Brands want us to trust them. But as the SPF defeat shows, they must get it

This is quite a disturbing discovery of something so central for our cultural rituals – “slope” in the Australian mantra “Slip! Slop! Slap!” – You can’t trust anymore.

We never really had to control sunscreen. We will keep it because Sid the seagull (In his role as a spokesman for the Council of Cancer) told us. We learned about sunscreen factors (SPF) and made choices to protect ourselves. We do it because it works.

At least we thought so.

Consumer group The selection is recently tested 20 sunscreen and only four found their marked SPF claims. The discoveries shocked consumers’ trust in brands that create these products, and perhaps in the institutions responsible for their regulation.

Trust is the peaceful architecture of our lives, which makes everything from catching the bus to the passage of surgery. Indeed, we are born in trust. WITH childhoodWe are connected to trust, first in our guardians, Then in life in Tips and symbols such as recommendations, SPF ratings, brands or rankings that facilitate us move around the convoluted world.

That is why we rarely read diminutive printing or conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7nocoderfigg

The role of power in trust relationships

Trust and his erosion in public life have become such a critical problem that the Australian Commission for Competition and Consumers made it the subject of Friday Consumer Congressentitled “Who can we trust? Adjustment in the environment of decreasing consumer trust.”

Often omitted in trust discussions is that it is also a social system, shaped by power and susceptibility. Trust is almost always asymmetric; people with the lowest power are usually required Place their trust first And the most fully.

Powerful must rarely reciprocate this susceptibility. They maintain information, set the rules and shape the narrative. When something goes wrong, the powerful often leave relatively unscathedwhile defenseless remain in order to navigate the complaints or reimbursement systems.

It is increasingly said that we are understandDown Read a small print and “to”Do tests“But placing responsibility In the case of individual reformulated structural failures as personal shortcomings. It puts the burden of vigilance and control of people who lack time or specialist knowledge to a significant risk assessment.

Violation of faith

This problem meets a broader trend in many companies that have poorly read their relationships with consumers. Many of ours Trust in Marek is automatic.

We are more likely to trust claims from friends or toasty sources tests Showing heat is the most essential. People tend to evaluate others and institutions after their perceived heat before considering their competence. So A brand that seems kind He often earns our trust before we assess its actual results.

Qantas, a brand that built all its identity around the idea that it was “”us“, Confused Our trust when it began to behave like a transactional retail business, not based on relationships.

Management and management It was not possible to capture They received something infrequent: a kind of cultural capture underlying trust and perceived reciprocity This caused that Australians felt personally invested in their success.

While Qantas keeps Market shareThe erosion of this emotional bond means that many clients are more likely to try their competitors. This will have difficulty rebuilding this trust simply with price offers or tugging the hearts of advertising campaigns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2DCXFNDSRQ

The answer is essential

In the case of organizations such as the Council of Cancer, whose credibility is based on moral authority, the response to failure is of deep meaning. His decision to recognize the findings and undertake to test again He was more than public relations. It was a relational repair act.

However, some other corporate brands in the survey responded Completing the selection methodology. This reveals the obsolete corporate reflex – one that attacks the messenger and does not engage in the message. This defensive attitude reflects the way of thinking shaped more by legal risk and brand control than public responsibility or ethical responsibility.

Despite this, individual answers are not enough. We need systems designed for human borders. Trust cannot be maintained if it is constantly tested by complexity, disinformation and unclear responsibility.

Consumer organs, such as selection, provide a public service, filling the gap between what people assume and what they can verify. But more broadly, companies and regulatory authorities must treat trust as a relationship, not a marketing goal.

The system must prevent damage, not deal with precipitation

Reconstruction of trust means placing people at the Consumer Regulation Center. The system focused on man does not treat people as Management problems. He treats them as participants of a joint moral project. This requires systems based on evidence, designed around real human behaviors and focused on preventing harm than on rainfall management.

One way to do this is cooperation regulation. This is an approach connects Consumer representatives, regulatory authorities, behavioral experts and industry to design the principles and standards reflecting the way people actually behave (as opposed to how they behave). This reduces the asymmetry of power and ensures that trust is earned and kept in time.

This approach based on cooperation has been successfully accepted Local government AND health. But it works only then cooperation In good faith they are approaching good faith, not just an “tick” exercise.

Of course, this approach is contrary to the legal system that tends to Prioritizing the system over the people he serves and processes the results. But the goal should not be to force better ideas for obsolete frames. Instead, we should design systems that lead to better results for everyone.