of skepticism isn’t going to be ended by one brand alone: it will need thousands of individual brands to change. And it will need inauthentic brands to be called out – even punished.
This may seem contrary to the ideals of free trade, but what’s needed is tougher regulation. Inauthentic brands need to feel like the exception to the rule, not the industry norm. Of course, this is a difficult ask: getting brands to sign up to greater regulation, to abide by it, and to call others out and police it, is far from simple.
In the meantime, change begins at home. Ensuring your brand doesn’t just speak but acts authentically is an important step in the battle to rebuild trust in marketing and advertising – but only a first step on what will be a long, hard road.
Giles Lury is an independent brand consultant and writer
