experience matters

I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a study by and FOR a PR agency. By discounting the value of word-of-mouth, the study puts a greater weight on influencers, which are the people that PR agencies pitch all day long. The takeaway from the study is that you shouldn’t invest too much in individual relationships because these gatekeepers of information are still the ones that everyone listen to…so you might want to hire a PR agency.

Naturally, that is untrue. Anyone who has been looking at the factors that influence major purchasing decisions for longer than social media has been a viable channel can tell you that word-of-mouth has consistently dominated everything from enterprise technology to automobiles. People trust their peers and, while social media has done some damage the meaning of the word “friend,” it is still these small trusted networks that hold the most influence.

Like you said, it’s all in the wording of how these questions are posed. If you look back at other Edelman Trust Barometer studies, you’ll find similar problems. It’s very hard to measure this stuff and, while Edelman deserves credit for trying, I don’t think these hold a lot of weight.

[...] conclusiones de Experience Matters del último estudio de [...]

Great, additions, Peter. I agree. I think we need to prioritize the point of need over the influential status, in order to build trust, and ultimately, long-term demand of our social presence.

Disclaimer: (I am currently and Edelman Employee and previously worked at Critical Mass). Below is a personal opinion.

Heidi, an interesting point of view but I’m not sure why you’re not seeing this trend as common sense. You said:

“Consumers experience a tremendous amount of digital litter online. Most content offered is just noise, and often doesn’t meet consumer’s exact point of need.”

Isn’t it feasible that much of this noise now comes from our peers as they’ve migrated to social networks? What’s notable is that while trust in “people like ourself” lost ground by 3 percent, it’s still relatively high (in the top 4 groups).

I have a theory that supports your point about digital litter. Our peers generate so much noise on networks that finding the signal in that noise may mean an increased focus on looking for expertise. There’s a reason that Facebook’s “hide” feature was invented and gets used. I think it’s important to underscore that while trust here decreased that it’s still important. But I’m not surprised to see the decrease.

To your point about (PR agencies are great at generating buzz). I’d be careful not to limit your view on “PR”. In my experience here so far, that background has put us at the seat of the table at very strategic places with many of our clients as they reorganize around digital disruptions such as social media. That’s not buzz. Also, there would be no upside in generating a report that’s meant to mislead especially when your brand is built off the idea of authenticity.

I wrote more about my perspective on the findings and my theory behind that specific point here:

http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2010/02/trust.html

PS, I also believe that Google Buzz is helping prove that not everything is best served social. The opportunity for all of us whether you are a digital web shop or PR firm is making these engagements meaningful. I think we can probably agree on that.

Glad to see you guys have kept the blogging going. It’s a long term commitment eh?

-David

I think there is a third consideration around these findings that hasn’t been explored yet : the naked transparency of social networks (and the people on them), and how that effects our judgment of our friends opinions.

20 years ago, getting a piece of advice or a tip was seen as an indispensable gem of information that people would take with absolute faith. Social networks have allowed however to monitor our friends more closely, and thus their potential taste level.
People do tend to overshare online, and that does give you the ability to learn more about your friends then you ever have been able to in the past.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing for brands and social media. It just means people are more selective about the opinions they form and choices they make, and listen to people they trust (through shared respect and interests rather then necessity to take advice).

This can reduce the negative experience around taking advice from someone with atrocious taste, and mean that as long as the brand is keeping up their end of the bargain and giving a great experience/product, it’s win – win really.

Hi, David. Glad to hear things are going well.

I missed your 2/9 post on the topic. I guess that fuels the point about content overload and the increasing weight on consumers to not only trust opinion, but find it.

I agree that peers generate a lot of noise in general, but my network isn’t actively trying to “sell” me or influence me about the car they love, the restaurant they eat at or the music they listen to. When I’m “shopping” for things, my peers recognize my point of need and respond by weighing in… which was my point when I wrote, “Content is no longer ‘king’ – relevancy is. Consumers have been taught that if they sound-off questions, someone will answer…” When consumers “ask,” for help, they have the ability find what they’re looking for and determine who they trust. I think it’s too big of a statement to say that they “don’t trust their peers as much as they used to.”

Thanks for taking time to address my comments about the report. By no means do I think the report’s intent was to mislead the industry. I feel like the purpose of surfacing such a study should be for industry folks to talk about ways to advocate for extraordinary experiences or “digital disruptions,” as you define it.

Admittedly, I tossed out some generalities about Public Relations, and I appreciate your feedback. You did it in such a way to literally give your company “ink” on our blog. They’ve rubbed off on you!

There’s a lot we could both share about the roles of what’s traditionally known as PR & Marketing in social media – Maybe that’s our next topic, eh?

Whom do we increasingly trust less?
That question is a ridiculous headline.

Prior to social media did we trust more? did we trust less?
How do you baseline trust? Without the baseline there is no measure.

Earning trust is a constant effort, there is no cheat sheet or optimum channel.