Disentangling the meanings of brand authenticity: The entity-referent correspondence framework of authenticity

Although marketing researchers agree that brand authenticity has various meanings, little consensus exists concerning the number of meanings and what those meanings entail. This paper addresses this lack of clarity in the literature by introducing the Entity-Referent Correspondence (ERC) Framework of Authenticity. The ERC Framework provides an overarching definition of authenticity—a consumer’s perception of the degree to which a supposed authentic entity corresponds with or is “true to” something else, which we label a referent. The ERC Framework also suggests three types of authenticity—true-to-ideal, true-to-fact, and true-to-self—that are consistent with the general definition yet are distinct. Each type may manifest in a variety of ways in a brand context, suggesting that brand authenticity is not a singular concept. The framework also proposes nomological nets that explain how consumers form perceptions of each type, how the types lead to managerially relevant outcomes (e.g., expected quality, trust), and how the types affect each other. This research advances the literature on brand authenticity by offering three types of conceptual contributions as identified by MacInnis (2011): integrating, differentiating, and delineating.