We’re always talking about how consumers are more savvy than they’ve ever been, that they can see right through all the brilliant, creative advertising campaigns, marketing efforts and stratgic PR placements.

So, it was not surprising to see the results of this recent report on marketingmag.com.au that showed 54 per cent of Australians can think of an organisation they don’t trust anymore. And aparently banks and telcos have suffered the greatest dip in consumer trust. Paul Gardner from Grey who created the report with Sweeney Research says:

Consumers want proof that a company is what it purports to be.

The good news is that the web now allows organisations a way to engage with consumers on a different level and really show them that they are what they purport to be and begin to re-build that trust.

There is no better way to build trust - or perhaps no more risk-prone way - than doing it online. Your online reputation is quickly becoming the most important one you need to be aware of and manage. The growing popularity and transparent nature of social media allows consumers to see right through an organisation.

For those organisations with nothing to hide - this is a good thing. Its those who have been using advertising, marketing and PR to portray an image that does not reflect their core values who will be unmasked when the web gives consumers x-ray vision.

A brilliant book by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith, Trust Agents, has some great insights into how to do just that. It is highly recommended reading - I’ll post some highlights from it soon.

Written by Sarah Thomas, Managing Director of Carve Consulting (Australia).

By Hamed Saber

In a recent post I questioned if a survey’s credibility was damaged if its results supported those who have paid for it. It generated some interesting comments like this one:

It does boil down to how the survey results are presented and the prupose behind this. And that’s coming from some one who surveys for a living. You can easily judge how much credence to give by the willingness to set out the parameters of the survey and openness to scrutiny of the methodology used. Media outlets also have a lot to answer for in reporting especially if they do so without investigating those fundamentals or should we blame the need to fill column inches? Frank

The Sun Herald (as well as The Age and The Australian) ran this story which covered the results of some research commissioned by the Vic Government revealing:

Melbourne is Australia’s most liveable city

Now I’m not disputing the results - Roy Morgan ran it and I also LOVE Melbourne (the fact my small children adore their four grandparents who are within 10 minutes drive of our home, means for right now I’m very happy in Adelaide) but I’m just shining a light on how often these surveys, generally done purely to generate good headlines for those commissioning them, are so often picked up by the media.

There are more and more survey’s being used as a PR tool and some make really interesting reading but most of them have such obvious results I’m often surprised they get the coverage they do.

Anyone else feel the same way?

Here’s my (collectors?!) jar of Vegemite’s iSnack2.0 which I couldn’t help buy when I saw it at Foodland (at a significant discount) yesterday.

And there’s no danger of this jar ever being opened given my family made their own decision on an appropriate name based on their taste test of the original Name Me jar:

But seriously, Kraft has had to respond to claims from right around the world that the Vegemite iSnack2.0 naming debacle was a publicity stunt and publicly deny it, yet the latest twist that the new, new name - Cheesybite - was registered by Pizza Hut in 2006 as outlined in this article from the Sydney Morning Herald makes it even harder to believe.

There are those who believe it was a genuine mistake like Tony Richardson on the Crikey blog and here’s an interesting summary from Sheldon Nesdale as to why he believes it could never have been planned.

I’m more interested what impact this has had on the Vegemite brand and how effectively they’ve managed their brand’s reputation as is Professor Kenneth Miller from University of Technology Sydney’s marketing school in this interview with ABC Online.

“There’s potential to do significant brand damage to Vegemite and Kraft because people are talking about it and they’re not talking about how wonderful Kraft is,” he said.

“They’re not talking about how wonderful the product is - the former iSnack 2.0 - they’re talking about things that will damage the brand.

I almost think this marks a watershed moment in our marketing history when 2.0 comes into the mainstream vernacular - many who’d never heard of Web2.0 certainly do now, but at what cost to our beloved Vegemite?

As someone with a PR background, I have to say I thought this survey that showed PR people leading social media engagement in most companies in the US was pretty interesting but I did have a little giggle when I saw it was carried out by the PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) and ipressroom (an online PR tool). The headline result was unlikely to ever be, “IT department leads social media use in companies”. Does a survey lose credibility when it clearly supports the proposition of the people who paid for it?