Instant Trust
I recently received an invitation to an online seminar with this title …
Top 4 Secrets to Building Instant Trust Online
Now somehow this just doesn’t work for me.
Isn’t “instant” trust impossible? Are we dealing with the ultimate oxymoron here?
Then compounding my suspicion, I’m promised “secrets” to build trust … another disconnect.
Finally, why are they only sharing four secrets … I dunno … I’m starting to not trust these guys.
Now, as a fundraiser, surely I would want to earn the trust of my potential donors, and keep the trust of the ones I have. Indeed, without some degree of initial trust, I would have no donors.
So I’m in a quandary here. Do I ignore all these bad signals and assume that, nevertheless, these people have something useful to tell me about online marketing mechanics? “Appearance and design, outside authorities, transactional assurances, and social proof” and such.
Or do I look for advice elsewhere?
Tom
P.S. In case I haven’t scared you off, and you’re still desperate for trust, you can register here.
6 responses to “Instant Trust”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
One of the speakers works for a “privacy seal” service. I guess if I saw that a product or service was endorsed by a company I already trusted, I’d have more trust in it. But I’m not sure I need a Webinar for that. The best book I’ve read on creating trust is “Influence: Science and Practice” by Robert B. Cialdini. You can see it here on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Practice-Robert-B-Cialdini/dp/0205609996/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_2
Perhaps what they mean is “4 secrets to not losing trust instantly online.” If that’s what they mean, then maaaybe I won’t instantly mistrust them.
Great Post! I hope it will decrease the number of ‘teaser’ subject lines or at least get people to think about what they are using to get people interested.
Totally with you on your comments; quite a bit of the time when I’m online I look at something and can’t help asking myself questions about its credibility/etc.
Two things, though:
1) Not everybody does this (God knows); and
2) I can well imagine a set of tips that don’t build *active* trust—the kind a donor has for an organization for example—so much as a more passive kind of trust. Making sure your website looks professional, all the links work, pages are titled appropriate things, etc.—all the things that search engines look for to give a website a higher quality “score”—are chosen precisely because they allow a user to trust that what they’re looking at is authentic and doesn’t have any sinister ulterior motives.
Maybe this isn’t “trust” so much as “lack of mistrust”—just because someone’s staying on your site doesn’t mean they’re ready to email you a routing number so you can go back to being prince of Nigeria. But clarity of presentation on the web does build implicit trust, and organizations ignore it at their peril.
Anyway, love the work ya’all do. Thanks for doing it.
Tom,
Your reaction is understandable, and anyone advertising trust work has to take it into account; it’s probably a bad headline.
But at the same time, if you think about it a bit, you’d probably agree that a great deal of trust actually does take place “in an instant.”
We have this platitude that says “trust takes a long time to build…and a moment to destroy.” In fact, that’s more false than true. My life’s work is trust, and I’ve written about this particular topic at:
http://trustedadvisor.com/trustmatters/844/Top-Trust-Myths-1-of-2-Trust-Takes-Time
Certain aspects of trust do require time: any sense of reliability, for example, literally requires the passage of time. But other aspects of trust–the more emotional assessments we make about others’ intentions, or their ability to empathize or relate to others–those judgments we make in a moment.
As in most things trust-related, it depends on the context.
(For what it’s worth, I would also share your skepticism (which sounds like it was pretty instant, by the way) based on the headline. But that doesn’t mean the content is ridiculous; it’s quite plausible).
I read your post but not sure I can wholheartedly agree.
With email campaigns it’s simply the nature of the beast. It’s gonna be an uphill battle for you to get people to read your stuff if your email has a title of:
“Maybe Someday You Could Get Somebody Interested Using This Technique….maybe”
They might as well TRY to get your attention.