[rjd598]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-w...-brands-2016-4

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by rjd598

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-w...-brands-2016-4

Pardon my upcoming statement ... but this is such bulls**t.

Authenticity is like quality: it's not objectively definable. The questions this firm asked don't really have much to do with what authenticity really is; they have more to do with how well these brands have defined their 'niche' as: what they're perceived by the general unwashed mainstream public to do as a producer of whatever.

In light of that ... I find it absolutely hilarious that Microsoft is rated higher than Apple and Intel, and that Samsung -- a company that still doesn't really have a precise place in the consumer electronics world -- is in the top 10.

What I do like: that an M2 is pictured to represent BMW ... though there's a certain amount of hidden hypocrisy involved with that ...

[Versipellis]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Pardon my upcoming statement ... but this is such bulls**t.

Authenticity is like quality: it's not objectively definable. The questions this firm asked don't really have much to do with what authenticity really is; they have more to do with how well these brands have defined their 'niche' as: what they're perceived by the general unwashed mainstream public to do as a producer of whatever.

Yet in the field of brand management and marketing analytics executives need a way of measuring authenticity, just like quality. And, you're right - it's how they're "perceived by the general unwashed mainstream public", aka the general masses, y'know, the people that branding are concerned about.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by Versipellis

Yet in the field of brand management and marketing analytics executives need a way of measuring authenticity, just like quality. And, you're right - it's how they're "perceived by the general unwashed mainstream public", aka the general masses, y'know, the people that branding are concerned about.

Executives need that because they generally operate on tangible returns on investment (ROI): something real -- dollars, stock price, profit. That's how they're trained. But as anyone in advertising, brand management, marketing, etc. knows (I'm in the field; I'm far from being a neophyte regarding this stuff), it's frequently not tangibly measurable.

This is a great example of an attempt to measure what is not measurable, executed poorly and incorrectly by a PR firm -- and probably at the behest of someone who directed this survey be done who doesn't (or won't, or can't) understand intangible ROI. I'll put it this way: if I were directed to measure authenticity by an executive, I'd have rejected the "respectfulness" premise on its face: Authenticity isn't always defined by respect. Also, "reality" is way too general of a defining trait -- particularly in this day and age of "reality" being staged in media.

[mkoesel]

In other news, communications company Cohn & Wolfe was rated very high in sensationalism but near the bottom of the pack in relevancy. Similarly, media outlet Business Insider was rated quite high in business-ness, but, ironically, fairly low in insider-ness.

To be fair, this post itself was rated low in both content quality and humor, but high in time-wasted-ness and smart-aleck-icity.

By the way, the picture in that story with the guy in the Lego minifigure costume was comically inauthentic in appearance. I mean could they have gotten the scale on the head any more wrong? It looks like he got zapped right in the face by a shrink-ray.