Measuring brand trust: why the average describes no one and how TRA MindSets change that

What a big fat word trust is. We, marketers, talk about it all the time, while the latest trust score sends us into a spin of anxiety. You may not be able to remember the specific percentage that trust had changed by – but I bet you remember that it was a decline.

Adding to this is evidence of significant change and turbulence all around us – anxiety and uncertainty are rising which in turn leaves people feeling a loss of control. So, it isn’t surprising that in a general sense people say they are trusting less.  

Knowing what and who to trust has become increasingly important because it restores control. But trust takes many forms. Consistency removes uncertainty which instils trust. Familiarity and relevance create a sense of comfort which feels trustworthy. And a sense of control makes us trust more.  

This is where an ‘average’ trust score starts to fall over. And while it matters what you mean by trust, it also matters whose trust you are measuring. An average will collapse both into one number that doesn’t really answer either. If brand trust is down three points in your brand tracker, you can see something happened. You don’t know what form of trust moved, or which people moved it.

Trust is a word, not a number

The problem marketers face with trust metrics is that it is one word describing a multitude of layers, feelings, and consequences.

What makes trust so hard to manage is that these layers don't sit neatly side by side. They can pull against each other, carry different weight in different categories and with different people. A brand that takes a public position on a controversial issue may earn social trust from people who want to see action and lose trust with people who came to it for reliability and now see a distraction.  

Earning brand trust means optimising for consistency and predictability: giving people the same reliable experience every time which reduces uncertainty and risk. The brand comes to feel like a good fit with their lives – relevant, for people like me – and we trust things that feel that way.  

Earning social trust often means being willing to take a position, absorb a cost, or do something that isn't obviously in the organisation's short-term commercial interest, which shows good motives and reduces cynicism.

Earning reputational trust means holding a consistent story over years, even as the market, the leadership, and the context around the organisation all change. People have to believe in something they can't fully verify, based on accumulated impressions rather than direct experience. Faith builds trust and bad faith actions lead to disillusionment.

When we track a brand’s equity at TRA – we call it Brand Edge – we are measuring earned brand trust. That specificity is important (see how we measure trust more broadly here). If you don’t know which trust you are measuring, how can you know what to change? To shift brand trust, you have to consistently deliver the promise your brand makes, giving people a sense of control, through products and services that are relevant. So, it matters what you measure, but it’s also important to understand whose trust you are measuring.

Why average trust describes no one

An ‘average level’ of trust – or distrust – implies there is such a thing as an average person. Our recent work understanding Australians tells us otherwise. When you look at groups of people who share a mindset, they also share other characteristics and their approach to trust is one of them. Aussie Minds identifies six MindSets, and each one holds its own ‘trust code’ or set of signals that earn credibility and confidence. ‍

‍

Six MindSets, six trust codes

The Keepers (26%) earn trust through reliability, proof and respect. The most brand loyal MindSet, and the most cautious to try anything new.

The Anchors (11%) earn trust through warmth, fairness and dependable care. The most open to trust of any MindSet – 57% trust Australian companies and brands.

The Mavericks (18%) earn trust through authenticity, substance and restraint. Sceptical of hype, and quick to notice when a brand is performing rather than acting.

The Strategists (11%) earn trust through evidence, consistency and clear value. Hard to win over, they don’t want to be sold an empty promise.

The Nesters (12%) earn trust through warmth, reassurance and practical support. Their choices are shaped by a need to reduce stress and simplify decisions.

The Chasers (22%) earn trust through authenticity, progress and values alignment. The most open to trying new products and things.

When comparing responses to brand territories, the diagnostic potential of the different trust codes is clear. Some MindSet segments over index on preference of overt trust claims – ‘most trusted brand for 25 years’ – which create a sense of proof and consistency and show the influence of reputational trust.  

Other segments over index on more tangential trust messages, for example a product guarantee that is relevant to their specific needs. This creates a sense of control, through relevance, helping to alleviate uncertainty.  

Another segment over indexes on messages relating to looking after both the customer and the environment, showing the influence of social trust on brand trust. This segment looks to brands to deal with the uncertainty in the world by taking action, which then gives them a sense of control, making trust a source of comfort.  

On the other hand, some segments believe that when brands talk about topical issues, or take a stand, they are doing it for the publicity.  

From average to actionable

An average trust score won’t give you guidance on what to do and who to target. A shallow drop spread evenly across everyone is a different problem to a sharp drop concentrated in one MindSet while the rest hold steady. Same overall score, two completely different problems, and two different levers to pull.

This is the gap MindSets close in a tracking program. Overlay the six segments and the number starts to mean something: which MindSets moved, in which direction, and against which trust code they are scoring you on.  

A drop in trust driven by a MindSet that already runs a low bar for brand trust is probably not a priority. The same drop for a MindSet that sets a high bar is a louder signal because it takes more to move them – this deserves a closer look.

A tracker that tells you why

That's the real value of layering MindSets onto brand tracking data. It turns a measurement into a diagnosis. It’s also a natural extension of what we know about people: feel first, think second, then act. Because people feel first, tracking that only tells us whether trust moved is not enough. It should tell us which people felt what, and why. MindSets is the segmentation that gets you there – giving a clear read on how different people trust, embedded directly in the tracking program.  

If your tracking program tells you trust moved but not who moved it or why, there’s a gap in your measurement. Brand Edge measures brand trust within the equity framework. Combine that with MindSets and you get a much deeper understanding of which people moved, which trust codes they are scoring you against, and what to do about it. Learn about TRA brand tracking.  

‍