Does Fit Always Fit? The Paradox of Brand–Cause Misfit and Authenticity

Abstract

Brand–cause research generally treats coherence between a brand and a social cause as a prerequisite for authenticity, leaving unexplained why some moderately misfitting initiatives are judged more authentic than expected. We develop a paradox-based process account in which authenticity arises not only from coherence but also from consumers' both-and accommodation of an interpretable contradiction. Using femvertising as the empirical context, we follow a discovery-oriented sequence. A literature synthesis and semi-structured interviews generated the proposed mechanism. Study 1, using six real campaigns, tested whether moderate brand–cause misfit influences authenticity through paradoxical thinking and perceived brand risk. Study 2, a controlled experiment with a fictitious brand, tested campaign orientation and promise type as boundary conditions. The qualitative findings show that interpretable misfit leads consumers to acknowledge commercial motives and social value simultaneously and to consider what the campaign places at stake for the brand. Study 1 supports a serial indirect path from misfit through paradoxical thinking and perceived risk to authenticity. Study 2 shows that misfit enhances authenticity under activism-oriented framing and substantive promises, whereas fit is favored under brand-focused, symbolic conditions. The findings revise the coherence-centered view of brand authenticity and specify when perceived brand exposure functions as a credibility cue rather than a liability.