In today’s Internet age, this seemingly simple question may no longer have a simple answer. The anonymity of the Internet allows users to communicate without fear of retribution and without fear of being labeled an “outsider” in their community.  The freedom of anonymous speech is necessary in a true democratic state – from government watchdogs to social critics to spiritual and ethical leaders, society benefits from the free exchange of ideas.  However, in some situations, anonymity can be a double-edged sword.

Word of mouth (or ‘buzz marketing’) relies on the power of trust. I trust my friends to have my best interests at heart when they tell me about the new album that came out last week that I should hear. When they tell me to go see a new movie, or try out this great Indian restaurant that just opened, I take their recommendations seriously because I believe that they know me and they know what I like. And, they wouldn’t mislead me.

Now, in the online world of recommendations, reviews, and product evaluations, the high-level seeds of buzz marketing, we never have a face-to-face connection with the person on the other end of the page.  This was true even before the Internet age when reviews and the like were only available through consumer magazines with a vested interest in not betraying their subscription base with inaccurate or biased reviews.  But, online, it is very hard to tell not only if people are who they say they are, but also why they are saying what they are saying.  The anonymity of the Internet seems custom-made for guerilla marketing campaigns, and it is sometimes almost impossible to judge an article’s authenticity in isolation.

But, members of the Internet generation (including yours truly) are not unaware of this problem. We accept that guerilla marketing campaigns exist, that product placement is a thriving industry, and that people online are rarely who they say they are. And, yet, our trust in the Internet is not shaken to the core. We trust the wikipedia to be, if not an immaculate bastion of truth and beauty, at least an accurate source for most technical and factual queries. We trust various blogs and forums which have proven their value to us time and again. The reason? Community. We have evolved brand-new methods of evaluating online sources of information – trial by community. This evaluation is made possible through the open-ended structure of the source. If a blogger were consistently lying to his readership, someone would find out about it and wreak havoc on his/her comments and the related blogosphere, destroying the blogger’s credibility. The same theory applies to wikis that anyone can edit and open forums. The reason we trust is simple: it is clear that it is in the author’s best interest to be telling the truth and, if he/she is not, we’ll find out about it soon and stop trusting them.

In a world where brands and corporations no longer inspire the same degree of trust they once did, losing it through steady incompetence or through insidious activity, community can serve as the bridge to once again reach consumers and gain their trust. So, how can companies take advantage of this new trust structure? They can’t. That is, they can’t take advantage of consumers anymore. What they can do is participate. Companies need to engage consumers in open-ended dialogue. They need to expose both their faults and their virtues. In short, they need to be honest and trust their consumers to understand that no company is perfect and that real progress takes time. Then, they will have learned what the Internet generation has known all along – trust is a two-way street.

I noticed this sign in my suburban DC neighborhood.  I presume it refers to home additions, which around here generally means dropping at least $100K to add on to already high-priced homes.  For most people, their home is by far their most significant investment.

Does anyone just call a number posted on a pole and ask them to start working on a project of that magnitude anymore?  Trash removal, maybe, but home additions?  Wouldn’t a nice, short, memorable URL be handy in this case?

In a busy area like DC there’s lots of construction work, but also lots of competition.  The good contractors are overworked and struggle to be responsive to new inquiries—a problem since providing accurate price quotes is a time-consuming process that requires real expertise.  Filtering out the less valuable, less committed prospects is half the challenge.

Up-and-coming contractors might do great work, but without a book of testimonials and work samples, they struggle to find good opportunities and grow their businesses.

Doesn’t a solid web strategy make sense for both?  The established guys can use the web to route, filter, and respond to new sales inquiries.  The new guys can market their good work and make a solid first impression.  With the right search strategy on the front-end, both can attract lots of prospects.  With targeted email marketing on the backend, both could maintain top-of-mind awareness with their contacts.  Add solid analytics in the middle and they’ll have the insights needed into how the strategy is working to be able to make smart, cost-effective decisions on how to tweak the strategy.

That’s the great thing about web marketing right now: it’s established enough to drive legitimate business (in some cases, enormous amounts); but, the most effective strategies are still new enough to allow the more aggressive and savvy (not necessarily the more wealthy) companies to make big advances over their competition.

Who knows—maybe that sign was put up 10 years ago ... but, of course, back then additions.com was probably available.