Trust Continued

To give you an update, my youngest is adjusting to Kindergarten. She's learning that there are those you can trust on the playground, and those you can't. She's also learned there are those with whom trust is best bestowed (mostly teachers, but not all).

Which brings me to last week's edition of BusinessWeek (Sept. 28 issue date -- 100 Best Global Brands).

ADDED SEPT. 26. You're wondering, what does Kindergarten, playground and teacher trust have to do with Brands -- more on that in a moment.

First, kudos to Avanade parents -- Microsoft ranked #3 and Accenture #45.

You may have also seen the article titled The Great Trust Offensive. It's been a long week, and I'm sitting at Seattle Tacoma Airport waiting to board Southwest to Oakland, but let me share a few thoughts on the piece.

The first thing that caught my attention was this statement: "Trust is what drives profit margin and share price." So says Larry Light, CEO of brand consultancy Arcature, who comes from McDonald's and BBDO advertising. I couldn't agree more. But then this from the writer: Not long ago, trust and reputation were the domain of the PR department. Marketing executives, by contrast, pushed products and brands using the classic Procter & Gamble two-step: spending huge sums to maintain "share of voice" ... and it went on.

The rest of the article basically says that trust is now in the hands of marketers. Yet, when you look at many of the examples in the article, it is all classic PR: do good, get recognized for the good you do and EARN trust.

ADDED SEPT. 26. Like my Kindergartner learning to whom to bestow trust, with all due respect to my marketing colleagues, trust is still the domain of PR. But what the article does show, and I support, is that brand is a promise, and trust is built when companies deliver on that promise. Marketers aboslutely play a central role in partnership with PR in that capacity.

Take note. McDonald's collaborating with PETA to force egg suppliers to raise the living standards of hens. Highlighting the quality of ingredients to focus on food, nutrition and fitness. Ford is focusing on the quality of the cars, their independence from government handouts (stability), fuel efficiency, and then aggressively communicating those facts.

In essence, "branding" is moving from an emotional appeal (at least in some categories) to a rationale appeal. And for brands that relied heavily on "experience" -- like a Starbucks (after all, it's not rationale to pay that kind of money for a cup of coffee, though I'm guilty of doing so) -- it is harder for brands that rely heavily on "experience" or emotion to recover in this sort of economy. Why? When money is tight, people buy with their head. When money is abundant, people buy with their emotion.

What's really fascinating is the bottom line impact of this "trust" offensive approach for Ford. "Ford is now spending $1,800 less on incentives per car than it did a year ago, and consumers are forking over on average $1,300 more for Ford models ... a combination that drives a leading booster of customer trust: resale value." That's a powerful stat.

But the final quote of the article is an absolute fallacy.

"Trust-related marketing only works if there is a message that people want to believe in. You cannot spin an audience that doesn't want to be spun."
- Eric Dezenhall, crisis management consultant.

You're wrong, Mr. Dezenhall. First, you're assuming people want to be spun. They don't. Second, you can't spin trust. You earn trust. Third, it's not about messaging. It's about delivering on a promise, pure and simple.