A Simple Formula for Online Trust

Online consumers, bless their hearts, are skeptical. Rightly so. Their communication channels are saturated with ads from people who want their money. From web site banners and popup ads, it gets worse: Having long since ruined our inboxes and mandated "fake" email addresses (I have three dedicated to spam-inducing activities like online shopping), advertising has moved on to our IM clients, our social network sites, even our mobile devices via SMS.

Everyone's selling. And gosh darn it, online sellers are pushy. And, frequently, they're deliberately deceptive. (The whack-a-mole banner ads get me every time!) This creates a challenging situation for marketers who want to create genuine value in online social spaces: Internet users are extremely sensitive to, and generally averse to, online marketing.

Getting it right is tricky. Everyone's after the most elusive of brand qualities: Authenticity. Everyone wants to create relationships with their customers, to be trusted. And the difficulty of accomplishing that can be measured by the rise of the host of online marketing consultants and technology startups with turnkey solutions for all your trust needs.

In that spirit, I'll offer up my own solution:

Creating a trustworthy brand presence in cyberspace couldn't be easier. Just follow this simple formula:

 

                        

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, I'm joking, kinda. Because the real key to being trusted is to be trustworthy in the first place. And ironically, being worthy of customer trust is harder than it sounds.

Still, the ideas in this "formula" are important.

By "authority," I mean visible expertise, the undeniable kind that makes you a resource for people needing accurate, comprehensive information. By "passion," I mean emotionality. Excitement, fired-upness.

The combination of authority and passion is critical. Neither works without the other, because trust requires both credibility and emotional connection. Consumers want to connect with humans, not brands, and when we need information--to keep our gadgets running, or to make a health care decision--we want to get it from a human we trust.

Transparency is the antidote to online consumers' skepticism. To some degree, exposing your mistakes helps. Giving air time to your critics helps. Admitting you were wrong helps. The occasional typo helps.

My overall message: There is no formula for online trust. Start by being trustworthy. And from there, seek out ways to bring your whole self to your online relationships, speak with confidence, be right (most of the time), show your excitement, and take your customers on tours behind the curtain.

Comments

[Jay Fienberg]

Whoa, I was freaking out at the beginning there, until I caught on that you were joking--good one!

I like that you define authenticity and passion when you use them--both of these words can suggest things other than what you are talking about, and it's good that you used them very deliberately.

But, I think you might better define transparency. Like authenticity and passion, it's often used as a buzzword by people (e.g., certain marketers) who work to manufacture appearances that obscure limitations and faults.

[Tim]

Great ideas, Ryan.

David Weinberger talks about the idea of authenticity -- I think it's a valid concept across all your categories and may help with the transparency definition.

Online community is successful because people want to interact with other (REAL) people. These customers need the give and take -- even if it's a little messy sometimes. Contrary to what some online marketers think, dialog-free messaging, even under a "community" banner (ie, rating systems without discussion or blogs without comments) does not make big-C Community.

Just giving customers a way to talk amongst themselves (and, of course, with the company) -- warts and all -- establishes this realness, paving the way for online organizations to extend dialog into authenticity.

[Mogens]

Speaking of trust - it doesn´t exactly make me trust this blog, that you write a headline called "A simple formula for online trust", when your article concludes there is no formula. Thats called misleading information, and isn´t directly conducive to creating trust

[Ryan]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone. Jay, I didn't define "transparency" because I couldn't settle on a definition that seemed complete. How's that for transparency? Honesty, and admitting shortcomings, is certainly a part of it.

But it's more than that. It's more like "obvious, visible, and complete honesty." But now I've used the word "visible" in a definition of "transparent!" Someone else like to give it a try?

Tim, authenticity is a piece of this conversation, for sure. For me, it's a concept really "akin to" trust, rather than an "element of" trust or trustworthiness. It's about not sounding fake, edited, dressed-up, glossed-over, etc. I like Weinberger's take, too, but for me it's a little different than transparency. It's more like personality, or something. I'd love to hear others' take on the idea--what it means, but even more so how to apply the idea on the web.

And Mogens, I'm sorry you felt my post was misleading. I can certainly see how the title could feel like a broken promise in retrospect. I was being tongue-in-cheek. Apologies. Maybe whether I can win back your trust is a good test of the real utility of the point I meant to make.