Who Do Marketers Trust?

In September Universal McCann released a new study of social media. This one is called “When did we start trusting strangers?”










It’s full of interesting data, including their listing of social media channels—wow, that’s a long list! (The full report is available here; there's also a presentation with additional data). Let me hit a few of the high spots for you.

A basic theme is the fact that we are all both influenced by and influencers in this new media world. I’ve written before about the importance of consumer ratings and other sources of individual, as opposed to marketer-initiated, information. The report asked what opinion sources people used (the question didn’t appear to include paying more attention to ads). Search and email from friends win hands down. Next on the list is visiting the brand’s website, which makes sense. That’s tied with IMing with a friend, though!

To me, the most provocative piece of data is “who do you trust?” It’s a long list. The report points out that the 4 top-rated sources are personal and 2 are online. WOM as the most credible source of information is not a new phenomenon—it’s always been the most trusted. What this says is that there are so many more ways for WOM to circulate now. That adds to its power to influence. On the marketer-initiated side you have to go considerably more than half way down the chart to find an occurrence. When you do, TV ads are the first, followed by magazine, newspaper, PPC and radio. The key issue is that these marketer-initiated communications are only rated as being about half as trustworthy as the personal sources that were highest rated. Marketers take note!

The next set of trusted sources start with consumer reviews in various channels, includes articles by known bloggers, as well as magazine and newspaper articles. That’s where the “strangers” come in. According to Universal McCann:

• We now trust a strangers recommendation as much as our closest friends

• We trust recommendations in social media channels more than paid-for communications

Big wow!

From the earliest studies of social communication we’ve known that many people were opinion leaders in contexts in which they had special interest and expertise. That’s still true according to these data. People both seek opinion and give opinion, and how many seek vs. give differs by product category. I’d also make a bet that the actual people who seek vs. give differ from one product category to another. I’d seek the opinion of one of my tech-savy friends before buying a computer, and I’d be happy to give him my best fashion advice for his big date. We have different areas of expertise.

What does the report recommend? It says marketers should:

• Be open, honest and transparent. If they’re not, they’ll get caught. Ask the politicians.
• Be part of the conversation. They actually advise marketers to advertise on the social media; it’s advertising that supports these free influence channels. Interesting point!
• Encourage everyone to contribute experiences and opinions.
• Reach out to what they describe as the super influencers, the new creators who blog, podcast, create videos and upload their photos. They should be considered “some of the most powerful voices in the future.”

It’s pretty clear who the public trusts—the best description is probably “people like me.” I started by asking who marketers trust. Do they trust their customers to engage with them in a reasonable and responsible way? Data to the contrary, I suggest that many marketers still do not trust their customers enough to engage in direct conversation with them!

Shopping is Now Social

Today’s eMarketer newsletter is about social shopping—a rapidly-growing phenomenon. The lead chart reminds us why it’s becoming so important. People have always placed a great deal of credibility in recommendations from their peers—that’s why WOM is so powerful. Social shopping is the electronic age manifestation. The article goes on to say that people contribute to social sites because they want to feel part of a community and they seek the recognition of their peers. I’d add that people simply want to help; they want to provide useful information to others who are engaged in the same activities/facing the same issues.


That being said, these sites have the potential to be incredibly volatile. I was under the impression that Kaboodle was the largest. According to the comparison I did on the Compete site, it has been left in the dust by a site called Pronto. The site attributes its explosive growth to the addition of social shopping tools, but it’s not clear why that has caused it to outdistance other social shopping sites that have similar functionality. My hypothesis is that it’s much more broadly based and therefore appeals to a larger audience. The diversity of search terms seems to bear that out.

Marketers need to use these sites by ensuring their products are listed and advertising on the sites. Pronto has a “certified merchant program.” The widgets available from Kaboodle let users make connections between things like their MySpace pages and the site. Are there partnership opportunities here?

Social shopping is another Web 2.0 feature that seems to be here to stay. Marketers, especially those whose target audience is young or family-oriented, need to be in the game.
Sphere: Related Content

Operationalizing Trust

A recent article in MarketingVox describes a UK shopping site that takes consumer recommendations a step further. TouchLocal is a directory site for local businesses all across the UK. It recently added “circles of trust” to its consumer reviews.

We know that consumer reviews are important when Internet users are researching projects. But, truth is, most reviewers are unknown quantities and readers often wonder if they are trustworthy. Maybe even more important, “Is the person using the same criteria I’d use in judging the product?”

The user identifies groups that she wants to join. Then she can invite her friends to join the groups. TouchLocal makes it easy to export the entire contacts list from an email account—a good way to lose friends, in my opinion! The user can be more selective by entering addresses manually and can also identify friends who are already registered with TouchLocal.
Then, according to the M2 PressWIRE service:

Using its custom "Circles" social networking engine, TouchLocal users put other members into circles of trust that are graphically represented on screen. For example, a sibling or close friend is likely to be in the highest circle of trust whereas a colleague or acquaintance may be in another circle. These circles then combine to give users both expert knowledge and increased confidence in choosing the local companies they want to work with.

Apparently the user assigns friends to the trust levels based on how well she knows them and their levels of expertise. Sounds good to me!

I don’t know of any product comparison sites using this particular model in the US. There are a number of sites where users can easily communicate with one another, and they seem to be growing rapidly.
Well established sites like TripAdvisor not only provide reviews but also allow the user to ask questions of other users. Again, respondents are likely to be unknown quantities, lessening the value of their advice.

Users like to review products and their main motive appears to be helpfulness, pure and simple. Recent data from Forrester (Marketing First Look newsletter, January 23, 2008)shows many recommendations but relatively little taking place on the web. In situations where users who are known to one another have experiences in common—and local shopping seems to be a prime instance, adding trust to the mix may well increase the number and value of recommendations. It seems to be worth a try!
Sphere: Related Content