Is "Brand Trust" An Oxymoron?

by Charles H. Green on Friday, May 9, 2008 (post #290)

I’ve long meant to write about trust and branding. I don’t pretend to have the last word on this subject, but I don’t think the first words have said enough yet.

What triggered this article was several conversations with Steve Cranford at Whisper, and in particular, his recent post on great branding through through truth-telling.

What’s the difference between trust and branding? Or are they the same? Is Brand Trust an intuitively meaningful term? Or an oxymoron?

My answer is, “It depends.” The harder question is answering the follow-up: “On what?”

I have argued that the predominant sense of the word “trust” is personal, not institutional. My frame of reference is not dictionaries but real world usage.

But if it is true that trust is personal and not institutional,  doesn't that mean that branding can’t be very trust-powerful, because it doesn’t deal in the interpersonal? Branding is mainly about an individual relating to an institution, a company, a product. Not a person. In fact, the reason the term “personal brand” caught on as a term is that it feels like an oxymoron, a paradox, a conflation—and we are intrigued by such formulations.

But hold on a minute.  Let's consider branding in terms of the Trust Equation: a mix of credibility, reliability, intimacy, and low self-orientation.  Just because branding doesn't employ all of the elements of trust,  that doesn't mean your brand can't heavily leverage a few components and arguably out-trust an individual.

What does the brand McDonald’s imply? For one thing, reliability. Huge, massive levels of reliability regarding the things you put into your body, the places you interact with people to buy those things, and the consistency of experience. You know what you’re going to get at McDonald's, and are rarely, rarely disappointed.

That’s worth a helluva lot. And on one critical element of trust, arguably that level of reliability—at least in the sense of being predictable—is as powerful as reliability exhibited by a friend.

Take another trust component—credibility. How much more will you pay for Poland Spring than for a store chain’s house brand? A fair amount. But how much will you pay for the latter compared to an un-labeled bottle of water sold by a street vendor? Massively multiples more, because credibility is something we care about when our health is at stake, and the credibility of a retail chain vastly exceeds that of street vendors when it comes to the life-sustaining fluid that is water.

On the face of it, the other two elements of the Trust Equation—intimacy and self-orientation—are inherently personal attributes, not corporate or product-related. We don’t share our feelings with a brand, or worry that our brand is self-focused and not paying enough attention to us. That would be silly.

Or would it?

Cranford argues that "telling the truth—authenticity—is one more requirement of effective branding."

What he's getting at—as I see it—is revealed in Cranford's definition of branding: "defining why you are, so that you become the only logical choice for what you offer."

I think Cranford is on to something. We often speak of branding as an objective characteristic of a product or service offering, or as the subjective experience of customers presented over time with that product or service offerings.

But people don’t “trust” products. They don’t “trust” service offerings. They trust people. As Cranford notes, 75% of the American people don’t trust advertising or advertisers.

But they do trust people. So, the real question becomes: do we or do we not trust the people behind the brand? Do we believe in the integrity of the organization putting out the product or service? Do those people in that company really believe what they say? Do they mean for their product to serve us? Or could they just as well be in currency trading or reinsurance as well as whatever they’re doing, because they’re just in it for the money?

That makes sense to me. In the traditional, personal sense of trust, I trust a brand because of what I believe about the people branding it.

If you're sufficiently old, you'll remember, “You can trust your car to the man who wears the star—the big, bright, Texaco star.” Not anymore. And not for lack of money spent on branding gasoline. But because we no longer believe we can "trust our car" to the people running, say, Chevron (or Exxon). Station owner? Maybe. Company? I don't think so. Strong brand? Yes. Trusted? Not so much.

But, Enterprise Rent-a-Car? Yes to both questions. Starbucks? Pretty much so, still, despite growing pains.

Branding may be the social version of the individual connection we call trust. It's accesibly meaningful in narrow senses like reliability. And, it can have that personal meaning when it comes to the authenticity and trustworthiness of those behind the curtain—the ones charged with delivering the brand.

Those are my thoughts. Ad and PR people? Branding people? Psychologists? Coaches? Marketers? Or just armchair theorists—what do you all think?

How to Increase Trust by Getting Off Your "S"

by Charles H. Green on Thursday, May 8, 2008 (post #289)

What’s the single best way to become trusted? Is it to increase:

• Your expertise?
• Your communications skills?
• Your credentials?
• Industry knowledge?
• Interpersonal skills?
• Empathy?
• Your appearance?

According to the Trust Equation, it is to decrease your self-orientation.

The Trust Equation is T = (C + R + I) / S , where C stands for credibility, R for reliability, I for intimacy, and S for self-orientation. (Read more about the Trust Equation at Trust: The Core Concepts.)

Note the equation itself posits the S factor as the most powerful by virtue of its solo location in the denominator. High self-orientation decreases trustworthiness, by the formula; low self-orientation increases it.

Self-orientation comes in two flavors. The first is selfishness: a sense by the other person that you are in it for yourself, not for them. The classic stereotype of the conniving salesman fits this version of S; so do con artists. And, for the most part, infants.

But the more common version of self-orientation—the daily, garden variety, neurotic form—is simply an inability to get out of one’s own way, a tendency to see others’ actions in terms of their impact on us, a constant worry about how others perceive us, a concern that others are talking about us—or, perhaps, that they’re not talking about us.

What happens when we’re preoccupied by the noises between our ears? We are unable to connect with others, unable to hear them, and therefore unable to genuinely convince others that they have been heard by us.

• When presenting in front of groups, high S traps us in our own fear—we look preoccupied, and don’t connect with the audience.
• When in a sales call, high S means we are pretending to listen—faking head-nods and non-verbal verbal’s—all the while focused on planning what we’ll say when the other person stops talking. And the customer knows it.
• When advising a friend or co-worker, high S manifests in recasting the other’s situation into our own historical frames of reference, rather than devoting ourselves seeing the other’s viewpoint.
• When in a romantic or parental relationship, high S manifests as annoyingly controlling, as acting against an implicit promise of commitment to the other.

How to improve trust? Get off your S.

(Thanks to Andrea Howe and Byron Hanson for the catch phrase).

Focus on others. Do things for other people. Get curious about people around you. Listen. Learn to love silent pauses. Stop matching others’ vignettes with toppers of your own. Give up trying to control others. Live in the process, not the outcome. Recast your advice as simply your own experiences. Serve others. If it’s the right thing to do, recommend a competitor. Put a quarter in a stranger’s parking meter and move along.

Paradoxically, stop trying to get people to trust you. Just put your time where it can most help others. Paradoxical, because a byproduct will be that others trust you. Because you have become trustworthy. Worthy of trust.

Get off your S.

To measure your own level of self-orientation and learn how to improve your trust quotient, go to my free online self-assessment, the Trust Quotient Self-Diagnostic.

May Carnival of Trust Is Up

by Charles H. Green on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 (post #288)

The May Carnival of Trust is now up. Hosted by David Donoghue of Chicago IP Litigation Blog, David has found new ways to raise the Bar of Quality, thereby granting another treat to Trust Matters readers.

(If you don't know what the Carnival of Trust is, it's a monthly collection of the Top Ten posts of the past month that touch on the subject of trust. See more, including past Carnivals, here).

You should read David's excellent Carnival Post in its entirety and in the original. In the meantime, here are few samples to get your bloggish taste buds interested.

-Do people trust friends more than bloggers? Which bloggers? Under which conditions? Quite a lot of energy on this one since David posted it.

-Is trust subjective or not? Listening David go back and forth with his subjects makes me appreciate his skills as a lawyer.

-Did American Airlines' grounding of its MD-80s hurt its trust with customers? Or improve it? Weigh in.

-And, one near and dear to my heart, the role of trust in negotiations: both as a negotiator, and as a counsel to a negotiating party. Good stuff.

You won't find better reading this side of the New Yorker (or Rolling Stone, or whatever you think is good reading. ) At least, that's my humble opinion.

Many thanks to David.

If you'd like to have your material appear in a future Carnival of Trust, please submit your blog posting here. The June Carnival will be hosted by Clarke Ching.  And if you're still hankering for more Trust Carnival, the prior editions can be found on the Carnival homepage.

Why We Don't Trust Big Companies

by Charles H. Green on Monday, May 5, 2008 (post #287)

Josh Bernoff asks the “who do you trust” question at the Groundswell blog, based on data from Groundswell.

Here’s the chart he’s talking about.

Bernoff’s discussion suggests:

1. The best trust is personal
2. 60% trust reviews by strangers in aggregate, e.g. “If 100 people on eBags say a laptop bag is great, then it is great. If they say it's inferior, then it is inferior. Regardless of what a so-called "expert" might say.”

Bernoff then goes on to draw some conclusions for brand marketers: basically, if they like you, let them talk. If they don’t like you, you can’t shut them up; but you can listen to complaints and improve your product or service.

Phrased this baldly, it sounds like a massive dose of the obvious. But if it were so obvious, more companies would be doing it. Let’s break this down.

First, the idea that trust is personal. In my own work, trust is massively personal at root. Two of the four components of the Trust Equation developed by myself and co-authors Maister and Galford in The Trusted Advisor are overtly personal—intimacy and self-orientation.

Corporations, brands and advertising are inherently impersonal and by their nature self-oriented; which is why ad campaigns and PR agencies have an awfully tough time when it comes to getting anyone to trust their messages.

Think about it. What are the two most trust-destroying words you can say? I nominate Trust Me.

And if that sounds blindingly obvious, then who developed these ad campaigns?

• RCA “the most trusted names in electronics”,
  
• Value Line “the most trusted name in investment research”, and
  
• CNN “the most trusted name in news”.
  

(Do you think that’s why CNN has just been supplanted as “most trusted” by—of all sources—Fox News?)

How about Bernoff’s other conclusion: when they don’t like you, don’t shut them up, but address the complaint and improve the product?

It is astonishing how infrequently this obvious piece of advice is ignored. Let’s call it the Watergate catch-phrase: the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

Think of the iconic Johnson and Johnson response to tampering with Tylenol—ages ago. Why does such an old example of corporate ethical behavior still come to mind? Because it’s so rare. How many pharmaceutical industry kerfuffles since have been dealt with so openly?

Remember Monsanto and Dioxin?

How about the tobacco industry’s continued, chronic response to health concerns?

Remember mad cow disease and the US beef industry's response?

Rarely is it the first instinct of business to follow Bernoff’s “obvious” advice—to hear consumer criticism as inherently constructive, and to do something about it.

Given that response, is it really so surprising that people trust personal acquaintances more than anyone else? Trust abused is trust destroyed. The biggest reason we trust people we know is that people we know are the ones we can trust.

That’s not circular. It means people we know are more trustworthy than companies who pretend to be. Whose fault is that?

What's Your Trust Quotient? Announcing a New Self-Assessment Online Tool

by Charles H. Green on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 (post #286)

You may know your IQ (Intelligence Quotient). You have some sense of your EQ (Emotional Intelligence).

But what about your TQ — your Trust Quotient?

I'm excited to announce here the launch of an of a new online self-assessment tool: The Trust Quotient Self-Diagnostic to answer that question. It's been in development for several weeks now, and I'm sharing it first only with readers of Trust Matters.

The Trust Quotient Self-Diagnostic consists of 20 questions, based on the the Trust Equation¹:

(Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy)

_____________________________

Self-Orientation

The Trust Quotient Self-Diagnostic measures your Trust Quotient Score—your TQ—and compares it with all other test-takers to date. The database will get better as it gets larger, but early returns suggest it fits very well with commonsense assessments.

The Trust Quotient Self-Diagnostic also then gives you practical advice and suggestions on how to leverage your strengths, and how to address on your weaknesses.

Please go to TrustedAdvisor.com/TrustQuotient to take The Trust Quotient Self-Diagnostic . Tell your friends.

And if you don't mind, drop us a note to say what you think of The Trust Quotient Self-Diagnostic, including how to make it better and more useful.

---

¹see The Trusted Advisor, by David Maister, Charles Green, Robert Galford; Free Press, 2000