Brand authenticity is closely tied to trust, but consumers judge it through specific signals: honest communication, consistent promises, credible reviews, visible values, and responsive service. Recent survey findings show that authenticity can influence willingness to pay, purchase research, loyalty, and whether customers return after a service interaction.
Contents
- Why authenticity influences trust and buying
- How consumers define an authentic brand
- Reviews and user-generated proof
- Transparency, fake reviews, and credibility risks
- Authenticity across platforms and purchase research
- Customer service, loyalty, and retention
Why authenticity influences trust and buying
In January 2026, 93% of surveyed U.S. and U.K. social-media users said authentic engagement builds trust with brands. In the same survey, 85% said they were willing to pay more for authentic brands. These results describe reported attitudes among surveyed social-media users; they are not a forecast of actual price premiums or sales.
The findings align with earlier trust research, while the measurement periods and study designs differ. In Edelman’s 2019 eight-country study, 81% of consumers said they must be able to trust a brand to do what is right before buying. More than 70% linked purchase decisions to trust-related issues such as supply chain practices, reputation, values, environmental impact, and putting customers before profit. Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: In Brands We Trust?
The 2019 study also found that 53% of consumers said every brand has a responsibility to get involved in at least one social issue outside its direct business impact. Yet approximately 33% said they trusted most of the brands they buy and use, and only 21% said they knew from personal experience that the brands they use keep society’s best interests in mind. Those figures suggest a gap between the expectation that brands should act responsibly and consumers’ direct confidence that they do.
Edelman’s 2023 research reported two practical effects of established brand trust: 59% of consumers said it made them more likely to purchase new products or buy even when a competitor was cheaper, while 67% said it made them more likely to stay loyal and advocate for the brand, including after a public misstep. Edelman | Three Mandates Marketers Must Adopt to Build Brand Trust in 2023
| Trust or authenticity signal | Reported share | Study period and audience |
|---|---|---|
| Authentic engagement builds trust | 93% | U.S. and U.K. social-media users, January 2026 |
| Willing to pay more for authentic brands | 85% | U.S. and U.K. social-media users, January 2026 |
| Trust is required before buying | 81% | Edelman, eight countries, 2019 |
| Trust supports buying despite a cheaper competitor | 59% | Edelman, 2023 |
| Trust supports loyalty and advocacy after a misstep | 67% | Edelman, 2023 |
Edelman’s 2025 15-country study found that 73% of people said their trust in a brand would increase if it authentically reflected today’s culture. 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer: Special Report - Brand Trust, From We to Me The result should be read as a 2025 cross-country survey finding, not as a direct continuation of the 2019 or 2023 studies.
How consumers define an authentic brand
The January 2026 Emplifi survey asked 1,650 U.S. and U.K. social-media users to identify qualities of an authentic brand. Honest, truthful communication without exaggeration ranked highest among the listed qualities, at 58%. Keeping the brand’s promise followed at 44%, while feeling genuine and relatable reached 39%.
Consistency also mattered. Thirty-three percent ranked behaving consistently over time and across channels as an important quality. Twenty-six percent selected acting with strong values, including doing the right thing when it is difficult. Together, the responses point to authenticity as a combination of language, delivery, personality, consistency, and conduct rather than a single campaign style.
The same Emplifi research showed a small difference between the two national samples when respondents selected the top way a brand demonstrates authenticity: 23% of U.S. respondents chose honesty and transparency, compared with 24% of U.K. respondents. These percentages are country-specific responses within the survey and should not be treated as a ranking of national character.
The broader trust context helps explain why these signals matter. In Edelman’s 2019 eight-country study, only approximately one-third of consumers said they trusted most of the brands they buy and use. A promise that is clearly communicated but not consistently delivered can therefore weaken the very trust it is intended to build. The available findings do not quantify which individual authenticity practice produces the greatest sales lift, so marketers should avoid treating any one percentage as a performance benchmark.
Reviews and user-generated proof
Reviews are a major part of how consumers test a brand’s claims. In January 2026, 79% of surveyed U.S. and U.K. social-media users said they read three or more reviews before buying. In the same Emplifi survey, 63% rated user-generated ratings and reviews as authentic marketing or online content. Search-engine results ranked higher at 66%, while influencer ratings and reviews reached 42%.
Consumers were less likely to describe several paid or machine-produced formats as authentic. Social-media ads were rated authentic by 38%, and AI-generated text, images, or ads by 31%. These are perceptions recorded in the survey, not a determination that a particular format is inherently authentic or inauthentic. The surrounding disclosure, evidence, and consistency of the message are not quantified in these figures.
Savanta’s August 2022 survey of 10,606 global shoppers found that 42% trusted user-generated content in an advertisement, compared with 31% who trusted brand advertising without user-generated content. The difference is a descriptive comparison from that study, not a calculated causal effect. Bazaarvoice 2022 Fake Reviews Report reveals consumers want brands and retailers fined for fake reviews
The same research found that 85% considered negative reviews as important as or more important than positive reviews. That makes a review strategy broader than collecting praise: consumers appear to use criticism as part of their credibility check. A brand can support authenticity by making room for varied customer experiences and by responding to problems in a way that matches its stated promise.
Transparency, fake reviews, and credibility risks
Fake reviews create risk beyond one questionable product page. In the August 2022 Savanta survey, 52% of global shoppers said fake reviews make them lose trust in the brand. Seventy-five percent said noticing a fake review for one product would reduce their trust in reviews for other products on the same site.
The reported purchase consequences were substantial. Fifty-six percent said they would not buy a product if they suspected fake reviews, 50% said they would not trust the brand, 34% said they would not trust other reviews on the site, and 25% said they would not buy from the site. These responses measure stated intentions after suspected manipulation; they do not measure observed abandonment rates.
The survey also captured expectations for industry safeguards. Seventy percent said the retail industry needs new standards to combat fake reviews, and 59% said anti-fake-review standards should allow only verified customers to post reviews. Verification is one proposed standard in the survey, not evidence that every verified review is accurate or that a single control solves the credibility problem.
Loss of trust can also change customer behavior after the original purchase. Eighty-one percent said they would avoid using a brand again after losing trust in it. Forty-eight percent said they would leave a negative review, and 16% said they would post about a company on social media. This makes transparency relevant to retention and reputation at the same time: an authenticity failure may affect future use, public commentary, and the perceived reliability of other customer evidence.
Authenticity across platforms and purchase research
Authenticity is evaluated across multiple touchpoints, especially for expensive purchases. In January 2026, 56% of surveyed U.S. and U.K. social-media users said they visited three or more websites before buying an item priced at $/£501–$1,000. More than half said they visited three or more websites and spent more than an hour researching purchases priced above $/£500.
The share spending more than an hour researching high-value purchases was 24 percentage points higher in Emplifi’s 2026 benchmark than in its 2023 benchmark. This is a reported benchmark difference across the two periods, not proof that the same individuals changed their behavior, because the supplied findings do not describe the research as a single longitudinal panel.
Social-platform reach also varies by generation. More than 50% of surveyed U.S. and U.K. consumers used Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok at least twice per week. More than 90% of Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers used Facebook and Instagram at least twice weekly, versus about 70% of Gen Z. More than 90% of Gen Z respondents used Instagram regularly, compared with about 75% of Boomers.
| Platform or behavior | Higher reported group | Lower reported group |
|---|---|---|
| Facebook at least twice weekly | Gen X: 95% | Gen Z: 70% |
| YouTube at least twice weekly | Gen Z: 93% | Boomers: 75% |
| TikTok at least twice weekly | Gen Z: 48% | Boomers: 34% |
| Regular Reddit use | U.S.: 29% | U.K.: 21% |
These platform differences matter for message consistency. A brand may be discovered on one network, researched through search results and reviews, and judged again through customer service. The available data shows the breadth of the journey but does not establish which platform produces the final purchase decision.
Customer service, loyalty, and retention
Customer service is another authenticity test because it turns brand language into a direct interaction. In January 2026, 84% of surveyed U.S. and U.K. social-media users said customer-service interactions should feel authentic. The same share, 84%, said quick response time is critical to authentic service. Eighty-two percent valued flexibility in communication channels, and 81% said a human tone matters in service interactions.
Forty-three percent of surveyed users had needed customer support in the previous six months. Among surveyed consumers who had needed support, 77% said their issue was completely resolved and 70% said a human agent ultimately solved it. The denominators differ from the full social-media-user sample, so these support-resolution figures should not be compared as if every respondent had recently contacted support.
Positive resolution was associated with repeat purchasing in the survey: 59% of consumers who experienced a positive service resolution said they bought from the brand again. By contrast, 52% of consumers who experienced an inauthentic service experience said they would stop buying from the brand. These are reported intentions or self-reported outcomes in the Emplifi survey, not independently tracked retention rates.
Taken together, the statistics describe authenticity as an operating standard. Consumers associate it with truthful claims, promise-keeping, consistent behavior, credible customer evidence, and service that is fast, flexible, and human. The studies span January 2026, 2025, 2023, 2022, and 2019, use different countries and samples, and should not be treated as one trend line. The Emplifi survey covered 1,650 U.S. and U.K. consumers—813 in the U.S. and 837 in the U.K.—who used at least two major social platforms twice weekly and had made an online purchase within the previous six months; its data was collected in January 2026. Bazaarvoice commissioned Savanta to survey 10,606 consumers in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. in August 2022. Edelman figures are survey findings from the named report years, not a single longitudinal panel.