Truth or tact? Brands walk the trust tightrope

In a market crowded by brands, trust becomes the prerequisite for any successful customer relationship. If established with transparency, consistency and quality, it builds brand loyalty and safeguards reputation.

In today’s digitally driven era, while consumers are better informed about brands, they are also skeptical at times. While their heightened awareness makes it easy to explain a product's USP, companies could find it a challenge to demonstrate honesty, reliability, and ethical integrity.

Hence, brands should carefully choose their communication plans to shape trust in different ways. They need to think deeply about what to reveal and what to withhold.

Subsequently, this leads to two dominant scenarios—radical transparency and strategic silence. One approach breeds openness, while the other relies on discretion. But which approach builds more trust? It is important to analyse the merits and risks associated with both.

How much is too much?

When a company openly shares information—including its decisions, challenges, and even failures—it tends to move towards radical transparency and foster authenticity and accountability. This approach potentially aligns with the growing demand for brand honesty, particularly in a digital-first environment where consumers have several options to choose from.

According to Gartner's 2019 Brand Trust Survey, around 81% of customers are more likely to stick with high-trust brands. This demonstrates the need to adopt a radical transparency approach, especially in scenarios cAs consumers increasingly become aware of market players and trends, transparency is highly critical, especially as they grow increasingly intrigued about access to in-depth information.

However revealing too much, mainly about internal conflicts or financial struggles, can add vulnerabilities to criticism from multiple stakeholders. Some disclosures can also lead to misformation potentially damaging brand reputation and providing the competitors with an opportunity to capitalise on certain insights. To maintain the balance, brands must determine the level of openness required to strengthen credibility and minimise risk exposures.

Strategic silence or selective disclosure

At the other end of the spectrum, brands often withhold or purposefully delay information sharing to protect their reputation. This concern is understandable, given that it takes ages to build one. With uncontrolled messaging, brands can become vulnerable to premature reactions and reputational damage.

But silence is not always golden. As an effective alternative, it is a smart approach to replace deception with more preparedness and timing to reveal the information.

For instance, during a crisis, brands can strategically withhold information until the market is prepared for an apt perception. A well-informed response can protect them from impulsive market reactions, or whiplash from customers and other stakeholders. This prudence could also avoid speculation and minimise confusion to further maintain brand authority.

The approach of selective disclosure of information requires a strategic balance to convey the right message to the customers and they do not perceive silence of the brand as an admission of guilt or erosion of trust. For instance, brands that remain silent for too long might reflect fabricated narratives that can harm their reputation. Hence, strategic silence requires careful judgment so that brands can understand and reach out to consumer concerns.

A common ground

The art of balancing between radical transparency and strategic silence is about leveraging both strategically rather than choosing one over the other. The most appropriate approach towards achieving the right balance is to consider the circumstances.

Radical transparency comes into play when trust and authenticity are key differentiators for the brand. If a brand is confident in its messaging, it can use transparency as a first-line tool to build strong relationships with consumers. Consumers appreciate brands that are honest about their treatment towards market sentiments and that is when radical transparency plays a pivotal role.

On the other hand, strategic silence is more instrumental during crises that are high in stakes. In such cases, immediate communication or full transparency in the message can backfire. This makes maintaining secrecy across stages immensely critical as premature disclosure could lead to panic among customers which can only be dealt with strategic silence.

In the communications world, radical transparency and strategic silence may often reflect as opposing forces. However, this requires a change in perspective as the two approaches are powerful tools in strengthening communication strategy. The most optimal way is to assess the customer segment, industry, and circumstances before withholding, delaying, or revealing information.

As part of risk assessment, brands should first determine whether disclosure will strengthen the brand's credibility or expose it to vulnerabilities. It is equally significant to understand the information that can offer value to customers while controlling the narrative and planning on unfolding the story in the most relevant manner as trust is built through ethical yet well-thought communication.

-- Sanya Bajaj, founder, Column Inches.