does trust equal authenticity?

Reading a fantastic article about Trust in Business led to thoughts of brand authenticity. Is brand authenticity interchangeable for trust in a brand?

Brand authenticity can be defined as the degree to which the beliefs, values, communications and actions of an organisation are aligned. And continue to be so over time.
The most direct way that customers experience this is - do you act as you say you will?

According to Green, reliability, or doing what you say you will, is only part of the equation in creating trust. There are also the variables described as Credibility, Reliability, Intimacy, and Self-Orientation. It is suggested they inter-relate to create an overall level of trust as per the equation show.

The Trust Equation


Green explains each of the other variables:

Credibility has to do with the words we speak. In a sentence, we might say, “I can trust what she says about intellectual property; she is very credible on the subject.

Intimacy refers to the safety or security that we feel when entrusting someone with something. We might say, “I can trust her with that information; she’s never violated my confidentiality before, and she would never embarrass me.”

Self-orientation refers to the focus of the person in question. In particular, whether the person’s focus is primarily on himself or herself or on the other person. We might say, “I can’t trust him on this deal—I don’t think he cares enough about me, he’s focused on what he gets out of the deal.” Or—more commonly—“I don’t trust him—I think he was too concerned about how he was appearing, so he wasn’t really paying attention."

The most powerful variable is self-orientation, which has a negative impact on trust levels.This is most commonly gauged by how much someone feels they are being listened to. Or not.

Creating trust requires authenticity in what is said (credibility) and what is done (reliability). Adding in the additional variables of intimacy (= brand connection / emotional branding in brand speak) and self-orientation (= the level of customer-orientation, client centricity in brand speak) is a deeper way of understanding the relationship with customers, with the resultant feeling of trust I would suggest coming closer to the notion of brand loyalty (discounting habital purchases).

Authenticity does not = trust, but trust requires authenticity.

Some brands that have done this well include Zappos, Google and Apple. They are extremely customer-led, with true customer dialogue and have a degree of transparency in the their values, beliefs and actions.
A perfect example of the opposite is a company that operated much of Melbourne's transit system - Connex. Disliked intensely by the community due to their unreliability, lack of credibility and aparent lack of listening (a recent spokesperson recently blamed Australian culture for their tardy record!), they did not have the contract renewed to much community celebration. A snippet found in Social mention shown below.


A final point to note from Green's article is that ultimately people trust people, not organisations. It is their experience of an organisation's people that informs that trust.

How do your people evidence each of the trust parameters? Is there something that can be done to improve this, even if it is asking a simple question in every conversation - why?

will network analysts replace media buyers?

I had the pleasure of meeting a very interesting, very understated expert marketer today.

Not only is he a gem of a person, he made some suggestions that may prove quite fruitful for me in future.

It came about all because I was interviewing someone on the nature, role and quality of qualitative research. The conversation digressed and expanded...and voila, I was having coffee with Mr McPherson. And for the second time in two days, I was advised that I should speak with the same person I had never met!

It made me wonder - beyond the somewhat passe notion of 'networking' that conjures images of predatory sales people, what is the theory behind networks?

A quick glimpse on Wikipedia reveals that network theory explains elements of both the internet and particle physics. Grossly simplified, it is the study of nodes and the simple or complex ties between them. The most relevant study for marketers is the area of social network theory.

Fascinating, and I realised this is an area of increasing relevance for marketers as the emphasis shifts to an acknowledgement and the increased enabling of the power of social networks in influencing purchase decisions.

I ask myself the question - should we move away from, or at least weight our emphasis in research away from a focus on media, existing channels and demographics to a study of social networks? Is this a truer indication of a person and their likely behaviours than the traditional demographic indicators? Is this the next step beyond psychographic profiling?

Is this the next divide to be crossed by researchers and customer-centric organisations?

Flickr credit: martin.canchola

Are big corporates a big backwater?

I am lucky enough that I get to see and work with people in both business worlds, the corporate and the entrepreneurial. The more I do it however, I wonder, is corporate the big backwater?

I am sure that there are fantastic exceptions to this, such as Google and some retailers such as Boost Juice. But the differences are often stark. These are a few of the most common, and most frightening differences:

1. A sense of urgency – when there are lot of floors between you and a customer, it is kind of hard to hear what they are saying. Same goes with the finance department.

2. Spending – A bank recently accidentally transferred $7.8million to customers. I think a smaller organisation might have noticed the extra zeros.

3. Change – 1 person making a decision is (usually) faster and more feasible than layers of decision maker.

This is not earth-shatteringly new – but I feel that the gap is getting greater, and the risk of disconnecting with the marketplace more so than ever before as web-based or micro-businesses are taking off at warp-speed. I recently had conversations with several well established global consumer brands and realised that for all the budget and talented people, their system was continuing to drive them to do the same research, NPD and promotions that they had done in the past. A little more digital dazzle (if you’re in Kids), but essentially doing the same thing, in the same way, as it has been done since Kotler.

I realised that those brands and organisations that used to be a dream to work for may have moved from being the fast track, to the slow wade.

To get you started on moving back into an entrepreneurial frame of mind, here are a few thought starters:

• Get with the start-up mentality with 13 tips from Paul Graham
• Read What Would Google Do?
• Go to an entrepreurial networking event and start to surround yourself with an alternate mind-set.
• Approach someone you admire in a smaller business, profess your admiration, buy them coffee and ask how they would change things?
• Get a genuine change expert involved.
• Talk to your customers. And I don’t mean do a survey. I mean YOU. Get on the phone or in the store.
• Got some like-minded peers – form a “no to brackishness” group to meet for beverages of some description once every couple of weeks.
• Form an internal group / IM group / forum with these people – and keep the conversation buzzing.
• Stop, and consider what YOU really think. Radical, I know…but there is a corporate group-think.

What have you done to shift your backwater? Even if it is forming a faster channel in the middle, it’s still movement.

flicker credit:farleyj

(27 May, 2009)

stealing a post

Too funny not to share. We’ve all been there.

http://branddna.blogspot.com/2009/05/see-right-through-emails.html

time to bring their own voice back into the fold?

I was talking about authenticity of a brand, of a company’s voice with some friends last night, discussing how today, anything less and you will be outed, barred and worst of all – a social media outcast at one sniff of inauthentic writer.

Which made us think aboutall those “newsletters” that companies put out – digitally or physical, most companies have one in belief that this is what keeps them in contact with their customers. Yet, in reality, most of the time these are outsourced to a PR company or similar. If someone isn’t in your business, and has no contact with your customers…how is this an authentic voice? (I realise there may be fantastic exceptions) In a quick straw poll we realised that we all ignore these publications as having no meaningful content. We are certainly not engaged with them or as a consequence the brand.

Parallel to this is the increasing need for companies to participate in dialogue with their customers, often facilitated through blogs, active forums, facebook and twitter accounts. To do this well organisations need to be generating and using a lot more, current, content.

So the logical next question is – will companies start to bring their own voice back into their fold? Will they bring in their newsletters, wesbites and magazines not only to speak with a more authentic voice, but because it is a far more efficient use of resources?

This will vary with organisational type and their customer profiles, for example – a utility may still most effectively use an insert with a bill (for now), but what about a high-end investment firm?

I am looking forward to seeing what happens as more companies find their own voice again – and in doing so, start a real conversation with their customers.

(13 May, 2009)

From super celeb to super connectors?

Influence, voice, status, once the purview of philosophers and politicians, more recently owned by Paris…and although I think Obama has perhaps blended the two sources of influence, I wonder if the new celebrity is the Superconnectors.

What are Superconnectors? People who not only have and promote extensive links between online communities and individuals, but also distill thinking and information to help more people understand and connect over concepts. Their celebrity or position in the statusphere is reinforced and created by their direct connection with the community.

In an interesting post, Techcrunch discusses the transition from the traditional ranking of status online – the blog Authority list by Technorati and how that is no longer a true indication of status given the links, connections and content on micro-blogs and using other media.

I’m curious – what do others think?

more thinking to come….

(30 April, 2009)

user : consumer : experience

Very interesting post on the multi-sensory directions of user experience design. Real synergies with thinking on sensory branding: Miguel Jimenez

(19 April, 2009)

hunting conversations

So, you know you are meant to be participating in, starting, aware of and contributing to conversations about your brand and area of expertise. Conversation is apparently the new black. Or was that aubergine?

Where to start?

My knowledge is very basic compared to people who live and breathe this, so I’ll start with the basics! As a practicising marketeer – I have found there are some useful blog search tools (after google and twitter searches) to start to get a feel for where and how people are talking about your brand.

http://www.blogpulse.com/

http://blogsearch.google.com

http://www.blogcatalog.com

http://technorati.com/

I would think through the following questions:

1. What are the key items people are talking about over a longer (3-6 month) period? – informing potential key customer drivers, conversation starters and potential pain-points that you can address.

2. Where are they talking? This forms a basis of where you should be listening.

3. Who is talking? Are they are small, specialist and passionate group or is a broader conversation in the community? This can shape how you could start a dialogue.

4. How are they talking? What is the language used? Is it the same as the language you use? Is there a disconnect?

There are also some seriously powerful ongoing social media monitoring tools that you can use as aggregators to efficiently manage this process, for example Radian6 and Collective Intellect.

(update - Radian6 also advised me of the most useful and free SocialMention - thanks!)

(19 April, 2009)

positive social impact from marketing

If marketing is spreading the word about a certain product, service or issue, then surely this power can be equally harnessed for good as it has been for over-spent, over-produced and over-analysed advertising campaigns?

If you take marketing to its most BASIC principles, it is about discovering what people want and need, and giving it to them.

Right now, there are many people who are in need. Perhaps even more than are in want.

I believe marketing can induce positive social impact in many ways. These are the (arguable) top 3:

1. Spreading the word. Knowledge and understanding are the first steps in creating change. People don’t donate or contribute to a cause if they a) don’t know about it and b) do not understand it.

2. Engaging people. Marketing uses tools to help people connect with brands, companies and organisations. The more engaged people are, the higher propensity they have to donate or volunteer. Each new person who is engaged can then lead to many more eventual contributors.

3. Understanding. Marketers have skill sets developed to understand customers and their potential revenue. This skill set can also be applied to understand the needs of communities and their stakeholders and the potential impact of a project. Instead of potential revenue as a measure, there can be education level achieved, small businesses started or simply happiness! If a country, Bhutan, can do it…

Some amazing, world changing organisations that are using the power of marketing to spread positive change include Kiva, Project H, Ted and Akoha

Or marketing campaigns such as Buy Pink and Red

This thinking is not new. However, I feel that the last people to actually realise this power are marketers themselves.

Do you have any great examples? Disagree?

(13 April, 2009)

brand value? In whose world?

There are several companies which claim to measure brand value. Down to its bottom-line contribution.

My respects to them for even attempting to do it, making marketing activities more measurable and focusing on the long term benefits of building a brand for the company value. Both very good things.

My point is not to question their model. My point is to question the influence of brands run by this model. Does a customer care about brand value? Does brand value tell you how a customer is feeling, what their needs are and what they are focusing on next in their lives?

A brand managed by focusing predominantly on brand value is judged on inputs in and inputs out. A brand run by focusing on customers and becoming intimate with their needs and desires develops real connections, real dialogue and as a consequence real loyalty with consumers. That to me is real brand value.

(22 March, 2009)

Stories Shmories

Stories are one of the most potent ways of communicating meaning (such as a brand essence), as agreed in books such as Lovemarks, Emotional Branding and The Culting of Brands. As is shown by thousands of years of knowledge sharing amongst indigenous communities.

Recently at a trade show I saw this in action, with a stallholder engaging countless new customers with her story and the story about how the products she was selling came about. It was all true, but she realised the power of the story and repeated it with every customer. Yet every customer felt it was the beginning of a unique and personal dialogue. Which, it was, just done in a clever way, designed to fast-track that relationship building. Her impressive sales results were a tribute to that skill!

Also at the show was a very different brand with a different, often younger, take on products. This brand also had a very interesting story of origin, evolution and meaning. This worked well with the younger audience, closer to the experience…but was almost meaningless to the older, more conservative majority of customers.

My learning? You can’t assume that a story is enough. Part of the telling of the story is the people listening, absorbing and placing the stories’ meaning within their own context. It is from that is derived personal meaning and connection. If there is not some element of personal context – the magic of communication and connection doesn’t happen! The story becomes meaningless.

When using the powerful brand lever of stories, consider the audience, their context and tailor the telling for them. The story and message can stay true even when told from a slightly different perspective.

Try it will your next sales call / pitch / meeting / conversation with your wife…and let me know how it goes!

(22 Feb, 2009)

failure. of everything.

Collectively and personally I think we are facing an interesting point where the whole world appears to be failing.

The environment is failing in the most extreme ways. This week I am incredibly saddened that 96 people have died in bushfires in Victoria. Extreme conditions of 44degrees, tinder-dry bush and massive winds meant that many people lost their lives, and even an entire town was decimated. People can’t even shelter in the school hall, because that burnt down too.

So I look at the hardships around the world in the “economic crisis”, with 21% of people in the TechCrunch community losing their jobs, many friends either losing or under threat of losing stability of work. And it puts all of us in an extraordinary position. One that many of us who have had many years without the experience of war, don’t quite know how to handle.

And I look at the hardships there and think – jobs are jobs, houses are just walls and did you really need that cleaner anyway?

People have lost their loved ones.

What other environmental changes will begin to cut us with a harder edge?

Everything is failing.

But maybe it is part of the human condition that we only truly change, react and evolve when there are extremities of force around us.

I am not sure that is a consolation. But it is however a challenge to choose to be moved. Now.

(8 Feb, 2009)

authentic?

I was recently chatting with someone regarding a new environmentally friendly product concept. I was appalled to be asked whether that would be a *real* environmentally friendly product, or simply one that appeared to be.

Once I got over the shock to my of-course-holier-than-thou ethical ego and responded in appropriately neutral tones, I thought about it more from a brand / business point of view.

My conclusion – if you lie or twist the truth about your products to your customers – it’s just dumb business.

In a day when the majority of consumers have internet access, are well educated, are motivated to change their behaviour based on higher level needs such as aligning their actions with their values…if you lie, you will be found out. And if you lie, people will act to expose you.

Dumb business.

Just as importantly – you would be lying to yourself and your employees. The recipe for staff engagement although has many novel ingredients, probably does not include lying.

So, you would be damaging your brand perception, inciting active lobbying against your brand, and dis-empowering staff. And yourself.

Authenticity – It’s good business and more enjoyable!

Potential down-sides:

- you will be help accountable – if you have, or will have an authentic brand – you will need more resource to manage customer comment. You will also expose yourself to legal risk, depending on claims.

The rewards far outweigh the potential pain.

(28 Jan, 2009)

emotional branding – a cheap makeover or the revelation of self?

Thinking about and researching emotional branding today.

The role of emotional state in brand perception and loyalty has been proven in several studies, with the fundamental premise that emotional thinking is faster, therefore proceeds and frames logical, cognitive thought. Also that cognition drives conclusions whereas the parts of the brain that register emotion drive action. Presumably sales in this case.

The human need to make decisions on an emotional basis has also been clearly shown, driven by:

• Increasing selection and commoditisation making choice both more time consuming and difficult. People use emotional linkages to brands (such as loyalty) to increase the speed of selection.
• Increasingly technically complex product decisions. Emotional connection is again used as a surrogate for cognitive understanding, with different brands eliciting different perceptions of trust, competence and quality.

The thing is – who in marketing and business actually walks the walk?

Many people pay lip-service to concepts such as emotional branding and Lovemarks when discussing brand with peers. However, how many organisations or brand experts have really identified what this means beyond a list of principles? There are emotional tactics used in advertising, events and communications – but is this overt yanking of emotional levers? Or a true revelation of their brand and its essence as an authentic start to creating a dialogue and relationship with customers?

There is a large gap between words and actions particularly in this space, and also recent revelation in thinking. This could be driven by corporate short-term profit imperative and the fear instilled in many organisations from the risk entailed by being authentic.

However, I believe- no risk, no reward. If a company is afraid to reveal their essence and start an authentic converstaion with consumers as a starting point for real connection – that is a fundamental weakness of that company that will eventually need to be addressed once the company drifts to commoditisation.

It would be great to hear about examples where an organisation actively considers emotional connection with their brand, internally and externally. Comment and let me know your thoughts!

(20 Jan, 2009)

the source

My favourite source of consumer insight is people who work on a shop-floor.

After all, they are the people who get closest to the consumer, talk to them everyday, understand their needs – and importantly what they are willing to spend on. And they speak to lots of them! What’s not to love?

They are the closest you will get to an SME on consumers (dare I say it – not the marketing team?? Unless they too regularly get down and dirty with consumers).

So, how are you making sure the insights from the shop floor are shaping your understanding of your customers. And your strategy? Do you know what they are?

Do the people who make the big decisions get access to this continuous stream of information? Or can you make the people who are your most intimate contact with customers the decision makers?

It’s amazing what you learn by just asking people on the floor and watching people shop a category.

I recently realised I needed to add scarves to my collection of travel accessories. So, I hit the streets (and shops) and started talking to people who sell scarves. Within a period of 3 hours I had a succinct idea of what Australian customers want in a scarf. It cost me nothing, and was the potential equivalent of surveying hundreds of people.

Efficient, pointed and also – exciting! So amazing when you respect someone’s input the passion and knowledge they will share. Not to mention the buzz that comes with exploring through retail-land, seeing new trends, retail strategies and so much around brand experience (or the lack of it!).

Can’t wait to use the gorgeous new scarves.

(12 Jan, 2009)

simple inspiration

Delving into the stack of books in the dying-to-read-when-I-make-the-time pile, I was flicking through the second Love-marks book when I came across a really powerful statement that resonates with me both as a business owner and a brand-professional.

“I am not interested in competing, I’m interested in making a contribution.”
Horst Rechelbacker – founder Aveda.

So much hype goes into watching, analysing others. Often seeking to emulate others’ successes. But the brands which have true meaning are exactly that – they focus on their meaning, purpose and customers – sod the rest. The rest can follow if they want to.

Why focus all your energy on where your energy on your competitors when you could be focusing all of your energy on where you brand and business want to be.

The most iconic brands are not revered for their competitive ability (although an important tactical advantage), they are revered for their place and contribution to people’s lives.

(4 Jan, 2009)

Is it possible to create a blog that is not all about me?

If so – this is my attempt.

And I have just used the word MY in the first sentence. Brilliant.

It would be great to create a forum of people who are intrigued with brand and its purpose, role, intent, shape and form. A forum where people can share their own thoughts without the influence of peers and in the spirit of genuinely challenging thinking.

To start the ball rolling…the word Brand seems like a very dated term for the truest nature of brand – which I think is the feeling people get when they consider your company or any of its manifestation. The feeling is actually what your brand is. I know Brand is not a logo. But I feel the word constrains the concept.

But then nit-picking about the relevant word is just more of the same. Perhaps we should just focus on the customer, their feeling (experience), and forget about the rest.

So – what do you think – should the word Brand go? How else could we articulate a broader, deeper connection with and identification of an organisation.

Is a large number of “I’s” in this post OK if the intent is to create discussion? Or is that still all about me?

(26 Nov, 2008)