I’m starting to think that authenticity is not an absolute value – it’s a different creature according to the context. Part of that (in the writing context) is down to reader expectations.

As customers or potential clients we have a certain set of expectations, assumptions, fears, hopes and they act as a filter between us and the words of the copywriter. We know there’s a job to be done to market and sell the product, and are not necessarily expecting the writer to be authentic, sincere or maybe even 100% truthful (“buyer beware”).

Perhaps the advent of social media and more conversational copy is changing this – most of us think of this as a good thing but is it easier for us to be duped by people who write in a conversational style, because our normal resistance filters go down? Hmm, not sure about that one…

Then there’s the lines in the sand for the writer – the jobs that you know you can’t or won’t do because it breaches something inside you in terms of your ethics and values.

And then there’s the stuff that’s more personal, that comes from a deeper place, more you, true to you and your life experience or view of the world. I think your Springsteen example captures that perfectly

When we write from that place I think (believe) the writing is different, the impact, the connection call it what you will, is also different. I also think (believe) you can’t fake it. We can learn how to write in a more human, open, personal style, to write with ‘authenticity’, but what comes out the other end will be uniquely ours… which is what makes it authentic. (Am I making sense here?)

The interesting question remains how much of that has a place in sales and marketing copy, what happens to trust and rapport if it’s done well – and vice versa what happens to trust and rapport if it’s abused.

Thanks for stirring my noodle on this one (as your previous commenter might say!)

Joanna