Are we our own god(s)? Is the workplace our church?

This post is a bit more philosophical than the others on this blog…literally. Back in June of this year, the online New York Times published a piece called “The Gospel According to ‘Me'”. The authors of the article are a professor of philosophy (Simon Critchley) and a psychoanalyst (Jamieson Webster). In the article they talk about how authenticity in the New Age movement has replaced traditional religion, and the ramifications for that when it comes to the world of waged work.

The Take Aways
Traditional morality structures require sacrifice and conformity (ostensibly for the good of the community). More recently, what authentic for the self takes precedence: a concept with no exterior moral touchstone. The gospel “truths” of a deity, demanding sacrifice and obedience, has been replaced by a gospel of “me” where ones own well being becomes the centre of one’s life:

“Whereas the American dream used to be tied to external reality — say, America as the place where one can openly practice any religion, America as a safe haven from political oppression or America as the land of opportunity where one need not struggle as hard as one’s parents — now, the dream is one of pure psychological transformation.”

What does that mean for the workplace?

The workplace is now colonised by non-work experiences and expectations, such as the requirement of employers to engage their employees on a spiritual, psychological and intellectual level. From the perspective of the individual, one’s profession defines oneself more than ever before. What one does for a living is equated with one’s authentic self. One is what one does. “Work is no longer a series of obligations fulfilled for the sake of one’s sustenance…every aspect of one’s existence is meant to foster some fantasy of growth.”

Existential Authenticity
Existential authenticity in the 360da framework is about the perceived genuineness of interactions between the producer and others in the value network. As discussed in a previous post on Southwest Airlines, brands will be considered authentic if their interactions are sensed by the receiver as being authentic. So, if you want your employees to come across as happy (without your employees being perceived as robots, scripted, medicated or fake) then have happy employees, and a culture that supports that as a priority.

Sounds straightforward, right? But if you take Chritchley and Jamieson’s view, you cannot just hire happy people and pay them to work for you. As an employer you have to make them happy. As anyone can tell you, making someone happy personally is challenging. Making people happy on an organisational level is a massive ask. The literature on providing personal fulfillment in the workplace is legion, because, especially for the up and coming generation, finding personal fulfillment through one’s work (rather than, lets say, one’s religion) is more common than not. This nexus between management and marketing is ripe for even more exploration from an authenticity angle. However the burden of personal happiness in a professional context poses an interesting (rhetorical) question: is the workplace where we should seek this kind of fulfillment? And, in these challenging economic times, what happens to people who struggle to find a workplace at all?

 

Advertisements

How many TripAdvisor reviews are fake? And does it matter?

Full disclosure: I am not the first to write about this groundbreaking research in this blog post. The Economist beat me to it in their article  “TripAdvisor’s fake battle”. This article by Mayzlin, Dover & Chevalier and published on the Social Science Research Network in 2012 is called “Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation”. As the title suggests, the focus of the paper is are customer reviews, specifically fake ones. They use an economist’s perspective to theorise who may profit the most from false positive and false negative reviews on travel sites. Then they test the theory using Expedia.com as a control group (as only those who book through Expedia can post reviews there) versus TripAdvisor as an experimental group (where anyone can post a review without evidence of ever having stayed at the accommodation). They do a whole bunch of other stuff to ensure their data is valid for comparison.

Before going to the take aways, there are two things to note. First, more research on inauthentic reviews have to do with what people say in their review. These authors pioneer a new way of looking at it, by looking at probabilities of reviews being fake by both the context of the review, reviewer and the object of the review. Second, this is the first study that uses a control and experimental group for reviews in this particular way. Third, these authors theorise about who is most likely to post fake reviews and then look at those specific profiles.

The Take Aways
This article really has to be read, because the reason the authors believe what they do, and then the way they go about testing their theory is really fantastic. I don’t like to gush, but this is Freakonomics territory. Some takeaways:

(1) The authors posit that accommodation providers most likely to post false reviews (positive on their site, negative on their adjacent competition’s site) are independently-owned or small operators (or both). Their study supports this.

(2) The authors posit that fake reviews are more likely to be either 1, 2 or 5 star. Fake reviews are more likely to come from single posters (reviewers with only one or two posts). The data bears out that this is likely to be the case.

(3) The authors posit there is more positive manipulation (fake good feedback about your own hotel) than negative manipulation (fake negative feedback about the competition in the neighborhood). The study bears this out.

(4) The authors propose that about five percent of reviews are fake for isolated small hotels. The authors propose if a hotel is not isolated, the number of fake reviews would climb to about 10 percent.

(5) Although there is more manipulation for positive reviews, the effect of a negative review on the average star rating of a hotel is more significant. Therefore, although there are less fake negative reviews, they carry a greater weight overall in affecting the hotels overall score.

(6) In their study, 23% of the TripAdvisor reviews would have been eligible to be considered fake. They were posted by one time reviewers and were on the extreme end of the spectrum.

The authors conclude that even though the proportion of reviews that can be considered fake is high, they are not attempting to prove that any one particular review is fake, and they do not believe that the proportion necessarily negatively affects the customer impressions on an open-ended system: “Our empirical results show that the hotels are essentially able to self-police so that while they engage in some manipulation, the amount is not big enough to overwhelm the informational value of the site.”

Objective Authenticity
This post focuses on Objective Authenticity. According to Wang (1999), Objective Authenticity is when something is what it claims to be. Whereas one of the sites studies uses a system where only those who book through the system can leave a review, the other is an open system, meaning anyone can post. All you need is an email.

Objective authenticity is really important for these site’s credibility. An open system is attractive because it casts the widest net for opinions; however it leaves the largest margin for duplicity.

Moreover, an averaging star rating based on reviews means that negative reviews (fake or authentic) weigh more significantly than positive ones. So those with an intent to punish n establishment, are more incentivised to generate a lower score.

TripAdvisor has mechanisms to attempt to weed out fakes. They have an internal system, as well as the ability for hotel operators to identify reviews that may by fake. However whether something is fake or not is left to TripAdvisor to adjudicate.

Sure, there is a bit of caveat emptor here. If one is using a site to make a buying decision, it would behove one to understand how the site works. However, presumably the credibility of the site, and the reviews on it, also something that grows and changes as the person uses, or doesn’t use the site.

However, if users of the site found that the reviews on the site did not mirror their experience in some way, it would not be as successful as it is. Existential Authenticity, is where someone’s experience is consistent with a product expectation, with enough variance to engender genuineness, develops when one’s experience is close enough to TripAdvisor for the user to decide it is a useful guide, without the expectation that their experience is exactly what TripAdvisor says.

Why does catfishing make some people feel good?

A recent (2014) paper by Leonard Reinecke and Sabine Trapte in the journal Computers in Human Behaviour indicates that authentic, positive social network interaction can enhance well-being offline. Their article “Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication” has a few key findings on authenticity and social media engagement that are hard to ignore.

The Take Aways
First, this paper consolidates previous studies about individual contributions to social networks. The research indicates that positive messages in social media generate more engagement than neutral or negative messages. This positive bias encourages people to post positive messages (rather than negative) on these networks.

Second, when authentically positive messages are posted and social engagement occurs (usually positive in response), it has the effective of increasing the wellbeing of the person who posts the comment. So this means someone who is already feeling positive, then posts something positive, gets lots of engagement from their online friends, and then (offline) feeling more positive.

Third, people who did not have high levels of well being, regardless of how much engagement their post generates and how (inauthentically positive) it may be, do not get an increase in well-being form their social media interaction.

So basically, authentic online positive social media interactions increase well-being.

How this relates to catfishing
A catfish is someone who uses a false identity on the internet, usually in a romantic context. If the TV show Catfish is anything to go by, then most catfishers are people who are not happy in their own lives.

Many of the catchers claim that the only part of the relationship that was inauthentic was their identity (Objective and Commercial Authenticity). They claim the core of their interaction (Cultural and Existential Authenticity) was authentic. Applying this study, we can infer that when the catfisher is engaging the catifshee in discussions about their (positive) feelings that the interaction generates offline well-being for the catfisher.

So, even though they are pretending to be someone else, catfishers are gaining genuine greater well being from positive interactions as their assumed identity.

So are catfishing relationships authentic? If they generate authentic feelings on both sides, isn’t there something real going on?

The answer to that question is yes and no. If you use the 360 Degree Authenticity analysis, the catfishers will likely have some authenticity (Constructive, Existential) but not other kinds (Objective, Commercial). As the 360 degree model treats authenticity as a holistic measure, without having all the kinds of authenticity in place, one is not authentic from every angle.

And before getting all judgy about online catfishers, I have personally been witness to many an offline relationship where Objective authenticity was in play, but Existential authenticity was absent. Just because you say who you really are, doesn’t men both people are authentically invested in the relationship whether you are online or offline. If you want evidence of that, just watch one of my other favourite (MTV) reality shows: Teen Mom 3.

Authenticity does not matter to everyone (for everything)

This blog started with a post titled “Authenticity Matters“. I would love to tell you that authenticity matters to everyone all the time. About everything. But that cannot possibly be the case, and a 2009 study by Shuling Liao and Yu-Yi Ma entitled “Conceptualising Consumer Need for Product Authenticity” in the International Journal of Business and Information does a great job of demonstrating this.

Take Aways
First, this paper demonstrates that authenticity matters to some people about some products in some situations. But it does not matter to everyone all the time.

Second, if authenticity matters to you about something (for example, eating authentic Japanese food), you will go out of your way and invest time in finding an authentic product experience. You will then be more likely to repeat purchase the product and you will also be more likely to recommend the product. You are more invested in the experience and, in extreme circumstances, you can start to identify so strongly with the product experience that it becomes part of your identity. For example, you might start to look down on people who eat what you consider inauthentic Japanese food. Or you may begin to feel a connection to other people who patronise that restaurant.

If you are not invested in the authenticity of your Japanese food, you’ll eat it anywhere and may not be particularly attached to any one place. You are also more likely to have your consumption habits driven by price rather than quality.

This is important for marketers as it is another way we can segment, and appeal to, customers: authenticity-driven vs not authenticity-driven. Moreover it explains why some people are so into something and some people aren’t–and their subsequent behaviour.

Third, this study was completed in Asia, likely in Taiwan. Although the Taiwanese can be western in their approach to consumption in some circumstances, that is not always the case. The Western attitude toward authenticity is said to have emerged from particular cultural events shaping the Western world view. Although Eastern cultures may have had different events, their take on authenticity appears to be very similar to the Western view.

360da
In addition to the above, the study looks at 6 different properties of authenticity, with each property having several dimensions. Some of the properties, and their dimensions, fit in the 360da framework as follows. The italicised concepts are from the article; the bold is form the 360da framework.

Originality (original, from a place known for the product, pioneer/innovator, cannot be imitated, made from natural materials) [360da: Objective Authenticity]

Quality. Commitment and Credibility (quality guarantee, robust quality, honesty, meets expectations) [360da: Commercial Authenticity]

Heritage and Style (consistent features, embodies tradition) [360da: Constructive Authenticity]

Sacredness (high levels of personal identification, high levels of personal involvement, nostalgic quality) [360da: Existential Authenticity]

Some of the properties apply to some products and not others and are therefore not general enough to fit into 360da:

Scarceness (hard to find, scarce)

Purity (not mixed with other materials, focused on one thing)

This article is available free on the internet, and although it only one article and a small sample size, it is demonstrating something really interesting and important to those of us in the authenticity business. If you have a chance to read it, I recommend it.

“Luving” Authenticity and Southwest Airlines

I flew two Southwest flights recently, so this article hit close to home: Positioning Southwest Airlines through Employee Branding, by Sandra J. Miles and W.Glynn Mangold. The article was published in Business Horizons in 2005.

This article is about employee branding, using Southwest airlines as a case study. What struck me about this article is that it was, in a large part, about authenticity without the word ever being mentioned.

Article Summary
Southwest has an enviable reputation, with very specific missions and values. If you want to read more about them and how they are embedded in their employees in more detail, please see the article. However, two of the methods are highlighted as key by the authors:

(1) Consistency in messaging: every message (to staff, advertising, customers, etc) is vetted to ensure it embodies and is consistent with Southwest values;

(2) The psychological contract is a perceptual “deal” the employee makes with the organisation about what is acceptable and not acceptable at work and what they are going to get in exchange for what they give. Staff at Southwest are very specific about their contract, and expectations and spelled out through a strong corporate culture.

If the organisation is consistent in their culture; and they develop and behave consistently from the top down, they will attract and retain employees who behave in that way.

This sounds like a no-brainer, but anyone who has worked in a large organisation can tell you it is not an easy thing to do.

The upshot of this, of course, is that Southwest becomes perceived as an authentic organisation because they are one. Let’s take this article through some observations.

360da
Objective: Southwest is what it says it is, with every message vetted to ensure this is the case. Even broken promises with customers (like the delays I experienced at SFO recently on my flight) are explained in a forthright way. However this is not unusual for an airline.

Constructive: Most of the article is devoted to Southwest’s culture. For a company with a love heart in their logo and the word “luv” everywhere, the desire on behalf of the company to project a specific culture is strong.  They manage it top-down AND bottom-up. Southwest culture circles focus on maintaining and expanding the culture. Southwest shapes their culture deliberately, through careful selection, reinforcement, measurement and active participation. But that deliberateness may come across as natural because it becomes second nature to most of the people surrounded by it. And remember, employees are selected on their basis of whether they are a fit for the Southwest culture.

Commercial: Southwest attempts to be true to itself through its self-constructed messages and culture, which, ideally has been internalised by its staff and then is externalised through their customer service.

Existential: The key to Southwest’s success in this area is to move away from scripted behaviour, while consistently engaging with the cultural norms emphasised by the organisation. A good example illustrating this are the  Southwest employees singing their safety scripts before takeoff. The consistency of the Southwest brand is present and within that strict, deliberately constructed world, people are still free to “be themselves” and execute their own agency (when that agency aligns with Southwest mission and values).

Takeaways
This article discusses “employee branding”; but it is really about orchestrating an organisational culture so thoroughly that the culture imbues everything. From suppliers, to customers, to shareholders, employees and other stakeholders, the Southwest brand culture comes across as authentic, because it is. The challenge? To make it happen.

Authenticity in Seeded Blog Promotions

For those of you interested in authenticity in social media promotions, an excellent paper is Network Narratives: Understanding Word of Mouth Marketing in Online Communities by Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki and Wilner in 2010 in the Journal of Marketing. This paper follows a seeded blog promotion for a mobile phone company  and how the bloggers spoke about the phone to their audience, and how accepting the audience was of the promotional posts.

This is one of the great bits of the paper: “…communal WOM (Word of Mouth Marketing) does not simply increase or amplify marketing messages: rather marketing messages are systemically altered in the process of embedding them.” Marketers often see WOM as amplification of their prepared marketing messages (like a megaphone). But people who generate WOM don’t do that. They alter the product-related message to suit themselves, their audience and the specific context in which the message is delivered.

My take on this is that WOM is like a blender–people talking about your product will say whatever they like and mix it in with other ingredients they like–because their goal to promote the product is secondary to their goal of being an effective communicator.

Proponents of authenticity, like myself, would argue that authenticity is a key factor in whether a WOM message is accepted. I read “Network Narratives” with a view to authenticity and then wrote a little bit about it and presented my findings at the Service Management and Science Forum in Las Vegas in August 2013. My paper is called Network Narratives Revisited.

Take Aways
Authenticity, and the desire to seem authentic and credible, plays a role in how the seeded blog messages were accepted by the blog audiences. Kozinet’s analyses did not mention authenticity explicitly all the way through, but a 360da demonstrates that authenticity follows his model closely.

The contribution of this secondary analysis is twofold. First, using a 360da tool is a great way marketers and bloggers embarking on their WOM journey can consider and craft their promotional posts. Marketers should approach generating WOM and authenticity deliberately and use every tool at hand to try as best they can to craft the kinds of messages they are looking for.

The second contribute of revisiting this paper is the recognition that WOM analyses on authenticity do not follow the expected construct for personal communication. Rather WOM is perceived similarly to advertising form an authenticity perspective. So for bloggers to seem more authentic to their audience, they may have to be more deliberate (like an advertisement) rather than natural (like a conversation).

Couchsurfing, AirBnB, User-Generated Brands and Authenticity

This article looks at UGBs (User-Generated Brands) and how those brand identities are created. UGBs are also known in the academic business as “co-production” business models: where customers produce the product along with or for the firm. With AirBnB and Couchsurfing (just like with YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other such sites), customers create as well as consume the inventory. Their engagement is key to the business model, and therefore one can argue they are also co-creating the brand as well. This is the claim of our article for this post “User-Generated Brands and Social Media: Couchsurfing and AirBnb” by Natalia Yannopoulou, Mona Moufahim, Xuemei Bian in Contemporary Management Research.

Yannopoulou and her colleagues use discursive and thematic analysis to examine the brand identity of Couchsurfing and AirBnB. Specifically how their brand identity is co-produced by their customers. Discursive analysis examines the use of language (in this case visual and written language) to discover themes that comprise the brand identity of these two companies. Authenticity was found to be one of the themes in these brands, and likely in other UGBs.

360da
Objective: Although the potential for fraud is high on these web site, Couchsurfing and AirBnB take steps to mitigate that risk. Use of high quality photographs, user testimonials and ratings, and (in AirBnB’s case) an “insurance” plan, attempt to mitigate perceived risks in using the service. Admittedly, Yannopoulou doesn’t address objective authenticity that much in this paper, mainly because they are looking more at brand identity rather than product.

Constructive: The challenge of opening up your private space to a stranger (whether for exchange or profit) is met by fostering the consumer collective as one of reciprocity and friendship. This also constructs the brand as warm, friendly and welcoming. This is augmented by offline meetings when they occur. The more satisfying the offline encounters are, the more the brand identity is enhanced for creating them. The growing exchange and sharing economy is based on the idea that trust within a collective is possible. These sites use tokens to attempt to ensure that level of trust, such as peer reviews, photos and user ratings.

Commercial: There are two questions with commercial authenticity: are you what you say you are and are you true to yourself? When the content of a business is shaped by their customers, ensuring accurate customer representation is important. Both services do that to the extent possible in such a service. The communications on the web site are written in “talking” style, encouraging a feeling of intimacy and informality. The former addresses the first question; the latter attempts to address the second. Both seem to be challenges well met in the analysis.

Existential: In this we are striving for consistency, so customers know what to expect. At the same time, a sense of agency should not be interfered with; imperfections and quirky details create the impression of uniqueness and humanity within the consistent whole. Conventional travelers stay at hotels. The experience these UGBs offer are not only more cost effective. They have the potential to be considered premium experiences because they allow a traveler to embed themselves as locals in another location. The promise of this kind of existentially authentic experience is one of the brand positions of the UGBs. The variety of contributions from their users contribute to it in an authentic way, through their thousands of individuals stories, testimonials, offers, information and photos.

Take Away
Overall, this article makes a contribution to marketing and tourism more than management. Its place in this journal may mean it is overlooked by some in the marketing and tourism communities, which would be a shame. The analysis of how customers co-create brand identities through co-producing content and inventory for business is an enlightening one. There are more and more businesses competing for that space on the internet. The ability to draw premium content from customers enhances the ability to draw customers to consume that content. With UGBs, content is king.

The key authenticity issue for this type of UGB, however, always remains with ensuring objective authenticity. Are individuals offering the kind of accommodation they claim to be offering? Are the photos accurate? The element of risk with these web sites is perceived to be higher than the element of risk involved in traditional accommodation options. Sites like these are doing all they can to mitigate that risk in the exchange and sharing economies being developed by these web sites.

Authenticity in a Terrible Tweet

Generally these posts will be about articles on authenticity. However, an incident occurred on Twitter recently that is just crying out for authenticity analysis.

The Incident
Geoffrey Miller, a tenured professor in the USA, recently tweeted to prospective PhD students “Dear obese PhD applicants: If you don’t have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won’t have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth“. Predictably, the internet world freaked out. Miller then did a few things:

First, he deleted the tweet.

Then he apologised.

Then, when the scrutiny did not abate, he claimed the tweet was part of a research project. However neither of the institutions he works for indicated he had applied for ethics for such a project. This meant that either he was conducting research not sanctioned by his institutions (unlikely) or he was making that up as an excuse (lying, in other words).

Then a completely unrelated study found that if you are obese, especially if you are a woman, you are less likely to be selected for postgraduate study, due to a bias on behalf of those performing candidate selection.

For those of us interested in authenticity, this is an interesting situation. I don’t know Miller, but I am guessing his tweet was authentic. I believe him when he indicated that opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary. In fact, in his apology, he apologised for saying it–not for thinking it.

Moreover, the subsequent study demonstrated that not only is Miller authentic about his own opinion, he likely gave voice to opinions held by others (at least on some PhD admissions boards).

So was authenticity s good thing in this case?

The case analysed through 360da
Let’s run through this case quickly on a 360da grid:

Objective: Miller tweeted his own opinion under his own name, and represented himself accurately as far as we can see.

Constructive: Miller did not take into account the number of people who would see and then react to his tweet. If this isn’t the reaction he was looking for (and it doesn’t seem to be) then he made a serious misstep. However, the message was authentic, he was authentic when he was saying it and…the audience received it in an authentic way. So his authenticity on this note was 100%; the wrong note was his expectation that people agree with him.

Commercial: Miller was true to himself. Although his tweet didn’t do much for him from a public relations perspective; he knows who he is and potentially just attracted a whole bunch of carb-hating prospective grad students his way.

Existential: His inauthentic move was to apologise and delete the tweet; he would have seemed like a more authentic person if he admitted it was badly worded but it was his perspective as an evolutionary psychologist (and then provided research demonstrating his reasons for thinking it). Instead he was forced by social forces to retract his comment. Giving in to those forces is an inauthentic move.

The verdict
Miller said what he genuinely thought; then tried to backtrack which came across as grossly inauthentic. Then it was revealed that others share his view–they just don’t talk about it (they might not even be aware they share his view). Transparency is a big part of authenticity, so Miller gets points for that.

What is interesting about this case is that his authenticity is, to many, socially repulsive. It is not socially acceptable in a lot of cultures to declare that fat people are less worthy of something than thin people. So although his comments are authentic, this case doesn’t make many look on Miller more positively.

The institutions he represents attempt to maintain the perception of an intellectual meritocracy: where students earn their place through academic rigour. Not eating carbs is not considered academic rigour. And although Miller might have a large say in who ends up being his students, his institution does too. So his perspective as a staff member of a university was not authentic to his employer. And it angered them.

Moreover, rather than put forward the scientific evidence to support his view, he backtracked. This will have lost those (silent) people out there that agree with his point of view. It also made him come across as someone who uses his academic credentials to give his opinion, rather than take an evidence-based approach to his views.

The take away
First, and most obviously, understand the medium one uses to broadcast a message. There is a cautionary tale here for those of us who forget that the internet=the whole world. The whole world=people who don’t agree with you.

Secondly, be prepared to support your view authentically, especially if it is a controversial view.

Thirdly, if you represent an organisation when you say something, that organisation pays you and you wish to continue to be paid, it is important to take into consideration the way that organisation sees itself and wishes to have the public see it.

From a marketing perspective, it is OK to be controversial. It is one of the ways that we make our product/brand stand out. However, doing it strategically, authentically and unapologetically is an approach that Miller, and the rest of us, can learn from.

Authenticity Matters

I couldn’t find an article with a better title to kick off this first blog post.

Authenticity Matters” is an essay published in the Annals of Tourism Research in 2006*. It was written in response to another excellent article published in the same journal.

This article is a bit heavy on the scholarly theory. As the goal of this blog is to be accessible to everyone, I will not belabour or restate the many points of this article here. Rather, I will focus on the main take-away form this article from my perspective.

Take-Away
This article reinforces the position of previous articles: namely that the definition of authenticity (specifically objective authenticity) is in flux. Some researchers are saying that  this is problematic and therefore the term should stop being used. If there is not unanimous consensus on the definition of a word, if it continues to be used then someone is always using it wrong. Plus they argue (based on reasons stemming from philosophy) that it probably is not a valid concept anyway.

“Authenticity Matters” is an essay written in response to the above position. Hang on, it says, we cannot agree on a meaning; however that does not mean we should stop using the term objective authenticity. On the contrary, the discussions that arise while contemplating the term has value. Why shut those discussions down? Plus, people in industry (firms, customers, marketers) all use that word. So not discussing it will stifle our opportunity to shape what the word means beyond the scholarly realm**.

Applying the idea to 360da
So there is value in the term “objective authenticity”, and there is value in being part of the discourse shaping the meaning of the word. Authenticity, like most words in any living language, is subject to change based on how the majority of speakers use it. I acknowledge that it is problematic. I also acknowledge that I like discussing how problematic it is with other people. I like thinking that I might win them over to my definition and then my definition becomes the main one. Or maybe they will win me over and I will learn something. I acknowledge this does not seem like the best was to “do” science. But that is kind of how science is done.

Objective Authenticity is a cornerstone of 360da as per Wang’s killer 1999 article. We just have to use it carefully. That means when you are using it, explain what you mean.

An illustrative anecdote
I watch the TV show Catfish. I partly watch it because I like the hosts, Nev and Max and their interaction with each other. I love Max’s cynicism and Nev’s idealism. I also watch it because I have been with my husband since 1995, and therefore never internet dated, much less social-media dated. I watch with horror and delight.

On Catfish, people write in and request that Nev and Max bring them together with someone they have been dating (usually for years) who they have never met in person. All dates are over  Facebook, texting, the phone and other non-video technologies. The person writing in is thinking that the person they are dating is not what they seem (although they  hope they are what they seem).

Usually what happens is that the person who is evasive about meeting is not objectively authentic (although they may be authentic in other ways). Someone who is says they are playboy playmate online turns out not to be one. Boys turn out to be girls and so on. The climax of Catfish is the unmasking. Are you who you say you are? 

Not being the person you claim to be in your photos and bio is a deal breaker (romantically) on the show even if every other aspect of your relationship is authentic. For me, that is what objective authenticity is. On Catfish, as in marketing, lying about who you are is a dealbreaker.

(Objective) authenticity matters.

* Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2006). Authenticity Matters. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 853-856.

** I do not use the term “in the real world”. Why I don’t use that term will be explained in a blog post to come.