I’ve been a member of the recent wave of Anti-Brand-Website movement, but after seeing the report from Nielsen about consumer trust I’m beginning to question my own thinking. Come to find out, many people trust brand websites. Hell, branded websites edged out editorial content when it came to what people trusted more. In other words, more people would believe that a Volkswagen Golf is the most fuel efficient car in its class if they saw that claim on VW.com than if they read it in Car & Driver.
WHAT!
Are people that trusting? Do they not understand that you can say pretty much whatever you want on your website and get away with it. Don’t believe me? Witness the trans fat con that junk food producers (with the compliance of our the FDA) are running on Americans. Or, perhaps, people aren’t so trusting, maybe it’s that they’re becoming more jaded about editorial content and that’s why there are more people who trust brand websites than there are who trust editorial content.
Whatever the reason, the reality is, the brand website can make an impact, so let’s get it right. When was the last time you saw a brand website that made a strong, and believeable argument for the product or service?
Comments welcome.
2 responses so far ↓
Tracy // July 16, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
I believe that most people don’t think that brands can write whatever they want on their websites because regulators would catch any lies or stretched truths before any damage is done. Why would a brand take the risk of misrepresenting its own products if it can so easily be caught in a lie? What people are overestimating is the effectiveness of regulators in catching these errors on the countless brand websites that exist today. Many brands that misrepresent their products do not even tell all-out lies; they simply make claims that haven’t been disproved.
Because of the ease of making unjustified claims, the most reliable brand websites are therefore the ones that back up their claims with real facts. For instance, the website for Pur water filtration systems (http://www.purwater.com) substantiates its claim of the water systems reducing pharmaceutical compounds in water by certain percentages by citing the study that they used to generate those numbers. Furthermore, it admits that these contaminants have not necessarily been proven to have negative health effects, but that they are simply promoting more natural water. They also have a link for viewers to check the levels of contaminants in the water of their city. The website does not seek to make extravagant claims that lead customers astray, and because of this it comes across as a reliable source of information straight from the brand.
When so many people are making unsubstantiated claims online and yet people are believing the sources more than ever, it’s refreshing to see a brand put so much effort into being reliable.
MPH // July 16, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
The figures are surprising, as a brand website is probably one of the least trustworthy sources available to a consumer. These websites are specifically designed to sell you the product while convincing you it is the best and you need it.
A person’s trust should reflect the level of motive behind whoever they are seeking advice/information from. If the “information source” is seeking any personal or monetary return, their trustworthiness decreases, reflecting the level of involvement.
Using the aforementioned VW automaker as a scenario, the brand website holds a ton of motive as it most likely, directly offers a sales opportunity through an online store. It may be slightly less poiniented (watered down with excess information) than a tv, radio, movie, text sales pitch but holds the same degree of sales motive. They also gain the most in being manipulative or possibly deceitful. They may not be making up facts but its pretty easy to derive a couple favorable figures. (Example: A VW coupe may be the most fuel efficient coupe among all V-6s with a top speed above 130 mph. Hardly makes it fuel efficient or the most fuel efficient coupe available. Often these monikers are only among major production cars anyway.)
Friends and online posters should probably rank just above the realm of brand advertising as motive is simply too varied. Personal bias and interest just factor in too much. Those writing online that they liked a product are very well looking for some personal satisfaction or confirmation that they, themselves made the right choice in buying or bashing a product. With a friend the same bias are there but your personally knowing how your friends likes and dislikes compared and conform to your own can’t increase trust but can allow yourself to trust in the accuracy of your own decision.
Finally, I agree that editors are probably like a Car & Driver report are probably the one of he most trustworthy sources and should be in the utmost tier. They have an eye that has been trained to be more critical than favorable in pushing a product and depending on the source, hold no interest or motive in making a sale. They are also likely the most informed on a products competition and therefore the best person to make an accurate recommendation or unbiased report. Unfortunately, they are often the least flashy and convenient for a consumer. A brand website is probably the first place a consumer looks and of course their friends are right there. Perhaps it’s the editorials who need to do more advertising…