With dismay I read the prediction of Fern Siegel, a JWT futurist, that brands in 2009 will adopt “authenticity.”

What a sad statement! As if they weren’t authentic previously. As if “being real” is just a new change of clothes or a paint job.

In the online blurb for their 2007 book, Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want, James H. Gilmore and B. Joseph Pine II make being real sound just that premeditated and contrived: “In this provocative and practical guide, Gilmore and Pine define what authenticity means to the postmodern consumer, and how companies can render their offerings as ‘really real.’”

“Render their offerings as ‘really real?’” Really?

Is authenticity what the brand really is or what the brand’s customers want it to be?

Authenticity, by definition, is being true to one’s own self. It is being faithful to one’s own spirit, character, and commitments. And therefore, it is in the eye of each beholder. A brand that resonates with me may be meaningless to you because we have different values. Which is as it should be.

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD,  of Authenticity Consulting says, “Different people have different views about authenticity and many people feel very strongly about their own views.”

This suggests the old marketing chestnut about perception being reality. But who controls the perception? The perceiver or the thing perceived? In other words, can authenticity be faked?

Well, of course, brands will continue to attempt to  identify themselves with their customers’ self-images and desires. It’s business. In 2009, that may mean “adopting authenticity,” whatever that means.

But in the end it is the consumers who decide, as always, how honest they believe a brand is being. And the answer is not universal; it is consumer by consumer. My perception of authenticity may differ from yours.

I can’t help but wish brands would listen to William Bernbach, Advertising Hall of Famer: “The most powerful element in advertising is the truth.” How about you?