Authenticity has been a marketing buzzword for the past few years. And I have mixed feelings about it.
In general, I think most people struggling to define authenticity would suggest that one definition is 'the absence of marketing, or spin.' The thing itself, pure and unadulterated.
How, then, can authenticity be a marketing buzzword? If simply revealing the pure thing itself works to sell it, who needs marketing? I'm afraid that the word 'revealing' in that last sentence is the crux of the problem.
In this age when there is little trust in government, large institutions, corporate banking and big business, many crave authenticity because it holds the promise of simplicity and human-scale quality. We expect something hand-produced or artisanal. Or at least something honest.
Small is authentic. Family is authentic. Small family farms are authentic. Personal is authentic. Anything non-corporate and non-government is authentic.
Authentic things are free from marketing gobbledygook and PR hype or spin.
In his book 'Real Wine' Patrick Matthews addresses the differences between real wine and McWine, between traditionalist craft workers and scumbag corporate winemakers, while admitting that being a winemaker at Gallo is not really the same as being a bureaucrat at Exxon or Citibank.
And there's a continuum here, not a clear line of demarcation between authentic real wine and corporate tanker trash. And even more confusing, corporate wineries can make some very fine, tasty wines.
But, back to that problem word: revealing. If authentic sells, and needs no marketing, how do potential customers find that authentic wine, and how do those authentic wines find customers. The answer, paradoxically, is 'marketing.'
Marketing - beyond the spin and gobbledygook and buzzwords - is offering something to an appropriate audience and explaining how it meets their needs and desires. Marketing authenticity is revealing the authentic to those who care about the authentic.
Comments