Brands as sources of authenticity

Trust is broken. The stamp of credibility is a very important thing in itself. It helps us understand the world, oils the wheels of commerce, verifies ideas and keeps the world honest.

A fact is an absolute construct. No one can agree on one narrative for why trust has become diluted, redundant or overlooked. Is it because of the explosion of Internet and social media-based content, creating—in effect—a long caravan of ignorance?

Is it because we all live in ‘filter bubbles’ and are subject to confirmation bias?

Is the ‘democracy of information’ making ‘institutional value’ meaningless?

Also read | Lodha vs Lodha: Why family names as brand names are always tough to disentangle

On one thing, there is little doubt—we are drowning in a swirling ocean of information—more opinions than facts. The main casualty is ‘verifiability.’

In Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, she wrote (1951):

“The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and the truth be defamed as lie but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.”

What is the truth?

Today, this question is burning with urgency: How do you know what is the truth?

Facts are elusive, drowned by biased disinformation. The speed and scale of the transmission of half-truths have been unprecedented. The world got its ‘news’ from bona fide sources. An avalanche of rumours buried hard facts. Overnight ‘credible fact’ became an elitist fuss.

It is impossible for good information living behind paywalls to compete with biased opinion that is super-abundant and free.

Expertise became something of an accusation. In the mass consumer ecosystem, these changes came with digital media in the blink of an eye.

Almost immediately, the traditional carriers of facts—media institutions—newspapers—started to shrink or fail.

Good or bad news

Advertising followed eyeballs. The lighthouse became a flickering lightbulb.

Just as the financial model for ‘good news’ failed, the incentives for ‘bad news’ became overwhelming. Money, eyeballs and power shifted.

Alarmist junk got turbocharged by individual creators and automated, crowd-mapped algorithmic distribution channels.

Social media was effectively born in 2007, yet the following generations have grown up as ‘natives,’ knowing no other world.

Bad information and factlessness are bad enough. What’s truly scary is that they’re enabled, shaped and distributed by the world’s biggest commercial forces and corporations.

It is vital to have truthful and reliable sources of information. There has never been more information in the world, and there is unprecedented access to knowledge. This transformation is liberating and energizing, but much of it is chaotic, toxic and dangerous.

Also read | Clash of cultures: India’s diversity demands a fresh marketing playbook

The wisdom of authority figures are rendered inconsequential. A ‘post-factual’ free-for-all. Forget the necessity, even the value of the truth is not recognized. Mainstream media is ‘lamestream.’

‘Social media’ is a lazy catch-all term for short-lived memes. But, at a profound level, this has led to an inversion of how facts are shared, how truth is attested, how news travels and how wrong is mixed into right.

And all this has happened in less than 20 years. Centuries of establishment clout, institutional knowledge and pride will likely vaporize and disappear.

The fall of legacy media has played a significant role in shaping the so-called “post-truth” world. Newspapers, television networks and radio once held a near-monopoly on information dissemination. Their editorial standards and journalistic integrity were widely trusted.

The rise of alternative media was a direct consequence of ‘digital democratization’, enabling anyone to create and share content, reducing reliance on centralized media.

While this democratization offers new voices, it also allows misinformation and unverified content to proliferate.

Social media algorithms reinforce existing beliefs by showing users content that aligns with their preferences. This reinforces tribalism and diminishes exposure to alternative viewpoints.

Comfort in ‘personalized realities’ means that without a unified narrative provided by legacy media, different groups can construct entirely separate realities based on their chosen sources.

The decline of shared standards of truth—where objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

The weakening of trusted gatekeepers leaves people to navigate a deluge of information, often lacking the tools to discern credible sources from unreliable ones.

Legacy media’s diminished influence amplifies the power of viral, sensationalist or misleading content.

Watchdog chained

Legacy media historically played a watchdog role, holding power to account. With its decline, this role has weakened, enabling politicians, corporations and other actors to manipulate narratives without sufficient scrutiny.

While the fall of legacy media is not the sole cause of the post-truth world, it has significantly contributed by fragmenting the information landscape and diminishing a shared basis for truth. The challenge is to foster new mechanisms for accountability, critical thinking and information literacy in this decentralized media environment.

Enter brands

Brands are known, bought, engaged, trusted and even loved.

Brands, as platforms and communicators, can take charge of social dialogue and transmit facts. They can highlight what’s ‘true’ from ‘false.’

When I joined HLL in 1999, we were just learning to use phones to send messages. Pagers coexisted with Blackberry phones.

By 2019, the world of ‘marketing + advertising’ was effectively digital.

A hurricane-like disruption not only broke traditional marketing models but also how facts were appreciated. We ended up with the biggest brands doing what the smallest new entrant was doing.

Also read | Drivers of brand desire amongst new-age consumers in India

The wisest leaders had never been in a similar situation before. Gifted business minds chased revenues while observing boundaries that preserved trust. That ordered, stacked-up vertical world is gone. Brands need to be on level, not on a pedestal. They need to find a new voice. They can differentiate based on ‘trust.’

In the cacophony of new synthetic voices and the kaleidoscope of new images, brands need to carve a new place.

In many ways, the ‘post-truth’ world is doing brands a favour. They can now own the distinction of ‘fact’ from ‘fiction.’ Provenance matters.

The world has the most prolific means to create and spread lies. Brands can stand for the truth.

The stakes have never been higher.

Shubhranshu Singh is chief marketing officer of Tata Motors Commercial Vehicles.