Trust transfer in the socially mediated channel.

My friend Stewart Hirsch blogs at TrustedAdvisor.com.  If you don’t already read this blog, I think you should.  Charlie and team are experts in the topic of trust.  It may seem abstract, but after you read The Trusted Advisor and their blog, you’ll understand there is an art and science behind trust and business.  It’s not gimmicky.  Their message is about being very thoughtful and purposeful.

Stewart’s blog post today is about Trust Transfer.  He decomposes the act of referrals.  The economy of trust is about relationships and how reputation flows in the channel between you and the people you are connecting.  I’ll get back to this in a moment, let me first talk terminology.

I’m influenced by the fantastic book The Wealth of Networks when I use the following terminology:

• Mass Mediated channels and
• Socially Mediated channels.

A channel is a path between two things; in business terms, it also describes the process of making something available between two entities.  Media is the container that delivers information.  Mass Mediated channels are pathways of information that are broadcast to the masses — e.g. radio, TV, newspapers, books.  Socially Mediated channels are pathways of information that are mediated by social relationships.  For example: when I get an email and forward it to a group of people whom I think will find it interesting, I’m mediating the transfer of information via my social relationships — e.g. the decision who to include on the email.  Posting a video on my Facebook wall (for my friends to see) is also mediating the transfer of information via my social channel.

Mass Media and Social Media differ – much like radio and TV differ.  The message you convey might be “I want you to buy my brand of shampoo” — but the way you convey that message is impacted by the channel you use to convey it.  The Radio/TV difference is obvious.  One allows you to address sound and sight.  Neither convey smell.  But the Mass/Social differences are not as obvious to many.

I’m told that the very first TV shows were awkwardly primitive.  Directors and producers had to learn how to work the new medium.  The view was much smaller than film, and required the visual direction that radio did not have.  I imagine that the very first TV producers were either trained in radio or film.  They had to take their experience and apply it to TV.  Over time, they figured out how to leverage the unique qualities that TV offers.

In a way, Socially Mediated channels are similarly challenging to many marketeers.  I’m seeing a rush on the part of many small business to get on Facebook and Twitter and by doing so – hope to make more money.  Marketeers are trying to help — but many don’t yet understand the new medium yet.

Let’s get back to trust.  Stewart’s blog reminds us of the basics of social interaction.  When you refer person A to person B, you are telling person B that you trust person A to be someone worth connecting to.  The whole cycle works when person A is worthy of being referred, person B is worthy of being given the referral, and you are trusted to transact.  If person A is not worth the referral, you won’t pass his name to person B.  This means, if person A wants to get you to refer him to your friends — he has to be trustworthy and refer-worthy.  But it is not about selling person A.  It’s about earning trust and establishing relevance.

Consider this: Sharing a viral video with my (trusted) Facebook friends, means that I trust that video is worth sharing, and that sharing it will improve my friendships — e.g. by being perceived as resourceful.

Some marketeers seek to use Socially Mediated channels like Facebook to have their fans promote their products for them.  They need to understand that they must provide content that makes their fans want to share.  Don’t expect that I’ll tell people to buy your shampoo just because I like using it.  Provide me with something worth sharing that allows me to transfer my sense of admiration.

Three examples:

1. When a company “does good”, such as donate some of its profits to a worthy cause.  e.g: http://starbucksloveproject.com.
2. When an company provide something highly entertaining that carries an emotionally positive message and positions itself with very little self-orientation.  I’m glad to share this for the entertainment value, and I don’t feel like I’m shilling a product.  e.g: the Pantene “Shine” ad.
3. When a company provides a message worth endorsing.  e.g.:  The Dove Evolution ad. The message is one of promoting self-esteem in girls.

In these examples, I’m glad to share these (advertisements) with my friends because I’m really saying “Look – here is something I value. Share it and discuss it with others.”  This kind of marketing is quite indirect.  You might like the Pantene ad, but not their shampoo.  That’s OK.  They are not selling you product directly, they are stimulating engaging conversations and increasing their relevance in your brain.  So when you think shampoo — Pantene comes to mine.  If it happens to be that you need a new shampoo, Pantene will be in your mind.  You might try it.  You might really like it.  The girl playing violin never told you “buy this shampoo”.

Referring your colleagues to others is a similar game.  When you tell someone, for example, “Let me introduce you to Gil”, you are saying “he represents values that I share and you will appreciate.”  You are not saying “Hire him”.  Rather, you are transferring a sense of trust — which results in increasing relevance — and when appropriate, a sale.

It would be silly to use the tone of an eager pitch man to refer a colleague to another. “Nina is a great real estate agent.  If you call her in the next 10 minutes, she’ll throw in an extra hour of showing you houses. But act now, operators are standing by!”  It is equally silly to use that tone in online socially mediated channels.

Share/Save

Tagged as: behaviors, marketing, social media