PPPPost-Truth Power Play (Four Ps #236)
Why Authority, Achievement, Attention & Authenticity are No Longer Enough
Is truth dead?
We’re a decade or so into the "Post-Truth" era, and it’s impact all aspects of our lives — from family relationships and social connections to professional interactions. The word "authenticity" is now everywhere all the time and has lost its meaning.
And actions no longer trump words.
It’s time to reprioritize and refocus achievement, accomplishment, and attainment over assertions… facts over feelings… outcomes over opinions… truth over theory:
THE PRACTICAL: Authenticity is No Longer Enough
Believe it or not, brand marketers and advertisers play a significant role.
Once considered pillars of truth, many institutions now seem to engage more in games of smoke and mirrors, leading citizens and consumers to view them with a hefty dose of side-eye.
It's reshaping the ad game entirely. We know this.
Gone are the days when you could simply yell louder than the guy next door or scatter superlatives like confetti. Now, brands need to forge genuine bonds.
Everyone is skeptical. We're tired. Today's consumers don't trust brands, influencers, or the media. People are more likely to believe a random meme than a polished ad. (Yes, we're looking at you, heavily airbrushed "before and after" photos.)
"DIFTP" (or, "do it for the plot"), as the kids say these days.
People crave honesty, perhaps because it has been so long since they last saw it. But they want the real deal. It’s like dating—nobody likes someone who brags about a nonexistent mansion.
Consider Microsoft, which allows real people to test their software, or Nike, which crafts campaigns with actual street cred. No fakes, no actors, just raw, unfiltered experiences—from featuring real folks in ads to crafting engaging, culturally savvy experiences.
But authenticity must be more than just a buzzword. In fact, it's probably time to move beyond the term.
"Authenticity" has become cliché.
Even replacing it with words like "genuine" might make people pay closer attention; who knows? But trust comes with familiarity.
Who do people trust? Friends, family, and that random guy on their social feed who has never steered them wrong about a taco place.
Social proof is king.
If your marketing strategy doesn’t include leveraging reviews and user-generated content, you’re essentially bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Another solution: Everyone enjoys a little dopamine hit with their purchases. Reward me for my loyalty, entertain me, and I might stick around. It's the digital equivalent of your grandma slipping you $20 because you remembered her birthday—feels good, right?
Make it fun. Make it worthwhile. Gamified loyalty? Yes, please.
Focus on the experiences more than the products. Because a great way to prove genuine truth is by transforming a mundane purchase into an Instagram-worthy event, of course.
Marketers, we got this. To conquer this Post-Trust era, think less like a salesperson and more like a neighbor (because you can't actually be a friend, sorry).
Be real, be relatable, and yes, be trustworthy.
THE PROFESSIONAL: Authority is No Longer Enough
Enough has been written about the relationship between leadership and authority to fill a small-town library. But navigating the treacherous waters of our Post-Trust era requires leaders to embrace and adapt that balance... otherwise sink.
We spend half of our lives at work, thinking about work, or doing work. Yet loyalty to companies is at an all-time low.
Trust in management and "the institution" is no longer given; it's hard-earned and easily shattered. Inspired by Katherine Manning's framework for navigating challenging professional circumstances, here’s how the savvy leader can earn and maintain the trust of her employees.
Using a 3 Cs guide, obviously: Clarity, Consistency, and Choice.
Clarity: First, ditch the guesswork. Nothing erodes trust faster than confusion. A leader must be as clear as a bell. Specify what needs to be done, when, and how. Assume nothing. After all, half of the workforce doesn’t even know what's expected of them. It's no surprise that projects flounder in a fog of uncertainty.
Consistency: Next, fair play is key. The pandemic showed us that while flexibility is vital, inconsistency is fatal. Remember the leader who vanished for hours, leaving chaos in his wake? His team’s trust plummeted as others picked up his slack. Equitable rules matter; apply them uniformly.
Choice: Finally, empower don’t overpower. Autonomy is the currency of trust. Let your team make choices that affect their work and watch their trust in you and themselves grow. Command-and-control is so last century. Instead, think of enabling your team to explore and engage on their terms.
These are just nice. They're necessary.
Embrace clarity, consistency, and choice, and watch trust take root and flourish even in the rockiest of soils.
(BTW, Happy Gardening Season, my friends. This year, we're growing eggplant, three types of tomatoes, and two types of cucumbers!)
THE POLITICAL: Achievement is No Longer Enough
As humans, our decisions are less about chasing good outcomes and more about avoiding the bad ones.
It's the reason why the fear of failing an exam spurs students into late-night study sessions, or the anxiety about a health scare prompts us to finally hit the gym — we are disproportionately motivated by the potential to reduce negative outcomes.
Our brains are wired to focus on the relative reduction of bad outcomes rather than the absolute size of the improvement. Meaning, achievement is not enough to motivate us.
Individuals and even seasoned professionals tend to invest resources into already likely successful endeavors rather than those needing more significant help but with greater room for improvement.
Why do we behave this way? The answer lies in science. A comprehensive series of studies reveals how this bias towards avoiding loss rather than achieving gains can lead to some illogical decisions. They suggest that it’s all about regret. We're motivated by the potential regret we might feel if we don’t take action and a bad outcome occurs.
So in an era of Post-Truth, where half the world believes in fact-based and data-proven science, and the other half rejects it, how do we make progress?
Let's use climate change as an example.
Despite being recognized as one of the most vulnerable cities globally to climate change, Miami continues to experience significant population and construction growth. The city, noted for its susceptibility to rising sea levels, hurricanes, and intensified heat, still attracts newcomers and developers, undeterred by the looming environmental threats.
And while a decent percentage of Miami-Dade County residents actually acknowledge the reality of climate change, they choose to stay, driven by the region's appealing lifestyle and tax breaks. Some deny the truth. Many more ignore it.
From 2010 to 2020, Miami's population surged by over 660,000, while construction spending in the metro area jumped 73% from 2014 to 2023.
But what if we focused attention on the potential (likelihood) for loss? By 2060, about 60% of Miami-Dade County will be submerged, estimates Harold Wanless, a professor of geography and sustainable development at the University of Miami.
Regret aversion drives us to prioritize decisions that mitigate bad outcomes, even when other options might lead to better overall results.
This approach has prompted local officials in Florida to actually invest in climate resilience, enhancing infrastructure, and implementing stringent building codes to counteract these risks. Yet, the financial implications of climate-related disasters—such as property damage, increased insurance premiums, and potential displacement—loom large.
The latest episode of the Snarketing Podcast features JOAN CREATIVE Co-Founder and CCO Jaime Robinson:
While we like to think of ourselves as striving for the best, it’s often the fear of the worst that really moves us. Understanding that it’s not just about winning but not losing may be how we change the narrative on a number of topics.
...Or maybe not. It's not like the overwhelming data about increased likelihood of gun owners (or their family members) getting shot has shifted anything with respect to gun safety. But let's save that for another week.
THE PERSONAL: Attention is No Longer Enough
As someone who once proudly boasted about tweeting over 50,000 times dating back to 2008, the new Twitter—and other social media channels, to be fair—has become like three-card monte:
Following the moving card requires careful concentration, a discerning eye, and the belief that you're not being lied to or cheated. (Insert exasperated sigh here.)
While LinkedIn has captured much of my daily content-related attention and is crushing the SEO game, the social conversation spotlight is now split more than ever, shining increasingly on Threads—a fresh contender prancing onto the stage where Twitter stumbles under its own missteps.
With an impressive lead of 28 million daily active users (DAUs) over Twitter's 22 million, Threads is unraveling Twitter's old narrative to define a new platform for venerable social media engagement.
While Twitter increasingly caters to niche and fringe communities (such as tech aficionados, Web3 enthusiasts, and racists), Threads is weaving its magic into a broader, more vibrant tapestry.
Other would-be challengers like Bluesky and Farcaster have failed to take off.
Twitter gets a lot of attention because of its owner. Threads is getting a lot of attention because it's better.
The contrast between the two platforms couldn't be starker.
Threads, birthed by the social giant Instagram, is moving into its next phase, dangling carrots in front of creators and tempting them with the prospect of monetization through challenges centered on positivity. Although the $500 prize might not set the world on fire, it's a clear indicator that Threads is plotting a path toward empowering creators.
Meanwhile, back in Twitter's drastically downsized camp, the story is less about innovation and more about indignation. Despite assurances of "freedom of speech, not reach," the platform has become a hotbed for controversial content, with ads often being displayed next to objectionable material.
Yes, still.
See: Hyundai discovering its content alongside pro-Nazi content. This mishap has not only led to a halt in advertising by major brands but has also raised eyebrows about the efficacy of Twitter's content moderation, particularly in the wake of a drastic staff reduction.
Twitter's 80% reduction in total staff, including many moderation and safety employees, coincides with its ad revenue still reportedly down by 50%. The reliance on AI and crowd-sourced moderation tactics like Community Notes is proving inadequate.
Twitter is actually the cause of, and reaction to, post-truth social media. Elon Musk’s laissez-faire approach to moderation is akin to throwing a match into a powder keg and hoping it won’t ignite. The recent misidentification and false accusation of a murderer in Australia only underlines the erosion of trust, where verified accounts once symbolized reliability but now serve as launchpads for conspiracy theories.
Musk himself often engages with conspiracy-related content, which he’s admitted he doesn’t fact-check in any way before sharing.
And thanks to E.U. disclosures, we know that other platforms have a better moderator-to-user ratio than Twitter.
So while Threads stitches together a community-focused, creator-friendly environment, Twitter finds itself unraveling at the seams. The numbers don’t lie. For marketers aiming to weave their brands into the fabric of social media narratives safely and effectively, the choice is becoming increasingly clear.
Or you can forgo social media entirely and just read the Four Ps to get everything you ever need, all in under 2,000 words.
