Posts
Trust Matters, The Podcast: Building Trust When Industry Spirals Into Cutthroat Pricing (Episode 13)
A High Trust Strategy in a Low Trust Industry
Differentiation. It’s one of the two generic competitive strategies.
You’d think it’s a no-brainer. If everyone sells coffee in supermarkets based on price, invent Starbucks. If water is free from the faucet, invent Perrier. If fund performances are undifferentiated, invent index funds.
So, if your industry ranks near the bottom in trustworthiness – why not invent a trust-based company? Would that not be obvious?
Let’s not make it too tough, by tackling used cars or Congress, but let’s take the next-worst trust-scoring industry – financial services.
In a recent Gallup survey, of 22 professions, the most trusted was nursing – as it has been for many years. 85% of respondents rated nurses high or very high in “honesty or ethical standards.”
Financial services were represented in the survey by banking, insurance, and stockbrokers.
- Bankers were ranked 11 out of 22, with 28% rating them high or very high. That puts bankers below psychiatrists and chiropractors.
- Insurance people get only a 15% rating, which ranks them at number 16 out of 22 – below lawyers.
- Stockbrokers rank 19th out of 22, with only 11% saying they are high or very high. Well, at least they beat congress!
There is some evidence that financial planners, had they been included, would have scored better, though I doubt investment bankers, traders, mortgage bankers and credit card companies would have raised the industry’s average. And the Edelman Trust Survey puts it even more starkly: “Financial services and banks are the least trusted industries for the third year in a row.”
Net net – by and large, if you’re in financial services, people don’t trust you, your company or your industry.
Again – wouldn’t it be a logical, obvious, in-your-face strategy to build a highly trusted company? Sure it would.
And so, the big question – why hasn’t anyone done it?
Why Are There No High Trust Strategies in Finance?
I can think of five possible answers to this question, and the first one is to deny it.
- Wait – some companies really are high-trust.
- The nature of the business is highly competitive – you can’t be high trust and stay in business.
- The industry is full of untrustworthy, greedy, anti-consumer people.
- The industry is so over-regulated that trust never has a chance to get traction.
- The industry simply does not understand the nature of trust.
I’ll give my analysis in the next blogpost.
Meanwhile, what do you think? Are those the five possible answers? Which one strikes you as right?
Do You Trust Detroit?
My clients usually assume that subject matter expertise is the biggest driver of trust. Usually, they’re wrong—greed, self-orientation and an inability to take personal risks are often the culprit.
But not always. Sometimes, incompetence matters. Detroit is one of those cases. In a post by Om Malik, The Market Meltdown and the Question of Trust, Malik suggests the Big 3 have lost touch with commonsense.
Malik is an optimist.
Allow me to demonstrate.
Toyota introduced the Prius in 1997. 11 years later, GM brought us–the Hybrid Escalade. The Big 3’s CEOs fly their private jets to Washington to beg for money without a plan.
This level of cluelessness is not random; it is the result of 50 years of really bad management. Detroit became the East Germany of American management. Here’s one small measure of just how they did it.
Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, the Bible of the US industry, used to annually publish US market share statistics—for models of US produced cars. For the others, one size fit all—the line item was called “imports.” The official stats-keeper of the industry tracked 50-60 US car models, but lumped together Rolls Royces with Toyotas and Volkswagens.
In 1963, “imports” totaled 386,000–5.1% of the US market.
By 1967, “imports” were 7.3%–still combining Nissans and Maseratis in one category, while giving the AMC Rebel its own line on the chart.
In 1968, “imports” hit 9.3%; in 1972, 12.6%. The market share table listed 59 separate US passenger car models, yet the 1.2M “foreign imports” were grouped in just one line.
“Imports” came to equal the entire output of the Chrysler corporation; exceed all of American Motors; exceed all of the Lincoln-Mercury division of Ford, not to mention Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac. Of the Big Three producers, only GM’s Chevrolet division and Ford Motor Company’s Ford division sold more cars than “imports.”
Yet Detroit was guilty of automotive racism–they all looked the same. Those "imports."
Over the years, Detroit management blamed the following: a “surprise” shift to small cars in the late ’70s; US tax policy; Japanese industrial policy; dumping; unemployment; US engineering education; a pro-Asian faddish cult of style in California; poor technology; labor costs; health care costs; pension costs; the UAW; suppliers; dealers; government regulation.
Not until the 1992 issue of Ward’s–when the US market share of “Imports” had passed 31% in 1988 and 1989–did the table break out “import” statistics to distinguish a Honda Civic from a Mercedes.
The self-description of an industry says a lot. It declares to one and all, this is what we believe, and this is what you must know if you want to understand our industry.
Decisions about language and statistics quickly become self-reinforcing. The more you see the data in a certain way, the more obvious it becomes that this must be reality. In Detroit’s case, the belief was The Big 3 = the auto industry.
Swanson, the original “TV dinner” failed to capitalize on its advantage; a magazine explained, “It was one thing to have missed the trend toward Thai; it was quite another to have missed Italian.”
Missing the relevance of “imports” for over 30 years qualifies as “missing Italian.”
There is no rescue for an endemic mindset like this. It has to be broken up. Incompetence on this scale and depth demands nothing less. The suppliers and workers of the US auto industry are the victims here, but we cannot afford to use the sclerotic bureaucracies named GM, Ford, or Chrysler to be agents of rescue.
We really do need bold new thinking here: Obama’s economic team, are you listening?
In the spirit of trying to offer some breakthrough ideas, here are a few starters:
• Give Toyota $10 billion to be used solely for hiring US workers and establishing a US auto industry de novo; limit repatriation of earnings for political palatability, but get someone running the industry who is not blinded.
• Sell the brands, re-hire the workers; blow up the companies, and (severely) retrain the execs for work outside the auto industry;
• Bail out workers and retirees through massive infrastructure programs and assumption of pension liabilities.
• Build up Michigan tourism (as a former Michigander, I’ll testify to the State’s beauty and resources).
• Ban from the industry anyone who used to have his name on his parking slot.
• Move marketing HQs to coastal locations like Miami or Los Angeles
• Require all marketing execs to speak at least two languages
I do not have the answers, but it’s going to take something this drastic.
Trust destroyed this badly cannot be recovered by those who lost it.