Informality can waste time
One of the down sides to informal videos, and a pet peeve of mine, is the tendency of presenters to waste the viewer's time. Video bloggers, I do not need or want to see you set up the camera. I don't care about your technical difficulties. If you shoot some material that isn't relevant, do a favor to every single person who will watch your video, and edit it out! The same goes for poorly organized and presented material. If you can't say it clearly and concisely, do a retake!

Duff's informal video does a nice job of presenting the context (Duff making breakfast, and the reason he shot the video during that time) without burdening the viewer with unnecessary fluff.

Results of some relevant experiments I did
Throughout 2009 I experimented with presenting myself in various ways at parties, social events, workshops, and on dates. I dressed more or less formally, sexily, sensually; I did or didn't wear/carry clothes and props that nonverbally signaled my interests; I interacted with people in various ways.

Rather than testing formal vs. informal behavior, I played with how and when I approached people. For instance, introducing myself to other students before a workshop began vs. approaching people during and afterward. Introducing myself to everyone, systematically, vs. approaching people individually when they said or did something interesting. Saying hi to everyone I knew, vs. saying hi only if we crossed paths during the event. Introducing myself only, vs. also introducing the person I had just spoken to.

Unsurprisingly, I discovered that I get more of the responses I want when I dress and act in ways that are congruent with the outcomes I want. For instance, if I want to meet potential dates at a party or workshop:

1. I wear something socially appropriate, so I fit in the context and people feel comfortable with me.
2. I wear something that looks both pretty/sexy and touchable, so people will find me visually attractive and also want to touch me.
3. I am friendly and smile a lot, which makes me more approachable.
4. I introduce myself to everyone I can, as early as I can. Once people talk with me, even briefly, they are much likelier to approach me later, and to introduce me to others.
5. I do fun things with people that make them and me smile. I have fun, they have fun, they enjoy being around me and tend to come back. And as a side benefit, other people see me surrounded by smiling people and figure I might be worth approaching.

By behaving this way, I meet and gain rapport with many more people, make far more friends, and find probably 20 times more potential dates. Or they find me, LOL!

I don't regard any course of behavior as more or less "authentic." Virtually all human behaviors are arbitrary and constructed! However, some behaviors work better to get the outcomes I want, which aligns better with my values and goals. When I behave in ways that generate the results I want, I feel grounded, congruent, and alive. I have fun. And people respond well to me, as if I've got some kind of social magic. As if I'm, well… authentic.

Duff also provides fewer social rapport cues. The viewer can't really see whether he makes eye contact, but he rarely smiles, he doesn't move his body around in relation to the viewer's viewpoint, and he makes few social gestures toward the viewer. Verbally, he provides much less context for his presentation.

For most of us, formality is a signal to not engage passionately and connect with deep rapport. We've all had lots of exposure to "talking heads" on video, and Duff presents himself as one.

These factors all work against establishing emotional rapport with the viewer, or creating a strong emotional response in them that will make the video's informational content seem interesting, important, or worth remembering.

Framing and context
In Duff's informal video, rapport and social cues create a frame for the content that makes it seem relevant and interesting. Duff's formal video lacks these rapport and social cues. It is pretty much "about" its informational content. A viewer who has a burning interest in the information might find Duff's formal video riveting. For most people, the content alone won't be enough to create the same level of interest.

On the other hand, some people will interpret the lack of social cues in the formal video as meaning that Duff has high authority. Some of those folks might pay more attention to the content because of that.

It would be interesting to do another A/B test. In the informal video, Duff could dress and act casually, but speak in a monotone, mostly avoid eye contact, and not move much. (I have seen numerous bad YouTube videos like that.) In the formal video he could dress and act more formally, but speak and gesture animatedly, smile, and made lots of eye contact. I suspect people would find the latter more "authentic."

There's also the matter of context. Duff's making-breakfast video would probably go over poorly at a stuffy professional conference, because it mismatches people's expectations for that context. But for someone surfing the Web in their spare time (informal context), his breakfast video matches their expectations.

Bottom line: If you want to get your point across, engage your audience!

Informal video
Duff is more animated, gestures more, moves his body more, and varies his voice tone more than in the formal video. As he moves around, the lighting shifts on his face and glasses. These sensory cues make the video more interesting to watch and listen to. They provide more input for mirror neurons to create emotional responses in the viewer. Visually oriented people will see lots to watch; auditorily oriented people will hear engaging voice tonality; and feeling-oriented people will respond emotionally.

Duff also gives social cues that help engage the viewer and establish rapport. He makes eye contact, smiles, moves his body in relation to the viewer's viewpoint, and makes lots of social gestures toward the viewer. Verbally, he sets more of a background context: he just finished doing a Core Transformation process with a client, then he explains what Core Transformation is and does. He asks himself questions such as "Why is this important?", then answers them. These questions, along with voice tone shifts and other social cues, help the viewer calibrate on which parts of Duff's presentation are most important.

Most people have our strongest emotional responses to friends and family members we relate to informally. Someone on a video giving social cues that say "engage with me" is more likely to trigger our automatic engagement response.

All these factors help Duff establish rapport with the viewer, increasing their emotional response. More emotional response means the information part of Duff's presentation will seem more interesting and engaging to most people. They'll find the video easier to watch, with less effort, and remember the content more easily because they have stronger feelings while learning it.

When Colin Wheildon researched the effects typography has on comprehension, he discovered that the more easily people could read an article (it was the same article, typeset different ways) the more likely they were to read it. I presume the same is true of video.

I think that hits it right on the head, which is why organizing a group around "authenticity" will always be inaccurate.

Thanks for your thoughts, and hope you will join in future discussions. And if you provide some critiques, let me know!

I will say though in later reflection that some of their current ideals like being 'raw' 'bad-ass' 'unapologetic' 'magnetic presence' 'attractive' are not always desirable or authentic. Authentic, like you've mentioned in a few places, also could include a lot of other things, some of which could mean being solitary, emotionally buffered, reserved, discrete, abstract, impersonal, formal, serious, intellectual, in the background, or even lack of desire to cultivate atractiveness or attention, at any given moment.

AMP principles themselves ARE universal, but the issue lies not in the ideals but in the approach and marketing. As of this writing, the marketing scheme and subtle undercurrent highlight a subspectrum of qualities and attainments implied to be a superior quality. As a counter example, Andrew Cohen's group, last I checked, himself promotes an idea of an "authentic self", but presents a very different subspectrum.

Groups, like individuals, are constantly evolving in this day/age, so I hold out for all of us to continue to grow in awareness. Regardless, I feel for an organization to promote the full spectrum they must give up any and all allusions to what authenticity looks like, sounds like, smell like, is like, and what results it provides. Organizations try, but none completely do so as far as I've seen…perhaps it's not even possible by design since an organization by definition is formed around holding a subset of identifiable qualities above others.

I gotta share my appreciation for this article and opening the critical floodgates with lots of intelligence and a broad background you guys provide. I feel more encouraged to voice my own critiques. I look forward to continuing to resonate with and grow with you guys.

Here's my piece of the puzzle, that I play down to the board: "You may be able to fool others, but you can never fool yourself."

You will understand what to do at the given time. The cliched way of saying it may really be the best way to say it: apply all of your strength, all of your heart, and all of your mind.

If you are asking other people, "Am I coming off as authentic?", — in some ways, it is a fundamentally broken question. Yes, of course, you may "come off" as authentic. And that "coming off" may be a manipulation, it may not be. And authenticity in a low-signalling situation may *require* the performance of a manipulation. (ie: You have only 5-10 seconds to convey an extremely important message.) (ie: A spy must pretend, in order to be true to his or her loyalties.)

But ultimately, authenticity is an individual matter between you and God, whatever you understand by that term.