During reputational crises, many brands find themselves pressed into strategies that are entirely reactive. However, a better understanding of a brand’s audience and stakeholders – how they communicate and what they value – would empower brands and the teams running their messaging to respond more authentically, helping comms land in the right way at the right time.
With AI content taking over audience news and social feeds, brand leadership must invest in creating a framework that actually measures authenticity.
Prashant Saxena, VP of Revenue and Insights, for Isentia (SEA region) in his research paper on “Authenticity in the age of AI” has identified cues or signals that audiences subconsciously look for when identifying if a social post is written by a human or virtual influencer. Understanding these cues gives brands and PR leaders a much needed manual or playbook that guides them with the content audiences expect to consume. These equip us with a practical roadmap with clear implications for AI governance and digital literacy amidst the workplace and audiences.
Why is authenticity in crisis?
There is a trust gap, as audiences show declining faith in brands and their leadership. Some of these factors are highly polarised, such as differing responses to CEOs and their part in society. But the most universal, and nascent, challenge to brand trust appears to be the rollout of AI. Businesses are now under the microscope, with changes to business models, substandard service and inauthentic communications all likely to be blamed on leadership teams haphazardly implementing AI solutions.
Astronomer’s former CEO Andy Byron and the controversy at the Coldplay concert has added to this decline in trust and all the more underscores an authenticity crisis. Post the controversy, there was a fake apology statement that was circulated on X and other social media platforms. The company had to release a statement saying that the apology was in fact fake and was concocted by someone who wanted to satisfy audience sentiments. This is very telling in that, audiences will always be more attracted to content that conforms with their views and would accept anything at face value without having the need to fact check.
This underpins the need for brands to be as authentic as possible when it comes to responding to crisis.
Cues in action
Audiences are more alert than ever to signals of what feels genuine online. These subtle markers, from factual accuracy and cultural relevance to tone, consistency, and timing, influence whether people trust a brand’s message, engage with it, or scroll past.
Our analysis of leadership posts on social platforms reveals a pattern. The more authenticity cues a post displayed, the higher the engagement it received. It’s not about relying on one signal but about layering multiple ones together. Posts that showed identity, accuracy, emotional expression, and consistency outperformed those that didn’t. For brands, this insight offers a practical takeaway. Every post can be tested against these cues. The closer the content aligns with them, the more likely it is to spark meaningful engagement. When conversations are filtered through these markers, the most valuable audience feedback comes into focus, the kind that helps brands adjust strategies and connect more deeply with people.
Looking at how tech leaders post on LinkedIn shows just how powerful authenticity cues can be. Piotr Skalski’s celebration of hitting 30,000 GitHub stars combined identity, visuals, community validation, and more – and it drew the highest engagement. Tay Bannerman’s post leaned on accuracy, cultural insight, and emotion, earning slightly less traction, while Oliver Molander’s take on ChatGPT carried fewer cues overall and saw the lowest engagement of the three. This comparison highlights how posts with a richer mix of cues tend to resonate more, while those with fewer signals struggle to spark the same response.
Authenticity isn’t one-dimensional. It’s built from many layers, and brands that balance the scale and efficiency of AI with recognisable human signals will stand out. Those who manage both can achieve more by building trust, relevance, and long-term human connection. Ching Yee Wong, VP of Communications, APEC at Marriott International said, “AI can enhance planning and recommendations, but the human element remains central to the experience. Technology supports efficiency, while cultural sensitivity and personal care must remain human-driven.”
How the launch of Chat GPT-5 did not conform with audience expectations
The GPT-5 launch was not the best. The expectations were so high, that audiences knew it was bound to disappoint. Why was it not up to mark? The online vocal users of a brand are the spokespeople that the brand did not choose. These audiences are loyal users of the product and in exchange, they expect that the brand provide them with what they need. The monetary aspect becomes irrelevant if the brand delivers.
When OpenAI launched GPT-5, many long-time users felt let down. The decision to merge earlier models into one version was seen by some as a cost-cutting move, and the disappointment was loudest among the platform’s most loyal audience. Running these reactions through our authenticity cues showed a clear gap in cultural relevance. The release didn’t reflect the expectations or norms of its most vocal users. That’s an important lesson for brands and leaders – audiences want to feel heard. The best way to achieve that is by analysing online conversations through these cues, which can reveal what people truly expect and guide how to respond.
Interested in learning how Isentia can help? Fill in your details below to get access to our latest Authenticity Report and read more about our cues designed to measure brand authenticity.
The post How to rebuild brand trust through authentic communication appeared first on Isentia.
