Authenticity Became a Pandemic-Era PR Cliche – It Needs to Roar Back in 2026

For a time there, authenticity became a word many comms pros quietly lost faith in. During the COVID pandemic it was deployed so often and so loosely that it began to feel hollow and by the numbers. Every brand spoke of transparency, every organisation rediscovered its purpose, every message was framed as human, values-led and heart-on-sleeve truthful. The language blurred, the intent usually followed and authenticity slipped from disciplined practice to default posture.

As we sharpen our PR pencils for 2026, there are signs this dilution is reversing. Authenticity now seems to be re-emerging not as a buzzword but a hard measure of credibility. In a global business environment characterised by instability, market volatility and accelerating IT change, trust has become the most valuable and fragile asset organisations possess. It is increasingly difficult to earn, never easier to lose and often fleeting when it’s gained.

The broader context matters. Audiences are navigating fractured political systems, waning confidence in the economy and an information environment defined more by volume than clarity. The constant flow of content is fatiguing. We’re in a situation where corporate and brand communications are no longer judged just on polish or creativity – they’re scrutinised for motive, consistency and alignment with observable behaviour.

Authenticity is still the lens through which everything is evaluated. Not the performative version rooted in tone or sentiment, but the more demanding kind that connects words to actions over time. Organisations that communicate with restraint and coherence, particularly when circumstances are uncomfortable, earn credibility points. Those that overreach, oversimplify or posture are exposed quickly and often publicly.

This dynamic is accelerating as generative AI reshapes how narratives are produced and amplified at speed and scale. Used well, these tools can support better insight and smarter execution. Used carelessly, they flatten voice, dull storytelling and produce communications that feel technically competent but - unforgivably - emotionally vacant.

Ask any competent journalist and they’ll tell you they are already learning to recognise the difference. AI-assisted language to me carries a kind of ‘tell’ - a smoothness that drifts into sameness, a narrative that feels somehow detached from lived experience. Now that we’re saturated with machine-generated content, authenticity is no longer just about what is said, but whether it sounds convincingly human. Judgment, tone and ethical positioning can and should remain human responsibilities. AI can assist but it cannot replace the accountability that comes from standing behind a message when it is tested. And don’t get me started on AI’s standards of referencing statements and stats. Try getting a pharma press release through approval when its key statistics are referenced to a random Reddit discussion.

The case for authenticity is wider still, though. PR is operating on the front line of a growing battle against misinformation and disinformation. False narratives now travel faster than verified ones, aided by increasingly sophisticated tools. A recent Rosely Group research collaboration with global opinion stewards Ipsos on the impact of Generative AI on journalism and media relations found that 60% of journalists agreed the outputs of these tools present a significant threat to company reputation. Synthetic imagery, fabricated audio and convincingly forged statements can circulate widely before correction catches up. Organisations have already found themselves responding to claims that were demonstrably false, yet briefly believed, causing reputational harm.

In the weird 2026 environment we’re about to enter, authenticity becomes protective as much as persuasive. Businesses that have invested consistently in credibility are better positioned when the record needs correcting. Journalists are more inclined to listen. Stakeholders are more willing to wait for verification. Those without that foundation often react from a deficit of trust, attempting to rebut falsehoods while simultaneously explaining why they should be believed.

This reality places new demands on comms and marketing leaders. Teams must think less like content producers and more like stewards of information integrity. Speed still matters, but so does verification. Visibility remains important, but so does discipline. Authenticity here is not about warmth or relatability; it’s about evidence, consistency and the restraint to say only what can be supported.

The same discipline is increasingly required as data becomes central to modern PR. Insight, validation and impact are now routinely expressed through numbers. Media, policymakers and sophisticated audiences expect proof. Opinion unsupported by evidence carries far less weight than it once did. Weakly sourced or poorly constructed data can actively undermine a story. Questionable methodology, opaque sampling or overextended conclusions will be quickly exposed in an environment where scrutiny is constant and expertise widely distributed. The era when a headline statistic could stand on its own has, sadly, passed.

At the same time, the bar for what constitutes a compelling story has risen sharply. Being merely interesting is no longer enough. Editors, producers and audiences are saturated. Insight must now surprise - not through provocation but through perspective. The narratives that cut through are those that challenge assumptions, disrupt accepted wisdom or reframe issues in a way that advances understanding.

There remains a misconception in comms and PR that authenticity demands caution, that challenging narratives risks credibility. In practice, audiences reward organisations that say something meaningful and unexpected when it aligns with the storyteller’s expertise and track record. A technology company acknowledging unintended consequences. A financial institution questioning short-termism. A brand challenging assumptions within its own category. These narratives succeed not because they are safe, but because they are earned.

Surprise without authenticity feels manipulative. Authenticity without insight feels earnest but forgettable. The most effective communications sit at the intersection of the two, where evidence-based surprise reinforces who an organisation is and why its perspective matters, whatever channel is being used.

Ultimately, one of the biggest 2026 trends will be that authenticity is no longer a philosophical preference but a commercial advantage. Clients, investors and partners are making decisions in an world defined by uncertainty and risk. They are drawn to organisations that communicate with coherence and credibility and to business leaders who understand complexity rather than chase attention. It’s one of the most valuable differentiators good PR practitioners have to offer.