In attempting to win the loyalty and advocacy of customers,
many firms focus on offering a cheap price, a quality product, and a
fast-and-simple acquisition process.
All of these things are important to some degree – but none of them are
as important as earning the trust of the customer. Customers can routinely be seen to pay a
high price, accept a mediocre product, and suffer through a difficult and time
consuming process to obtain products from companies they trust – and recommend
these brands to others.
Trust, however, is difficult to pin down. What makes a customer trust a brand? There’s a great deal of literature on the
topic of trustworthiness, from Aristotle’s virtues to the Scout Oath, but it
doesn’t seem sufficient. In many
instances, it is entirely tautological – being trustworthy means deserving
trust. In other instances, it seems to identify
peripheral characteristics like honesty – which contributes to trust, but a
person can be honest and still not be trusted.
I’ve spent some time pondering the matter, reviewing the
literature that suggests which values cause a person to be trusted, and
considering whether they really work in practice. Much of what I found was “useful but not
essential” – but there are three basic qualities that I was unable to
eliminate: beneficence, competence, and reliability. And while it’s an ongoing study, I feel
confident enough in my progress to share what I’ve come to realize about these
three foundational qualities for earning trust.
1. Beneficence
The importance of beneficence is, ironically enough, that
people are interested primarily in themselves – and so they look to engage with
others (people, organizations, brands) who are likely to give them something
that will benefit them personally. A
good company that does nothing for me, personally, is not one in which I seek
to engage, or in which I place much trust when they insist I ought to pay them
for doing their work.
That is not to say people are entirely one-sided and selfish
– they are generally willing to give something of fair value in exchange for
what they get (cost for benefit), but only if they trust that the other party
will indeed render them some benefit – or to render a benefit for another
person for whom the product is being purchased.
They expect that the others with
whom they deal are also self-interested, and recognize that striking a deal
means that the outcome will be mutually beneficial.
As such, they are wary of deceitful individuals – those who
do not intend to give the promised or intimated benefit in exchange for what
they ask in return. There are many
individuals and companies that seek their own profit and to escape the
responsibility of giving anything in return.
And the expense-reduction approach to business seems to encourage
charging as much as possible while doing as little as possible in return. Great for shareholders, horrible for
customers.
To be perceived as beneficent, a provider must be trusted to
deliver the benefit that has been promised, and not all are. Many companies are quick to process payment
but slow to process shipment and utterly inaccessible to resolve problems after
the sale, and earn the poor reputations that they have. Meanwhile, companies that are known for going
the extra mile to ensure that the customer gets the benefit he paid for will
earn loyalty and recommendations.
Customers’ primary motivation in purchasing products is to
receive the benefit, so being able to trust that the benefit they are paying
for will be delivered, and that the provider is earnestly interested in
ensuring that the benefit is delivered, is the first and most critical element
of earning trust.
2. Competence
Competence pertains to the technical capability to deliver
the benefit as promised. It is not
enough for a firm to wish to deliver a benefit, or even earnestly intend to do
so – it must actually be done, and to be trusted, a firm must create the
perception that it is competent to do so (and to get the second sale, it must
actually demonstrate this competence in delivery).
This component likely needs little elaboration – firms are well aware that customers value competence, and current marketing shows no deficiency in making claims and offering proof of a firm’s competence. And it is very important to establish competence, though it should not be done so emphatically as to exclude any other consideration. However, there are at least three significant areas in which competence remains a serious issue:
1.
Services.
There is far more trust in physical goods than in services – whether
service is the entire product or merely essential support for a good. People trust that one toaster is as good as
the next, but not that one repairman is as good as the next.
2.
Customer Competence. Many firms still take the attitude that the
customer is sole to blame if he fails to gain the benefit promised because he
configures or uses a product incorrectly.
The need to provide guidance and support is still great, and is greatly
neglected.
3.
Relevance.
Very often, the things at which a firm is most competent are irrelevant
to the customer – but firms brag about them anyway, pointedly neglecting (or
hoping to distract from) areas in which a relevant competence is sorely
lacking.
Ultimately, satisfying this criterion means that there is
competence in delivering the benefit – and one’s intentions, skills, and
capabilities are meaningful only if they are instrumental in doing so.
3. Reliability
A reliable provider is one who can be counted on to do what
they have promised. There are many
instances in which a person or firm is genuinely interested in doing something
and has the capability to do it, but simply does not – whether they encounter
an obstacle or simply lack the integrity to follow through on their
commitments.
As with other qualities, it is largely the perception of
reliability that leads prospects to engage in their first transaction – they
believe, based on claims or secondary evidence, that a firm can be counted on
to deliver the value it promises.
Reliability is a particular problem for firms that are engaged only
once, or once in a great while.
Unreliable firms can fake evidence of reliability, and reliable firms
have a difficult time getting prospects to believe in their reliability. It’s largely a matter of faith.
But for the second and subsequent transactions, the
perception of reliability is based on each customer’s individual experience
with the brand. If a transaction is
satisfactory, the customer will return to re-engage and will likely encourage
others to do the same; if it is not satisfactory, the customer will seek a
different solution and may discourage others from engaging with a brand.
Companies speak of their desire to have “loyalty” and
“advocacy” from their customers – and much of the literature suggests that they
believe that there is something wrong with customers who are not loyal and do
not advocate for their brands. But from
the perspective of customers and prospects, it is the brand’s own reliability that
is the issue. The high level of interest
in earning loyalty/advocacy is testament to the high level of problems with
reliability – companies that routinely deliver on their promises have no such
issues, and have a substantial number of repeat buyers and advocates.
All or Nothing
The three foundations of trust are all critical, and it’s
insufficient to satisfy only one or two of them. Consider this …
·
Competent and reliable, but not beneficent – Is
the firm that delivers a product that provides no value to the customer. This wins admiration from non-customers, who
admire the brand but feel no need to buy the product.
·
Beneficent and reliable, but not competent – Is
the firm that genuinely means to do well and will be responsive when called
upon, but simply cannot seem to deliver on their promises for lack of technical
skills. This wins sympathy, but not
repeat business.
·
Beneficent and competent, but not reliable – Is
a firm that is willing and able to deliver value, but doesn’t take an interest
in actually doing so. This wins a lot
of one-time customers who never come back and discourage others from engaging
with the firm.
Simply stated, trust is all-or-nothing. While people will express that they “kind of
trust” a brand or “trust it a little bit” that is not sufficient to secure their
patronage. They may reluctantly engage,
half expecting to be disappointed, and give a firm the chance to earn their
trust based on their beliefs – but it is their experience that will get them to
close the deal, come back again, and refer others.
Conclusion
Again, trust is a difficult and nebulous issue, so I will
concede that this may not be comprehensive – but after much thought I do feel
confident in the belief that any firm that convinces the customer that it is
beneficent, competent, and reliable will win their business, and a firm that
demonstrates these qualities in action will win a loyal and vocal following.
To put this information to practical use, I suggest
considering the verbatim remarks of customers who have switched providers or
who have chosen not to engage in the first place. There will be complaints that the price is
too high, that the product doesn’t have certain features they want, or that it’s
inconvenient to shop – and these should certainly be considered. But pay specific attention to the remarks
that indicate problems of trust. These
are more subtle, and far more insidious, than the more common and obvious
problems that non-customers or ex-customers will identify.
Ultimately, price, quality and ease are less important. Again, people can routinely be seen to give
their business to providers who are lacking in all three of those areas.
Having attempted to remedy them for so many years I have
come to the sense that the complaints will never go away – no matter what you
do, people will always want cheaper, better, and easier. But
if you get trust right, people will do business with you and advocate for your
brand in spite of deficiencies in these areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment