Buying into plotlines
Your brand is your user experience
Merry Amex-mas (Augmented Fun From Down Un)
Where do you stand on SOPA and PIPA?
A recent Edelman study indicates that our collective willingness to trust what our friends have to say about brands (and companies in general) is down.
Just as many marketers are getting comfortable with shifting dollars to social media, Edelman’s latest “Trust Barometer” presents something of a wrinkle in the plan: the number of people who view their friends and peers as credible sources of information about a company dropped by almost half since 2008, from 45% to 25%.
Reasons?
There are several we can speculate about: economic doom and gloom, a proliferation of empty “fan grab” programs on Facebook, the devolution (in many people’s minds) of FB, Twitter, etc. into mass media, or those suspiciously padded friend lists that number into the thousands.
But if consumers stop believing what their friends are saying about a product or company, the implications are significant for marketers. After all, the recent trend of shifting marketing dollars to social media has been built on the assumed endless availability of that very trust.
What to do? I’ve got my hunches:
Breakthrough: Enough with the fan pages already. Do something unique. Do it first. And don’t confine your efforts to Facebook.
Be multi-channel: Seeding your messages in at least five channels (a mix of online and offline) will give your target the opportunity to absorb your message in different ways and in different states of mind. Willingness to engage differs from channel to channel, and what you give up in reach you may just gain in a willingness to listen.
Converse: More than anything, people want to be listened to. And if your target is people, you’ll want to create avenues at retail and online, and through your PR channels for them to be heard so you can tweak and amplify your message as the relationship evolves. If they think you’re immovable, they just might be too.
In a nutshell, let’s put the mix back in marketing mix. Let’s stop looking for a silver bullet – where a full clip might be called for. Let’s strive to create dialogue and engagement that builds trust rather than erodes it.
Jim Monteath
February 21, 2010 @ 2:01 am
It really depends on what one means by “friends”.
The pseudonymous entities that one encounters in on-line social media channels (or strangers that you overhear) should not, on face value, be given the same credibility as people or companies with whom you have a long-standing relationship.
I say this because some cynical marketing people have co-opted what may once have been genuine, word-of-mouth, grass-roots interactions and have perverted them into fake, faceless, “astroturf”, advertising channels.
Trust has to be established. It doesn’t come automatically with a friendly avatar, a white lab coat, Twitter stream, grey hair, overheard conversation nor a clipboard. It takes time, transparency and consistency.
Therefore I would add one more item to Dave’s good list of hunches: be genuine. Work with a communications agency that helps you maintain that.
In the vein of genuineness:
1) I work for Grip Limited as their I.T. Director.
2) If you look at the Edelman report that Dave linked to, their sample set is quite specific, very filtered and may not represent you or your customers. Their methodology is opaque and their margin of error is not stated. For example, they write “Over the last three years, trust in media has fallen from 48 to 45 percent among older informed publics”. Despite not defining “older informed public”, is a 3% change statistically significant?
3) What has Edelman done to earn our trust? What are they trying to sell?
Matt Rogers
February 22, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
I think we need a regular column called the Monteath Smackdown.
Jim Monteath
February 22, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
Just to clarify where the “smack” was aimed, I agree with what Dave wrote and was trying to be supportive, while (obviously) being somewhat skeptical about what Edelman published.
I don’t doubt that there is a “downturn in the trust economy” — for the very reasons that Dave enumerated — I’m just not certain about Edelman’s specific numbers and methods. Dave choosing that particular report as a springboard for his article doesn’t invalidate his findings and recommendations. I’m sure there are other reports with similar conclusions. Admittedly, I’m nitpicking. Edelman’s report did make for a nice graphic.
I’ve really got to stop posting grumpy comments in the wee small hours of the night.
Dave
February 22, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
I quite enjoy the cantankerous, elder rankling. And for what it’s worth Jim’s not the only one taking issue with Edelman’s assertions…
http://jessicaknows.com/home/2010/2/11/trust-barometertrustworthy-guest-post-by-marc-fireman.html
Jim Monteath
February 22, 2010 @ 11:29 pm
I feel totally validated and not at all ashamed of moonlighting under the nom de blog “Marc Fireman”.
Three out of Four Don’t Trust Their Friends - THCB Dev
February 24, 2010 @ 1:53 am
[...] Not only that, in the past two years, the number of people who trust recommendations from friends and peers has dropped almost in half, from 45% to 25%. You can find a summary of the study here. [...]
Social Media and the Trust Deficit « Kilgannon Says
March 4, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
[...] My friend had unknowingly become a brand ambassador for Honda that day. See, friends and peers can be valuable sources of information. We listen to our friends. We trust our friends. Their experiences with products lend weight and credibility to their opinions. Which is why I was startled by a portion of Edelman’s 2010 Trust Barometer which suggests that “the number of people who view their friends and peers as credible sources of information about a com….” [...]