A few weeks ago, my friend, Chris Brogan, who just happens to be a well-known blogger and president of New Marketing Labs, wrote a paid for post for K-Mart. In spite of Chris’ up front disclosures about the relationship, a fire storm erupted in the blogosphere over the ethics of paid for content.
As you can probably imagine, this was a polarizing issue with one camp believing that it was okay for bloggers to get paid to write favorable posts as long as they were up front about their relationship with the company in question and the other insisting that mixing sponsorship and editorial bastardized the process, irrespective of disclosures. From an intellectual standpoint, I certainly can understand and respect the first camp’s position although my heart sits squarely in the second. [At at a minimum, you should read Chris' follow up post on the topic and decide for yourself.]
With that as a backdrop, I was surprised at how willing I was to overlook “authenticity” as a critical factor when it came to my television entertainment. In particular, I’m refrencing two shows on the Discovery Channel. The first titled, Man vs. Wild, where ex-British special forces macho man, Bear Grylls demonstrates survival in the most extreme locations. The second, Survivorman, featuring much more mundane and less heralded, Les Stroud, doing approximately the same. My wife and I quickly became addicted to first show last season as Bear demonstrated survival techniques in extreme environments such as the Alps, the Amazon and the Sahara Desert.
If you haven’t watched the show before, I’ve included a video clip below to show you just how captivating Bear can be. His fearless nature and “I’ll eat anything” mentality is contagious. I find myself thinking after every show, “I wonder if I could do that?” However, there turned out to be one catch. Not all of Bear’s extreme situations were truly “survival” worthy. In fact, the BBC wrote a fairly scathing piece spelling out a number of instances where Bear had either been assisted by his camera crew or even worse, stayed in a hotel vs. roughing it out in the wild.
After reading about some of the less-than-flattering press Bear received, I thought it might be time to check out rival survival guru, Les Stroud, on aptly named, Survivorman. Unlike Bear Grylls on Man vs. Wild, Les is hardcore about the authenticity of his treks out in the wild (he’s visited many of the same extreme climates as Grylls). In fact, he has chosen to eschew a camera crew and films everything himself. He also is dedicated to actually “surviving” out in the wild at nearly all costs. No hotels. No assistance. Just himself, his cameras and his knife.
That should make for entertaining television right? Unfortunately it doesn’t. Not for me anyway. The reason being that not a whole lot goes on during Survivorman other than a constant stream of self-wallowing by Les. I know this because I did a marathon four hour session over the holiday break with my family. At various points in the show, my 10 year old daughter was openly questioning the fact that Les, once again, was coming up empty handed in his attempts to actually catch something to eat. It turns out that Les is a lot better at enduring 5-6 days of no food (while incessantly complaining about light-headed and hungry he is) than he is at foraging for actual food (clip of Les below).
As you can imagine, this leaves me in an awful dilemma. I led off this post with the fact that while I was intellectually okay with the idea of paid for content, I had a hard time truly embracing this notion in my heart. So how is it that I would gravitate toward a guy that I know isn’t authentic (at least some of the time) while I do little to hide my disdain for a similar personality who is doing things by the book.
To help shed some light on my dilemma, I thought I might ask my Twitter network of nearly 4,000 to chime in. Surely they might feel the same way I did. The question I posed was, “Doing some research for a blog post I’m writing. It’s about authenticity. Any strong feelings either way RE Survivor Man VS Man vs. Wild?”
@Ninenty7: I know it is silly, but I don’t watch Bear’s show because he isn’t really out there in it.
@tallglassofmilk: Don’t watch either but overheard others saying one is for real by himself while the other pretends but has a crew. True?
@MikeLangford: This is the only situation ever where I’d say a guy named Les beats a guy named Bear. Survivor Man rules.
@dbcotton: Mixed feelings. Bear has better all around survivor skills, but Survivor Man is more realistic.
@LisaHoffman: Two of my 12 yo’s fave shows. He likes Bear better (me too) but says Survivorman is more authentic. M v. W more instructional
@tinycg: Survivorman is authentic and provides useful real tips.. Man v Wild is mostly staged and useful if you are ex-spec ops.
@SusanBratton: google “joe pine authenticity dishymix” for ideas for your blog post. Listen to the Podcast and/or read the transcripts. [Link to Susan's podcast with Joe is here]
@LisaHoffman: Bear is far more interesting because he engages the audience (sound familiar?) Survivorman is actually trying to survive, tho.
@peplau: @MikeLangford @tallglassofmilk Bear is also a bit of a fraud http://snipr.com/9u1dj Afraid it’s more than just having a crew.
@tallglassofmilk: Well, authenticity certainly doesn’t guarantee entertainment, especially in TV. Probably why so much “reality” is faked.
@jamessumerlin: absolutely survivorman, big fan.
@m750: Bear is entertainment, Les Stroud is the real deal.
@chareich: think survivorman seems a little less contrived. Man v wild – probably eats big macs off camera
@davidkspencer: Survivorman is where it’s at. Feels more real, less polished. This clip is what did man v. wild in for me: http://is.gd/25si
@ChrisKeef: missed the earlier tweet. I’m all about Survivorman, not Man vs. Wild. Les is far more genuine, raw and honest.
@ChrisKeef: I will agree that Bear is more ‘entertaining’, however Survivorman seems more organic. Easier to believe, I guess.
Not surprisingly, nearly everyone that responded validated what I suspected that they would i.e. authenticity was more important than entertainment value by a long shot. @m750 hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that “Bear is entertainment [but] Les Stroud is the real deal.”
As a marketer, this tells me that it doesn’t matter how slick, exciting or entertaining the content is that our company creates, at the end of the day our customers will want us to be authentic. For their sake though, I promise not to whine about how sore my fingers are after several hours of typing or how much of a caffeine headache I have as a result of my forgoing my morning coffee.
How about you? Are you being authentic in the way you communicate with your customers? Seems to me that there’s a reason why Josh Bernoff and Forrester’s customer survey shows that only 16% of people trust corporate blogs. Sounds like we all have a lot of work to do. Just ask Bear.
Filed under: content, Content Marketing, Social Marketing Tagged: | authenticity
As a casual observer and one that doesn’t ‘work’ in the social media space, I see this as the obvious hurdle in keeping the entire social media experiment afloat. The harsh reality is that in order for Twitter, Facebook, Corporate blogging, et. al. to survive, the tools need to be monetized. As Bear Grylls painfully realized, one needs to truly be organic when delivering ‘reality’ television. Nobody likes to learn of an outdoorsman staying at a Motel 6 when he is supposed to be roughing it in some obscure, uninhabited part of the world. So… how does a company like Twitter, that somehow needs to monetize its product, create truly organic content.
The Survivorman vs. Man vs. Wild debate is very interesting and a seemingly perfect parallel to the world in which Aaron and other social media experts operates. Les may not be as compelling, but his show is truly organic. Yes, whiny at times, but that honesty is refreshing. Bear is indeed interesting and certainly keeps you on the edge of your seat, but I am always put off when he signs off each night knowing that he is probably holed up in a Hilton Garden Inn somewhere. One is honest and true to form (although a bit boring) where the other is flashy, sexy and entertaining (although a bit disingenuous). If Aaron is hired by Toyota to develop a blog and a community for their trucks, how does one quietly and organically deliver content to that group? It is painfully obvious to the readers/users that something fishy is going on (read:Chris Brogan and K Mart) when the content is corporate driven – or, again, not organic in nature.
Man vs. Wild shows that people will still watch ‘semi’ reality television, but the web still proves to be unbelievably savvy in rooting out genuine content. Somehow people know that there is always going to be a little bit of magic going on when you pull back that curtain and expose what is really going on in the studio back in Hollywood. Unfortunately for businesses trying to move into the social media space – even when you are being brutally open and honest with your customers, people can ferret out paid for content, and they will immediately turn off the noise. Or, in the case of Man vs. Wild, skewer you in the court of public opinion.
too bad no one told you to toss your tv out the window and let go of status quo thinking ..
@ChrisK. – Nice mini post! Seriously though, you make some excellent points. It still doesn’t stop me from liking Man vs. Wild, even if I’m in the minority. But your comment about Les rings true. He might whine a lot but the guy is hard core. I just wish he could catch a fish so he would shut up!
One clarifying point in my post that may not have come through clearly — I wasn’t calling out Chris B. as doing anything inauthentic. He disclosed his relationship up front. I was merely pointing out that I don’t think it’s the best way for companies like KMart to go about creating content. Instead, they should turn to their own product/marketing/customer service people to blog, twitter or podcast. If they wanted to invest in someone like Chris B, they should bring him in to teach them to be good bloggers.
@Gregorylent — ha ha, I think you’re onto something. To be honest, other than sports, I actually watch very little television. There will likely be a day where I get rid of it althogether (although I’ll likely donate vs. throwing it out the window).
Killer parallel, Aaron.
On one hand, I have a far greater respect for an authentic “survivor” program. I have complete disdain for most so-called reality TV, but I’ll give due props to a guy who isn’t faking it.
On the other hand, faux reality TV is VERY popular. Again, I hate the stuff, but Americans love the manufactured drama of “Big Brother,” “Survivor” and the like. The popularity of such slickly produced drivel seems to squish the authenticity argument.
There’s a third option, too: Scripted TV. It doesn’t fit the survival show parameters of your post, but well-written TV drama also offers marketing lessons. People love good stories. Shows like Law & Order and CSI are hits because they tell compelling stories.
So which wins: the low-budget authentic story, the well-produced inauthentic story, or the well-produced script?
Beats me.
Authenticity is more important to some people while being entertained is more important to others. The reason it’s so hard to pin down which is “better” is that there are no hard and fast rules. I prefer to watch Bear because I want to be entertained. Others will prefer Les because he’s more authentic. I’d trust either if I needed to survive in the wild. It’s all about perspective.
Great post and comparison Aaron! I think authenticity wins out every time when the entertainment or engagement quotient is equal. Survivorman (as you point out) is less professionally shot, not edited/staged quite as well, and has a less engaging host – all of which harm its level of entertainment and cause viewers to prefer Bear despite a lack of true authenticity. But Bear isn’t a complete fraud either, he has the skills and background to do what Les does even though he chooses to present himself in different way.
I’d say that if Bear had no real survivalist background or if Les was abysmal in his engagement with the viewer, the scales might tip more decisively one way or the other. So relative to the social sphere, I think some modicum of personal authenticity is essential. It doesn’t matter how engaging you are.
I think your final point is on the mark. You, as a marketing business person, are not meant as entertainment. You’re meant to help your potential customers, others in the industry, etc, derive value from what you say and and hear, understand, and learn, about what your company does.
I love your explanation for Chris’s blog. I continue to read his blog but I feel like some of his posts are like product placement in television shows. “And now, a word from our sponsor.” Except maybe more like product placement in the news (sorry Chris).
In my mind, being entertaining needs to be secondary to being true and authentic to YOUR audience.
Radio announcers do this sort of thing all the time – read “live” commercials that sound like their own personal endorsements of products, which are of course nothing but paid advertisements, more often than not written by the sponsor. Isn’t what’s happening here the same thing, only gone high-tech?
Frank – good point. I’ve never liked it when radio personalities do that. Although I’d argue that we’ve mostly come to understand that they get paid for those slots (maybe kids don’t though).
-Aaron