A Clear Eye.

So Tom, would a better title have been... "BULLSHITTING: Making Customers Believe in the Experience a Business Delivers."

Hey John,

That might sell. Although I would title it: "Authentic Bullshitting." :)

Do you think great actors consider what they do "bullshitting?" Perhaps. But more likely they'd call it role playing? If it's role playing, they should say so with pride. But don't try to tell us that it's "authentic." Authentic what? Authentic role playing?

I was just to post about my review, my experience with this book - and it's good to read another opinion (which I share). I saw Pine at the mass customization conference in Boston and was really wowed by his keynote, so I bought the book (in expectation to experience economy pt2), but parts of the book really made me think wtf?! The definition of authenticity, to render authenticity, paired with no-brainer advice how to become more authentic certainly has a nice twist, but it is indeed what we in germany would call an american view (even funnier that this is mentioned in the book).

Tom, I can't argue much with your description; the book does have "models, frameworks, and exemplars", although they do encompass the entire range of economic offerings, not just experiences. But that sure would make for a lousy title. . . .

And I can't argue with your description that the book "is quite inauthentic", for as we take great pains to make clear, all economic offerings are inauthentic. People are free to disagree, of course -- since authenticity is personally determined, they may very well believe particular offerings actually are authentic. But that's not reality, only perception. And that's not our mere opinion, but the distillation of centuries of philosophical thought on what it means to be and not to be authentic.

But I am somewhat surprised at you urging readers, "if you truly want to be authentic, then be authentic." Rather, I agree with the Tom Asacker who wrote in the post you linked to (great piece, btw) that "'Be authentic' is a vapid statement", and moreover "a hollow cry." Business can't be authentic, nor can their offerings. But they can render them to be perceived as authentic, and that's what the book shows how to do.

Joe Pine

Thanks for stopping by Joe. I appreciate your comments.

When I urged readers to "be authentic," I meant in their personal dealings with others, as well as being true to their inner most desires and passionate in their "calling" in life (see the link).

I'm in complete agreement with you that "authentic" is a hollow cry for most businesses, and that's why I was confused by the title of your new book. Why not be authentic and say that the book teaches how to orchestrate economic offerings to fully engage the indentity and self-worth of ones audience? Although to be fair, I think I know. :) BTW, I really did enjoy the book.

Tom, sorry I mistook your original exhortation to "be authentic" to apply to businesses, not people. In your latest post, change "most businesses" to "all" and I do think we're in complete agreement! My coauthor Jim Gilmore and I do believe stating that one's offerings or company are "authentic" to be most hollow -- and a sure sign of inauthenticity.

Chapter 3 of the book closes with three axioms that make it clear that the last thing businesses should do is use "authentic" or "real" in their marketing materials or packaging. We liken it to someone coming up to you the first time you meet and saying, "I just want you to know how very authentic I am." After which you slowly back away....

Once again I can't disagree with your description, but the reason we call the book "Authenticity" is because -- despite the fact that businesses cannot supply it -- consumers increasingly desire the real in what they buy. Businesses therefore have to figure out how to get customers to perceive their offerings as real. That title is also, as you allude to, not only shorter but, one hopes, more likely to get people to pick it up and read it. (It also doesn't violate our own axioms, for while it describes what's going on, it doesn't proclaim the book itself to be authentic.)

Joe, we're closer in our thinking than came across in my original post. However, in my mind, what people are really searching for in economic offerings today is probably better referred to as "soul." Otherwise, I agree with everything you have to say. :)

Interesting! I've talked with some who thought it a stretch too far to allow that businesses and offerings had anything that one could call "authenticity" -- I imagine they would say the same about a "soul" (a word we do use to describe a company's sense of purpose -- one of five key elements a company must understand to be true to self).

Jim and I are observers of what is happening in the world of business, and take our cues from what consumers and businesses say and do. And we see much more use of words like "real" and "fake/phony", "authentic" and "inauthentic", plus "ersatz", "genuine", etc. than "soul" or anything like it. It could be that their vocabulary is inadequate for what they seek, but it does seem that authenticity is at the very least their proximate desire.