Trust in Peers Trumps the "A-List," Study Finds

There's an ongoing debate online and in marketing circles as well over who "matters": the super node influencers or basically anyone that a particular peer group looks to for information, entertainment, inspiration and more.

This meme got kicked around in the 'sphere a few weeks back when Duncan Watts released some research that contradicts Malcolm Gladwell's theory outlined in The Tipping Point. Today, however, there's new data that to me may just reveal that Watts is right. The key factor, once again, all comes down to trust. This comes as more of the action shifts to micro communities like Twitter or Friendfed and the quality of blog content, some say, slides downhill.

Mediapost reports that a new study from Pollara found that people who engage in social networks and communities put far more trust in friends and family who are online than in popular bloggers, or strangers with 10,000 MySpace "friends." Nearly 80% said they were very or somewhat more likely to consider buying products recommended by real-world friends and family, while only 23% reported being very or somewhat likely to consider a product pushed by "well-known bloggers."

This new batch of data largely backs up what my employer's Edelman Trust Barometer found earlier this year. Some 58% of opinion elites 35-64 in 18 countries said they trust "a person like me." Meanwhile, only 14% trust bloggers - a figure that has largely remained flat since 2006. (See chart below from our latest study.)

Source: 2008 Edelman Trust Barometer

On a similar thread, Louis Gray, who's blog by the way is amazing, crunched some numbers and he found that the top tech blogs extended their reach in feed subscribers as well as on the TechMeme leaderboard. That may be true, but who cares?

The question of targeting super nodes vs. smaller groups is all coming down to trust. While the marketplace - both marketers and publishers - continue to focus on reach, they are missing the big picture. Trust is by far a more important metric, one that clearly rules when it comes to influence.

Comments

[Jen Zingsheim]

This doesn't surprise me at all; seems like common sense. I think people mistake 'buzz' for influence, the question is how deep does the influence go? Sure, a book featured on Oprah's show will cause chatter and I might read it if it sounds interesting, but I trust my mom and friends' recommendations on what I should read far more--why? Because they know me, and know what books I typically like.

Still, interesting to see data back up logical conclusions!

Jen

[ahg3]

Steve,
It sounds like the 80/20 rule as usual. Those friends who tell a strong, consistent story will be the more trusted group. Look at yourself, you fall into the super node of bloggers -- which could put you into the far right of the Edelman scale. But to someone like Scoble, you may be in the far left (and simultaneously in the far right). There's probably truth in both Duncan's study and Malcolm's work. Just like "Blink" and "Think" the truth is probably somewhere in between.
ahg3

[Dave Atkins]

I think you need a deeper analysis to get at real decision influence and authority. Perhaps the studies do this. But a question like "If you heard...how credible would it be?" is too high level. I think "bloggers," as an aggregate label, are still considered by most people to be self-obsessed narcissists who chatter mindlessly about trivia. But when it is a blogger you have come to trust...I don't think you think of them in the same way.

With respect to Gladwell and the A-list of Influencers...I don't see an inconsistency. I never believed the "A-list" was static--I see it is a concept, not an actual list of people like "who's who." Influence depends on context. Anyone who is a passionate enthusiast who can withstand a basic sanity and authenticity check (i.e. is not a shill blogger) can be an influencer in a narrow area. Trust is necessary, but can be developed quickly, depending on the context. For tech issues, I can read what someone is saying (in the same way I can listen to a visiting consultant) and tell whether they pass that basic BS test or not. That gains my trust and then, they will influence my decisions far more than any personally connected person who I might not consider an expert on the specific piece of information I am looking for...

[Tom O'Brien]

Hi Steve:

No surprise there - the most trusted source of information is my like minded peers. Blogs are editorial, communities are conversations.

This is the key to understanding the power of communities. Word of mouth travels thru communities - from peer to peer. The internet is just the great enables of global communities that ignore the boundaries of time and space. My post on it here:

http://humanvoice.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/neighborhoods-the-original-community/

Good stuff.

TO'B
MotiveQuest LLC

[laurent]

So trust is the cornerstone for influence and not 'popularity'. I buy that. What are the ingredients of trust? Relevance (my mom and friend's know me, what i like, what i struggle with)? Quality of expertise (talking about what someone knows about through his experience which, in our vast world of knowledge, may be limited to a very narrow field)? Time (i.e: the 'influenced' people have experienced relevance and quality of expertise from a particular source for some time)? All? I think at least those 3 ingredients are necessary. For exemple, I'm big into biking and know a lot about it, I have influenced many friends in their purchase because, over time, I've got to know them and they got to know me as a bike expert and I have subject matter experience that they like. If Lance Amstrong were to pop up and tell them 'I like/buy this and that', would they trust him ?
I think trust is something you earn over time. I think it's a result of knowledge which takes time to build: knowing that someone can be trusted for something. May be oversimplified here, just my humble opinion!

[B.L Ochman]

i'm always amazed at the money spent on research conclusions that are just common sense.

but if you think about it, it's rather amazing that 14% trust bloggers. After all, blogging is still a long way from becoming mainstream media. And I have to wonder why MSM isn't included in the study.

[Kevin OKeefe]

How do those friends and family develop opinion? I suspect in certain areas blogs have a significant impact directly and by affecting what's being reported in the MSM and in discussion - both on and offline.

[John Windsor]

Well, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. And we need to keep one thing in mind as we look at this chart. It's in the set-up line: "If you heard information about a company from each of these sources, how credible would it be?"

In that context, bloggers probably do come up short. But does that mean that, in other scenarios, bloggers are still lower on the trust scale? No.

[Paul Dunay]

Steve

For your audience - I was able to leverage a friend of mine at Yahoo to get a podcast interview with Duncan Watts. His view makes a lot of sense - perhaps we marketers are having trouble letting go ...

http://buzzmarketingfortech.blogspot.com/2008/02/influencers-shminfluencers-podcast-with.html

[Louis Gray]

Amazing, huh? Thanks for the comments. Technorati didn't know you said anything due to the Feedburner linkage, but I'm glad you find the site useful and/or entertaining. Nice charts and good detail.

[John Dodds]

What percentage of "opinion elites" actually read blogs and were they asked whether they trusted bloggers in general or whether they could answer in the affirmative if they trusted just one person who blogged? Without answers to those questions (at the very least) the 14 % figure is almost as meaningless as the phrase "opinion elites" which itself runs counter to the whole tenor of Watts's research.

[George Potts]

Is this study really common sense? What if the blogger is "a person like yourself", a financial/industry analyst, academic, doctor, non-profit rep, a CEO? Wouldn't trust be greater? Don't subject matter experts blog? Don't people like yourself blog? Do you not gravitate and frequent blogs that you find compelling and useful?

The logic of this study basically goes like this:

If your doctor gives you advice in-person at his professional office, you would follow it, but if that same doctor gave you that very same advice on a blog or other social-media forum, you would say he is full of shit.

I simply don't belive this.

Steve, are you just a blogger or an expert in social media? (I thought you would like that social media reference.) Does everyone that reads your blog on a regular basis not trust you? What kind of logic is this?

[Nathan Ketsdever]

Want to believe this but can't for two basic reasons:

1) A-list wouldn't have a following if this was true. (or at least not to the extent they do)
2) Self-reporting studies which force you to talk about yourself are notoriously flawed.

Great post. Very thought provoking.

[Sarah Marchetti]

George--I had that exact same thought when I read this post and saw the chart. I think the question is worded a bit misleadingly. A random blogger (even a popular one)--sure--I probably wouldn't have more trust than any of those other categories. Who knows if they are a crazy or just someone who thinks differently than me. However, bloggers I read regularly, I have a great amount of trust in. I would (and do) take recommendations from them all the time.

[Jonathan Brown]

The categorizations make no sense to me. What is a blogger?

[Nick Booth]

Any idea what proportion trust bloggers who are "like me"?

It is a curious set of questions. When I need medical help I would trust a doctor more than someone "like me". When I need someone to offer me collaborative support in solving an intellectual or practical problem I'd trust a bloger more than the medic who just fixed me or a "regular employee of a company".

To be honest I'm not sure what this survey means - other than people don't especially trust people they call bloggers and people who design surveys are prone to ask questions which yield answers that don't mean very much.

[Shel Holtz]

The question for me, I suppose, is where to those trusted friends and family members learn about the things about which they talk that influences others? From other friends and family? The information has to start somewhere. If I read about a great product on Engadget, then rave about it to a friend or family member in a social network, they trust me, not Engadget. But I still found out about the product initially from a widely read resource (blog, newspaper, TV show, whatever). SOMETHING has to initiate these conversations between trusted parties.

So does this study, and Duncan Watts' excellent article, mean that blogger outreach is of no value? Of course not. That's what starts the conversation between trusted people.

[Jim]

An impressive collection of data in the report. This is why nothing beats face to face as far as trust goes....you can look into someone's eyes and get a read on them very quickly.

[Dan Thornton]

How ironic that Shel Holtz, whose blog I read regularly, and has become a source I trust, pretty much posted exactly what I was going to say...

Duncan Watts work did suggest that my reaching out to the influencers group, messages would spread further and faster than without them. Which is common sense. You don't need someone hugely influential, or a traditional advertising campaign to have people buy a product - but it'll help spread the message alongside everything else you do.

I trust a close colleagues opinion of his new eepc, but I was interested in his opinion because I'd already got an idea of what it was from blogs/advertising/forums etc. Without that prior knowledge, the question may never have arisen.

[Graham]

Anyone that a person looks up too, as long as it's good. Self reporting should not be allowed, let others decide that.

[joshua]

I agree with your work.

[Reginald]

Having read this post, is it possible that blogging is not as significant a contributor to online incomes when compared to referrals from family and friends?

If this is case, will blogging end up being just a fad/trend of the times?

[Stuart Crawford]

I must agree with this report, I do follow a number of blogs on the Internet and actually teach blogger to leaders in the Calgary, Alberta business community and now across North America.

The blogs that I follow are those of people that I have met personally usually in town or at a conference somewhere where we have spoken at or in the same industry.

I don't find myself blog surfing. My good friend Vlad (http://www.vladville.com) pointed me to this posting and that is how I found you. I trust Vlad and his opinions that is why I read this posting.

Have a wonderful day

Stuart Crawford
Calgary, AB
http://www.stuartcrawford.com
http://www.thewealthyprofessional.ca

[John]

Also reminds me of similar studies on product reviews, where consumer reviews are trusted more than expert reviews in the decision making process.

[Jeb Archer]

What people dont realise is that green homes and buildings are not only worth more (resale value) but are creating more reveneu as well. Higher occupancy rates paired with higher rental premiums equals more money in VC's pockets.
www.initred.com