Some have suggested that in order to implement social computing tools you need to have radical trust in your users. In particular, it’s the suggested mindset for marketers and advertisers who want to enter the social media marketing space:

Where conventional marketing dictates you need to control messages in order to cause the greatest persuasion in consumer decisions, the new social computing paradigm requires organisations to radically trust the consumer to build the brand based.

Jason Ryan, however, would suggest otherwise. He’s the Communications Manager at the State Services Commission and the New Zealand Government’s lead advisor on the public management system. In advising government agencies on adoption of social computing tools for citizen participation he talks of policy and not radical trust. At Web Directions Government in Canberra earlier in the year, Jason suggested that establishing simple rules for user comment and input is critical in setting the criteria for participation. Future Melbourne website is an excellent example of this policy, where the Australian state government of Victoria has invited its citizens to help create a city plan for the future of the city, not with open radical trust, but with rules of engagement (in plain English!).

So if rules, not radical trust is required for engagement with an online audience, is trust needed or requried in social computing environments? The answer is “yes”, but its users who need to trust organisations, and not the other way around. 

Trust is an important building block and mediating variable for Communities of Practice [1]. It is also a vital pre-requisite for non-members in establishing initial relationships with a community, as well as a key factor in supporting members and maintaining group cohesion through commitment and cooperation.

Edelman has been looking at issues of trust over the last six years. His results suggest that people simply don’t trust CEOs or company spokespersons, but they do trust people who are like themselves [2].

This aligns with the recent study by Canadian research firm Pollara, where self-described social media users put far more trust in people they identify with — friends and family – than with strangers [3].  

So how is trust built? How do we get to a position where individuals can determine someone is “like me”? I think Jay Deragon of the Relationship Economy has one of the best representations of the trust paradigm:

In practice, Jay’s depiction of trust means steering away from the anonymous, faceless corporate website toward one where identity plays an important role. As identity is established, and where interaction follows, trust can the be built.

Again, Future Melbourne is a good example of the use of identity in social media. Dale Bowerman’s name appears on a number of pages as the reviewer and author with links to his profile to establish the human face behind the scenes. It even includes a photo, some pesonal details, and his links. Combined with the low barrier to participation, and simple rules of engagement, this government wiki invites people to participate and engage with ‘real people’. The result is obvious when you look at the citizen contribution the wiki contains.

Ultimately, the message to organisations seeking to engage with people in online environments is simple — put a human face behind communications. This will ensure that you have a means by which your audience can more easily identify with those they’re communicating with. Trust in your brand and your message is the ROI. 

M 

- - - -

1. Preece, J. (2004) Etiquette and trust drive online communities of practice. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 10(3), 294-302.

2. Edelman Trust Barometer (2008). Online at: <http://www.micropersuasion.com/…/trust-in-peers.html>, accessed on 21 Sept 2008.

3. Pollara (2008) Study: ‘Influencers’ Possess Less Clout. Online at:<http://www.pollara.ca/…/.htm>, accessed on 3 Oct 2008.