Because you share your opinions, share your thoughts, and introduce me and others to new things, ideas, innovations, you have won my trust. I would say it is fair to call you a Trust Agent.

Are you determining the phrase ‘trust agent’ at all? Because ironically it seems like a fairly impersonal phrase - ‘agent’ seems to convey some level of anonymity. That’s my first reaction to the use of it.

I like where you’re going with this but I absolutely LOATHE the term ‘Trust Agent’. To me it sums up everything that people level as arguments against ‘Social Media’. If I hadn’t read any of your work and saw that term I would immediately think “Ok, I will never read that because how in the world can anyone be an agent of trust to me or for me if I don’t know them. And if they are calling themselves that, I don’t want to know them’. In some ways this is a non-sensical, circular argument but that is not the point - that is my first reaction to the term and if I was a new punter I would never go any further.

Well, you asked for reactions, and that’s mine - honest and off the cuff.

You certainly are a writer Chris. I am not the best reader in the world (yet), especially since receiving a bang on the head in an accident.

But I can read your writings without getting distracted. You always have something to say. And I would agree with Stephanie Frasco, your communication builds trust.

I would call you a trust agent for sure.

It’s an interesting title, “trust agent,” because the “agent” part implies that someone is purposely acting on behalf of another person’s / company’s interests. And we all know that “agents” often have reason to be diplomatic, vague or untruthful, so adding “trust” to the mix also feels like it should come with permanent quotes.

Random thoughts:

* People only trust you until you display more flaws than they feel comfortable with you having

* Are there trust agents in politics? Does anyone actually believe a word out of the White House spokesperson’s mouth?

* For that matter, does anyone believe any news anchors, reporters or columnists?

* How important IS trust in business? In politics? If it’s not, what replaces it? Self-interest?

* Can trust agents exist outside of an echo chamber?

* Can a person trust someone whose ideology is drastically different from their own? (For example: is there a PC user who reliably trusts a MAC agent? Or a Republican who can cite a credible Democratic source?)

* Is a trust agent just a different flavor of propaganda - a newspeak version of a pandering marketer, using the concept of “trust” as an economic bartering chip?

* What’s the average person’s price for trust? Can it be bought and sold?

Chris,
To me, if you say “trust agent” and someone says, “huh?” then “trust agent” would not be the way to go ~ unless it’s a ploy for you to hook the listener so you can go on at length about what you do. More about that here: http://tinyurl.com/6lybfb.

Joe Hage

Trust agent is an interesting concept. Really, I like Trust Agents because I get alot of ideas from them. It’s almost like even though I may not use all the information or agree with their point of view, I feel like I am getting an unbiased opinion that I can put in my arsenol while I am researching an idea, formulating a concept, or working on a part. Although I am a real estate agent in my full time role, my experience as an entreprenuer and marketing strategist made my need to seek trust agents out coninually so I could helop my clients evolve and continue to evolve myself. If I did this in a convention way, like networking through shaking hands and meeting people without the internet it would take me untold years to accomplish.

In my experience Trust Agents write because they have something of value to share, not because they are motivated by points or kudos as much about telling a story of their very real experience to help others on their own journey. I think it is a terrific book concept. You are already an author. I look forward to seeing you published.

With Aloha,

Kelly

You wanted to be a writer since age 6, well I wanted to be a “TV cameraman operator” since about then. But, somehow I lost track of that, but now I’m starting to get back to that dream(at least as a hobby, we’ll see where it goes) and it’s even easier the way camera’s are today, you can fit them in you pocket. So, I bought a flipcam and I’m going to head out and film, there’s couple of events coming up here in ‘vegas, so like you said practice, practice. Like writing, filming is story telling too. As for the name “Trustagent”, kinda cool, it’s someone that’s real and true. Good post, thanks Chris.

I like the concept and the timing is critical. It’s a different look than the “personal brand” concept many have talked about (including myself.) It’s more about what you should do with this personal brand. Social networks are changing the influence of the individual and how companies need “trust agents” to help direct and steer the dialog at an individual level.

And congrats on the book!

I wish I could edit my previous entry ;>

it would be helpful to define the trust part a bit more because to me, the definition above evokes “opinion leader” or “influencer,” both of which are used ad nauseum… also, the word “guide” comes to mind, for what it’s worth…

I like it. I’m not sure if I can define a trust agent but I think I ‘get it’, especially with your examples of who does and who doesn’t fit the mold. I think trust agents are those who give first without anticipated reciprocation. I also think trust agents demonstrate a transparency and integrity that sets them apart from all the avatar toting web 2.0 junkies hiding behind false representations of themselves. It’s interesting to me that the generation of professionals hitting the workforce today aren’t nearly as concerned with perception or image crafting as the crop of graduates 10 or fifteen years ago. They fling open the doors to their myspace and facebook profiles and let prospective employers and clients snoop at their twitter feeds. When that kind of openness and transparency find maturity and passion I believe you and Julien will have plenty of subjects to write about and plenty of kindred spirits as well. Keep it up…good stuff!

Are trust agents only those that appear to be right and true? Are there trust agents that suck you in to their story, message or belief only to discover that their motives are deceptive.

Just thinking that the trust agents or perhaps ‘influencer’s’ you describe can come in all shades and colors.

Dear Chris:

Trust Agent is a bit impersonal. Besides… the words alone do not mean anything to me.

It I saw the book in a store, I would probably only pick it up for a peek “because I recongize your name!”

Hope this helps.

Roz Fruchtman
Say It With eCards Judaic Greetings

Chris,

I think you said it best with, “none of us gave a sh!t until Robert Scoble came along and put a human shape around their online and event presence for us. Robert acted as a real human, with thoughts, opinions.”

It’s the real human touch that brings it to the table. When I say “it”, I’m talking about a product, a business, anything. You can spend thousands of dollars on marketing, banner ads, print ads, but as you said “no one person gives a shit” until someone gives it a personal presence. A personal touch, if you will. Similar to an evangelist. Online, we have community evangelists (I’m one of them), technology evangelists, anything-here evangelists. Purpose? To interact with the public, to bring awareness, to give people a WOW about our businesses or products and more importantly, to let people know that we’re not just a business, a banner ad, or a product, we’re human, we have a great thing going and we want to share it with you.

A good example is Walmart. Rather than stick with the weekend sale papers and online emails for marketing, they brought on people like Twitter user GeekMommy (geekmommy.net) and created, “WalMart’s Eleven Moms” to help that human shape around their business and online presence.

As I said in the beginning, I think you hit it dead on with your Robert Scoble comment.

I look forward to reading your book when it comes out.

I really like the idea of a trust agent. When I read those words the thought I had was, someone expert in their field, whom many people look to and trust for their advise, guidance, opinion. Of course it brings to mind change agent, which I first read about in Fast Company in ‘97/’98? A catalyst, a leader, a beacon. It occurs to me that really trust agent could apply to anyone, for instance Dr. Sears for parenting advise or you for say, personal branding advise. It’s that sense that this person has integrity, has been there and done that and will give it to you straight. It’s almost visceral. Tactile in that the trust is instinctual, given the agent’s persona and public perception. I like the concept on an emotional level, and I wonder if it is because of the positive connotations I have in my mind for change agent. Not that it is a bad thing.

Also, I am sure you are aware, but maybe make sure that Cisco, doesn’t already have the term copyrighted.

I don’t know if the term “agent” really works for everyone. Those at large companies, okay. But what about those of us acting for ourselves? I may be an agent for my company, but a lot of what I write reflects more on my personal brand as an SEO guru/cybrarian. Trust Guide would be more along these lines.

Trust = brand and brand = trust. Here are a few more “trust agents”:

Mickey Mouse (Scoble’s got NOTHING on The Mouse)
Tinkerbell (A close second to Mickey)
Billy Graham (It’s rather amazing that a human being has managed to preserve his personal integrity so well over so many years. He’s preserved what Rather and Cronkite have lost.)
Coca-Cola (the Dynamic Ribbon is about tied with the Mouse Ears as a symbol of Goodness)
McDonalds (The service and cleanliness may disappoint, but the product will never surprise you.)
James Dobson (Love him or hate him, he’s a known quantity)
James Burke (siddown, shaddup, strap in, and hang on for a mental roller-coaster ride)
Jonathon Coulton (okay, I admit, a geeky-guilty pleasure.)
James Lileks (www.lileks.com - enjoy.)
IBM
Apple
And in my own little pond, I’m a trust agent, too. (Faculty: “I was told you could help me…”)

But… I “trusted” MSFT long before I ever heard of Scoble. I knew from my own experience and the experience of those I knew and worked with, that MSFT products were “pretty good” although they had their moments of frustration.

I trust Disney products not to horrify my kids. I trust McD’s to serve edible foodlike substances that won’t make me very ill, and do so within 120 seconds in the drivethrough. I trust Lileks to ramble about cultural ephemera and his daily routine, and make me LOL at least twice a month.

NONE of this trust is built on people that represent these “vendors” (to use the term loosely). It’s built on MY personal experience with their products.

For what it’s worth…

CB

Walter Cronkite was the ultimate trust agent albeit from another era.

We have David Suzuki in Canada regarding environmental issues that has earned that tag.

Few, if any ever, in the political sector. No can’t even say few.

Seth

I have been following you for a short time on Twitter, and it seems you have some interesting things to say, or rather “opinions”! I’m not a writer, but I do enjoy reading your thoughts. I think you guys are on to something regarding the tools you can find on the Internet, and using it in real world business. Do let me know when you release, but I’m sure I’ll be following you, and know when that happens. Best of luck !!
And this was typed on my iPhone, which is hard to do in this length and no spell check- lol

To me a trust agent would be someone acting as a liaison promoting a concept/idea and facilitating it’s growth. Kind of like the evangelists of “old” (i.e., Eric Meyer & Jeffrey Zeldman for web standards). But to build trust, you do have to be willing to discuss the weaknesses — otherwise you lose credibility.

You are a catalyst extraordinaire!

Chris,

It seems like you’re locked into “Trust Agent” as a title and you’re looking for an appropriate definition, yes? I’m not sure your proposed one works.

Without this part at the beginning: “people who use the web in a very human way…”

Your definition speaks generally about PR and marketing agents: “…to build influence, reputation, awareness, and who can translate that into some kind of business value.”

Plus “some kind” is too vague — you want to show measurement if you’re an agent.

I think you need to support the “trust” part of your selected title much more strongly — or choose a better title.

@ahg3

No labels.

When I hear the label of Trust Agent – I see the dynamic of two polar opposites.

•Trust – is a human element. A psychological connection of belonging. We want to trust things and connect to those we trust.

•Agent – is a fabricated term, used to represent an entity that acts on the behalf of another entity.

I feel social media works best when we don’t apply labels to it. I’ll be the first to agree that this can make things kind of difficult. We like to define things and put them in their safe categories.

However, maybe that’s what gives social media its unique value - that it doesn’t require labels or titles or tags. Maybe the only thing social media requires is a basic understanding of how it works on an emotional and psychological level.

A true communication renaissance perhaps? Getting too deep here.. sorry 

I don’t relate the title trust agent. If you need to use that label for your own organizational sanity, I completely sympathize. I don’t consider anyone a trust agent – all I know is that I have learned so much from the people I have read and followed. They have earned my trust without trying and for that I label them – Seth, Chris, Dawud, Liz and many others that can be labeled…er.. named!!

Can’t wait for the book!!

What you term “Trust Agent” I refer to as Reputation Management or Personal Brand Management (not claiming any ownership over those terms), although your term is more focused on the implications. You know better than I that an individual’s ability to influence the thoughts, opinions, and ACTIONS of masses of others via the web are at unprecedented levels. In this environment, those that can quickly build their personal brand and develop legions of followers, can transform that influence into action on the part of their followers, based on trust in that person. That can have monetized by the individual or a corporation. It can also deliver non monetary value as well by raising awareness or stimulating people to take a desired action.

The term “agent” implies acting on behalf of another (as Justin Kownacki states) and has a strong association with “spy”, which has negative overtones for me.

“Trust Agent” follows being Genuine and Humble, and demands transparency. While you may not always agree with a “trust agent”, you respect their opinion.

Invigorating as always Chris.

I can see how other commenters would have a problem with “agent” as it does carry with it a bit of nefarious intent from a taxonomy standpoint.

But I believe the bigger issue is with your examples. I absolutely agree with Matt Cutts as a trust agent. He’s a straight shooter that creates trust for a larger entity. He’s essentially the mouthpiece, the house organ, the maitre’d, the host.

However, I don’t see Oprah that way at all. While she is of course trusted, it’s entirely different than Matt Cutts because she is creating trust of and for HERSELF. She is not an agent of a larger cause, she is both the matre’d and the restaurant.

Obama is not a Trust Agent. Sarah Palin is. He represents himself. She’s fronting for something else.

I see true Trust Agents as skilled practitioners in the art of charisma at a distance. You are the same. How many of your readers have actually met you or seen you speak? Not me (until Marketing Profs in Scottsdale). But yet, they flock to you like a moth to flame. Are you a good writer with great ideas? Sure. But what makes you trustworthy beyond others with good content is the “voice” in your writing. When I read your stuff, I feel like I’m listening to you say it out loud, even on Twitter, and that singular ability (which I humbly attempt to mimic, and Cutts possesses as well), is what builds Trust in an age where the depth of relationships has a linear progression of Twitter>Linked In>DM>Facebook>Email>Telephone>

I believe Trust Agents (although Chris by my definition you aren’t one because you represent yourself) in another time would have been playwrights…or politicians.

Maybe it’s the writer in me too, but I think it’s all about the “voice”.

When applied to your role in business, I much prefer the term ‘trusted advisor’. Your record engenders trust in you, allowing you to act as an effective advisor to your employer.

However, if you use the term ‘agent’ to connote a more contractual relationship, your current term can be very useful. A ‘trust agent’ is someone who can use the trust people place in him, based on past experience, to be a more effective advocate for his employer.

In either case, trust is only valuable when maintained. The difference between the ‘agent’ and ‘advisor’? The direction of ones focus. Advisors direct their energy inward, while agents focus outside an organization.

/me can’t believe he posted this from an iPhone. Tedious…

Hi Chris:

I hope you will work some of that great “Personal Branding…” material into this new book. I like the concept, but that name is a complete turn-off for me. All my “I loathe mega-marketing-smoozing” hackles go up. If you have integrity, (meaning you are worthy of my trust), you don’t have to put it in your name. Agent brings to mind things like “IRS…”. Sorry to be so brutal.

I love this concept and movement. What about another name that describes what you are “Altruistic Mentor”, “altruistic entrepreneur”, or since you seem to like to start things you could brand yourself as “The Altruist”. I be curious right there. Here’s Oxford’s quick def:
—
altruism |ˈaltroōˌizəm|
noun
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others : some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism.
• Zoology behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.
—
Both definitions work for what you appear to be trying to do.

The beauty of this thing is you put something out in the world for others to use before worrying about getting something in return. I know of three people who began by giving away free content via podcasts and they have now been hired and are being paid for what they used to provide for free.

I think the key is these folks seriously love and believe in what they are doing. This will eliminate a lot of the “sleeze factor” people hate about badly done promotion.

If you want to achieve global reach, you need to ensure “agent” sounds trustworthy to German, French and Japanese audiences.

I understand “Trust Agent” and award it positive vibes when associated with “Chris Brogan” but I’ve been hard done by other agents (commercial and Stasi) so I have to peel back the onion to award the meaning. However, that’s just me–unless you discover others speaking English as their second language have the same hesitation.

I like “Trust Developer” better since it connotes positive vibes, etymologically speaking.

Hi Chris. I’m in the UK and your post has me intrigued. Part of my doesn’t like the title because of the “agent” word whilst another part likes the whole term because it arouses my curiosity. The juxtaposition of two words that I wouldn’t normally put together is fascinating and works for me. As long as you have a definition like “people who use the web in a very human way…” close by.

keep up the great work

Gavin

Chris,

I love the concept and I appreciate your struggle.

Like others, I flinch on’trust.’ I feel as though I can trust you, and yet that is my decision, not yours. Trust is something you are given not something to be declared.

The word “Genuine” resonates with me. It is real, human, and speaks to the intent of trust.

Genuine what? I see this stuff we’re doing as being communication experts who connect and share information with and for others to deliver business value for those we represent and personal value for those with whom we connect. We do this not for the paycheck (tho we love to get paid!) But for the genuine interest and passion of the purpose at hand. (I have been doing this “‘real and human’ communication using the latest technology means to mass market a message and connect with ever larger audiences” at and on behalf of EMC for 17 yrs under several job titles. I, too, often wonder what the best moniker is to describe what I do.)

As the other commenters suggest, you are not merely a bag carrier for another in this equation. You are a destination in your own right.

Perhaps you are a “Genuine Guide” that communicates and connects, and as a result, makes the world a richer, more knowledgeable and more connected place.

(Sent from my blackberry at a time when I should be fast asleep.)

Regardless of the title, I look forward to the book and know it will be great!

Cheers! Polly Pearson

I think we used to call it “the Human Face of the Company” - and way back when, before it started being the least valued department with the most underpaid people in any company “Customer Service Agent” - but now that just means someone who makes $8/hr and does anything *but* provide actual services to the customer.

Trust Agent? Kinda sounds like someone who works for the Treasury Department to me.

Not that I’m coming up with an alternative - mine all sound like something out of a Gibson novel that are semi-human:
Human Interface
Dynamic Catalyst
Bridge Agent

Hmmm…

Maybe something more along the lines of Unifying Agent? Someone who takes disparate parts and puts them together so that they function well as a whole?

If you’re hooked on Trust - maybe Trust Broker? Because in the end, you really brokering the deal to make the two sides connect in such a way that both benefit.

Well now you’ve got me off playing with words. I know the book will rock no matter what, but ew on Trust Agent.

Thanks so very much for your thoughts. I’m still listening and thinking about what you said. I’m not sure if it’s appropriate for me to dig in and try to address much of what you’ve said, or if I should just keep hearing your reactions. I’m thinking “B” because I want your unfettered advice.

Your reactions interest me a great deal, and I’m very happy that you came by and offered your opinions. I’ll write more specifically to you as I go along, but wanted to thank you for what you’ve provided thus far.

As I read your post I realized that teachers (good ones) are probably some of the most powerful trust agents we have.

This will be a great book. Yes, Chris, you are a trust agent. Use that term, not the stupid other ones. Did you notice yesterday that Seth was introduced as an “Agent of Change”. Good descriptions are important.

Chris,

I agree with those who aren’t fond of the word “agent.” While it describes what you do, it just seems to be too impersonal to be totally accurate.

I trust what you write because I’ve read enough of your stuff to know that you know what you’re talking about. And you have a style of writing that comes across as one friend giving advice to another.

So, I second Ed Healy’s comment that “trusted advisor” is a better fit.

Btw, just finished reading your e-book on branding. Great info. Thanks.

Steve DeVane

I love the concept - it’s what a good network weaver, online community manager, or in some cases a good sales person does - they build relationships so you trust them.

The term “trust agent” is sort of a turn off to me - it seems like a non-human robot to me - I envision Hal and hear his vote - trust me. Maybe that is just me. I like the term advisor better, but also steward (it’s being used in another book though - by Nancy White, John Smith and Etienne Wenger) and used to described a community leader who helps “steward” or guide their community of practice to the right technology tools.

I also think of the word “trustee” - which in nonprofit land - are the people on a board of directors who are entrusted with guiding the organization and making sure it reaches its mission –

Like others posting here, I don’t like the term “trust agent” either. I agree with the concept your are exploring, but the term communicates to me your role is to “sell” trust. I think it takes away from the education dimension the role has. By the way, is it semantics or is there a difference between “trust agent” and “agent of trust”?

Hey Chris,

I believe there have been politicians that fit your definition of Trust Agent. Here in Canada we had Ed Broadbent, federal leader of the New Democratic Party in the 80s:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/broadbent/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Broadbent

Unfortunately I can’t think of a current politician in Canada or the States that I would consider as an agent for trust.

As for your term Trust Agent, I think it’ll work. Some people aren’t diggin’ the word “agent” but for me it has positive connotations. When I was a kid I thought it would be the coolest thing to be a SECRET AGENT (I blame James Bond and Maxwell Smart). During my student press days “agent for change” was a very common phrase (“… and now, let’s welcome our very own Agent for Trust… CHRIS BROGAN!!!”). And let’s now forget the wonderful 2003 film starring Peter Dinklage, “The Station Agent” (http://www.thestationagent.com/). Besides, you did say your book is about BUSINESS, and “agent” has business written all over it.

Now I happen to prefer the term Agent for Trust more than Trust Agent. I also like GeekMommy’s Trust Broker. And because I like a little alliteration I’ll submit my own alternate phrase: Trust Runner.

I also happen to think you weren’t asking us to vote on the use of Trust Agent. Regardless of my or anyone else’s preference, you can coin any phrase you damn well want. When your book comes out we’re gonna buy it (AND I’m betting we’re gonna like it) because:

We. Trust. YOU.

Rock on Chris.

p.s. Do I qualify for a family member discount? :)

There’s a great book by Bert Decker called “You’ve Got To Be Believed To Be Heard” that gets right to the heart of the matter you’re wrestling with. The book focuses on communicating to persuade but I think the basic premise holds true for all kinds of communication. In order for someone to hear, comprehend, empathize with, and become fully engaged with what you’re saying (or writing, since reading is aural), they must first believe you.

The same words spoken by Charles Manson and the Pope would be received very differently because of who they are and our perception of what they stand for.

Honesty, integrity, credibility, reciprocity, rapport, and a host of other seemingly intangible things are what creates trust. Some communicators have to work at it. I don’t think you do, Chris. It’s just who you are and what you do. Trust Agent is good.

Trust agent sounds cool - like someone in the FBI, DEA, CIA, etc …

in the human sense what helps me build trust or trust others is:

1. Authenticity
2. Being real/honest/transparent
3.Humility

These all apply in the online world … But its almost more difficult to show these qualities due to no real human interaction.

Trust agent online is a person who figures out how to do these things.
___
http://twitter.com/franswaa

The problem here is that trust is developed one relationship at a time. As people are demonstrating by their comments here, people place different levels of trust in different people. You can’t make a blanket statement like “Oprah is a trust agent.” Some people don’t trust her, some people trust her somewhat, and others trust her with their lives. For any person or company you name, different people will hold different levels of trust with them based not only on their experience to date, but with how much that person/company resonates with them on a personal level.

It’s an interesting term, I almost look at it as an oxymoron. Many times the word “agent” can come with a negative mindset, someone who is ruthless and will say anything to get what they want which is the opposite of someone you would trust.

To interpret my definition would to call it someone who establishes enough credibility in one’s own mind where they will take that level of respect and pass it along to a friend. For example, I enjoy your readings and gladly pass your insights along to friends.

Craig
http://www.budgetpulse.com

Funny.

In the description you gave of trust agent one word immediately came to mind and I wanted to see if anyone else thought of it. Frank did.

Honest.

WHY is someone trusted? Because they are honest. You know that when they say they are successful its true because when they aren’t successful, they note that too. Its kinda what the term critic was designed for but because of bad writing and, for some, questionable ethics, its not such a positive term.

So maybe you don’t want it in your title (and I have to agree that Trust Agent is not the money term you’re looking for) but honesty should be specified, not implied, in your definition.

I hope that helps.

Best always,
- Peter

Hi Chris,

Well it’s pretty cool to see that Google “trusts” you. Your post is already ranked #5 if you google “trust agent.”

I’d love to see you explain how the online algorithms (google rankings, number of blog readers, number of Followers on Twitter, etc.) map to offline trust. Both from a bottom-line business perspective (more clients? more paid speaking gigs?). And also to walking around “rockstar” status.

Do they recognize you on the T (metro) in Boston? Or only in the blogo-twitterspere? Is the “trust agent” thing only applicable to the online sphere?

Anyway, your book sounds very interesting and I wish you the best of luck.

Chris,

This comment is written in a sort of haphazard way, because I thought it was more important to get the ideas down in text, than to have them “flow” together in a meaningful narrative. Hope thats cool…

~The Start of what I consider to be the time of the “trust agent”~

Going back to one of the key ideas of the Cluetrain Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluetrain ): Markets are Conversations.

Theses 1 – 6 of this document focuses on the idea that Markets are conversations.

What this means is that because of the telecommunications revolution, lead by the development and exponential growth of the Internet, CONSUMERS (normal people) are TALKING to one and other more and more. The talking that takes place between consumers is now the most effective way that markets can grow.

i.e. If a person who you TRUST tells you about a good or service that is a better way to get you to spend your money on that good or service. If a company can produce word of mouth about their products by (paying a TRUST AGENT) to directly engaging CONSUMERS in a conversation, they will get more ROI than if they use traditional forms of advertising.

[[Side Note:]]
In the book “Pattern Recognition” by William Gibson There is a fictional company that sells products to the 25-35 male demographic. This company pays one of the characters, who is an attractive young woman, to go into bars (where the 25-35 male goes looking for attractive women), and engage men in conversation and casually drop the name of their products into the conversation. The company does this because they believe it is the best from of “advertising.”

I just thought that was interesting…
[[End Side Note]]~Trust Agents Today~

I personally believe that the modern Trust Agent can take a verity of forms, but that he or she will probably fit into at least one of the two camps.

1. The altruistic trust agent — This trust agent uses the Internet via blogs, podcasts, etc, to tell people about things that they think are cool. Often this is an enthusiast of something who enjoys telling people about a good product or service because they feel connected to the community of like minded consumers. In other words: They tell people in a community something that will better that person spend or save their money. The altruistic trust agent does what he or she would want another member of their community of like minded consumers to, namely inform the rest of the community about things that are great, and things that suck.

IN theory this trust agent can be trusted because they have not yet been “tainted” by money. However, even though many of them are not being paid to be trust agents they harbor a desire to become a paid trust agent at some point.

2. The trust agent for hire — This trust agent gets paid to learn about a product and service then to actively engage both current, and potential consumers in a dialogue that will increase their trust in that good or service… perhaps even that “brand”.

In theory, members of this second group will only be effective if the dialogue is authentic (Re: Scobal calling Micro Soft out when they do something stupid, rather than defending them.)

That is all I have for now.

-N

Good questions Debbie. I’m pretty interested in that, actually, so I’m looking around for ways to compare the two (on- and off-line trust).

As a newer reader of your blog, I am intrigued with the concept of Trust Agent, although the term itself doesn’t evoke much for me. I understand the concept, but to me the role is that more of an influencer. There’s definitely an element of trust and confidence involved. For me, a non-techie who’s trying to figure out how all of this social media stuff can help my business grow, where my own personal brand fits in, etc., you and others are becoming early stage influencers - people I am listening to and trying to learn from. Although I might give a book a chance because it was part of Oprah’s Book Club, I will still take the time to evaluate it on it’s own merits, based on my persnal likes/dislikes and opinions.

I’ve found that a online community will adopt change much more readily if the community manager has been an active member of that community. It is through our interactions in the community that we build trust so that when change comes the rest of the community knows they are not in the boat alone. We are in it together for the good and the bad. Trust Agent… I like it!

Kind of a meta trust agent too, introducing us daily to other trust agents. Works for me, Chris.

You are on to something here. Combined w/your Personal Branding eBook from yesterday and Seth Godin’s post on time, I think you are on to something.

Then, throw in a dash of Jeff Pulver and his thoughts on “an introduction is an endorsement” and there may be a way to monetize the trust that you have established by serving as a intermediary/connector.

I posted once re: LinkedIn and the co-founder (Konstantin) commented on the post. The basic premise was that I wouldn’t pass along just any request for an introduction. You needed a clear UVP b/c with each intro, my rep (personal brand) is on the line.

I’m not sure I love “Trust Agents” as a title. As we like to say, it’s going to need a really snappy subtitle in order to get across what you are trying to talk about in the book. But I think it needs more than that.

“Naked Conversations” succeeded when people told us that business books with “Naked” in the title do not do well. We guarded against that with a really great subtitle, but people got to talking about what the concept of a “naked conversation” was.

If we start having conversations about what a trust agent really is, it might take off. But my gut is telling me we can do better.

Disclaimer : I work as a marketing director at the house you are publishing with. So, it might me my job to help find a new title. Crap. It’s a lot easier to critique without having to deliver. :-)

I’d love the ‘Trust Agent’ book to be in the style of a Scott McCloud comic.

Thank you Chris - you continue to open up new ideas and insights - I often end up talking about you to colleagues and clients on a daily basis.

[…] So, Trust Agents. […]

hemel, that sounds really interesting– i wonder if we could find someone really good to do that?

@Julien - there were some really fantastic artists at this event I attended in Indianapolis a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.horrorhoundweekend.com/shows/200808/default.aspx

If you really were interested in pursuing I could probably get you some contacts.

Fascinating book concept. Kudos to you and Julien.

Like many others, I feel the term “agent” (or “broker”)carries too much baggage from other fields to be of value to you or your readers (e.g., sports/entertainment, technology/automation, etc.).

What about one of the following?
* trust enablers (it even has the ubiquitous “e” beginning)
* trust facilitators
* trust attractors

Peter West
@WestPeter

Geez people - there’s an elephant in the room and you are all tiptoing around like your life depends on it. I guess CrossTech has found some fear/respect value in social media after all.

Disregarding the fundamental basics for defining what works and what doesn’t in marketing, could lead to a mass of unfortunate misinformed and nonsensical approaches to determining value.

e.g. Microsoft advertising didn’t work until Robert Scoble came along and put a face on it - ROTFL!

Scoble has nowhere near the cache that Allchin, Ballmer, Gates, Elop and others have - especially in the rooms where the decisions are made, and especially now that the world realizes his random and rapid opinions and outbursts are actually pointless and damaging to an entire ecosystem.

If this succeeds the word trust will mean absolutely nothing, and the word agent will continue its slide into the dark, slippery, sneaky, underhanded place it has already started towards.

This is an interesting post and I’m looking forward to reading this book when it becomes available. Millions of dollars get spent by companies assuming they know what their customers/clients want without even talking to them.

The Internet provides opportunities for businesses to learn and listen to customers/clients. This alone might save a fortune in advertising and marketing expenses.

John P. Kreiss
MorganSullivan, Inc.
jpkreiss@morgansullivan.com
http://www.johnpkreiss.com

Thoroughly enjoyed reading Thinking about Trust Agents by Typist.I liked connecting to the simplicity in thought to the word typist…most of us who use the computer for 6- 8 hours a day are simply typing away :)

I also loved the word…The Trust Agent ….I have added the The,as I feel that is all that is required,everything is about trust…starting from trusting our own thoughts,actions&reactions.

Agent has lots of possibilities and it is very simple in nature,the word Agent has been connected to lots in our life..007…etc

Business is about simplicity…it is about getting your message/product/service/word across to the world…to simply find your audience/s and we use various methods/routes to get there..or the various agents available to us in our world now…The agent can be anyone or anything.
The word The Trust Agent connects me to entrepreneurship.
I loved reading all the posts and it was great connecting to so many great minds & varied opinions.

The very best with the book…looking forward to reading it.

@Ben - I’m not sure I understand your comments. I mentioned that the value of what Scoble provided was, at least in some circles, more valuable than marketing dollars.

The rest of it, I’m even less sure I get. Of course Ballmer has more overall power than Scoble, but I can also find you plenty of people who agree that Scoble was what turned our opinion around on some of what Microsoft was doing.

CrossTech doesn’t write my blog. I write my blog.

There’s nothing in here about disregarding fundamentals. But if you think the choice is fundamentals versus innovation, that’s a false choice. There’s always room for both.

To clarify a bit further, the book isn’t directly about marketing, though some of what we’ll cover certainly defines easiest as marketing.

By the way, you have a friend in Indianapolis. He and I talked about your app for a while Friday, and I see his point.

At 61 comments as I post my own, I’m noticing a schism of people who either understand the notion of a trust agent and others who relate it to other terms, such as reputation building and personal branding.

Like Chris mentioned in his introduction about writing for nearly his whole life, why is there a need to define what one is? Why not, in the words of Guy Kawasaki, can’t one be what one is? Why must we attach labels? Why can’t Chris be a writer to the same intensity he is a trust agent?

For inspiration, I turn to my bookshelf, to the Book of Exodus, Chapter 3, Verses 13-15, according to the Everett Fox translation, which is written with linguistic logic that earlier translations lack:

*****
Moshe said to God:
Here, I will come to the Children of Israel
and I will say to them:
The God of your fathers has sent me to you,
and they will say to me: What is his name?-
what shall I say to them?

God said to Moshe:
EHYEH ASHER EHYEH/I will be-there howsoever I will be-there.
And he said:
Thus shall you say to the Children of Israel:
EHYEH/I-WILL-BE-THERE sends me to you.

And God said further to Moshe:
Thus shall you say to the Children of Israel:
YHWH,
the God of your fathers,
the God of Avraham, the God of Yitzhak, and the God of Yaakov,
sends me to you.
*****

To Chris and everyone else on this topic and every other topic: Don’t worry so much about what you are or how others perceive you. If you are true to yourself, everything will make sense.

What a great discussion…personally, I think you know you’re on to something when you get so much feedback - both positive and negative.

One point to make - I wouldn’t worry about whether or not the term Trust Agent is immediately definable or recognizable to people. You mentioned Seth Godin in your post … just think “Purple Cow”.

The first question people ask, “What’s a purple cow?”

Well…let me tell you (buy my book too…)

I can see where some people are coming from with their feedback, but I wouldn’t worry about the term being instantly understood.

Perfect answer, Mr. Yoskovitz.

Actually, I’m going to disagree with Mr. Yoskovitz.

Words have power. Ontological maps are well defined. You can’t take a word that already has a powerful image associated with it on a societal level and say “well, that’s not how *I* am using it - I meant something else…”

Yes, teenagers have a habit of doing it - hence we are left with “bad” meaning good and “phat” meaning really good - but individuals seeking a business audience don’t get to take an industry word and try to say “well I’ve decided that it means something different when applied to me.”

Purple Cow may not be defined in a business context but “agent” sure is.

Clearly, the fact that multiple people have negative reactions to the phrase is indication that it needs rethinking. Would you buy an energy drink named “Yuck” just because someone tells you that in *this* context they are redefining it to mean something other than what you think it means? Or if you were the manufacturer of “Yuck” would you refuse to change the name if market research indicated that your target market reacted negatively to it?

Words have power. We know Chris isn’t a typist (or simply a typist) but clearly “trust agent” doesn’t have the immediate positive impact one hopes for when trying to come up with a pithy description of one’s primary role.

On a much less high-brow note, I can tell who is a trust agent in my life by seeing whose book recommendations I follow without question…

The whole “Trust Agent” concept, in relation to the web, smacks of “Guru”. Who are they that like the term “Guru”? Especially when referenced to the 3w.

I like the definition, absolutely. But the term itself remains questionable.

Let me quote - “…but I wouldn’t worry about the term being instantly understood.

Comment by chrisbrogan on September 9, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

Perfect answer, Mr. Yoskovitz.”

It seems like you are looking for approval of the term.

If you have already made up your mind on the termonology and are seeking a more refined definition, personally I’d go for something like “On-line humanism and the monetisation of trust.” or “monetisation of a human on-line presence” or “Successful Personal Branding and the bottom line”.

Maybe these definitions don’t quite cut the cake but I hope they offer something of worth.

Studying public relations I learned that the main goal of PR is to create awareness and TRUST (in a product, issue or person). Your description of “trust agents” shows how social media and public relations can melt into one. I’ll definitely get back to this! Thanks!

In our world, we use the term Trusted Advisor; the connotation of trust-ED implies the trust was earned, rather than taken/assumed. Advisor implies experience and/or expertise (also earned) that imparts the permission to share information that is helpful in an altruistic/non-self serving sense. Some of our Advisor Clients “get it” and can truly serve their Clients without expecting business in return. Paired with your post ‘Share Share Share Share Share,’ Chris, the concept takes wings. I agree that Trust Agent implies representation of another’s ideas and could be interpreted as spokesperson.

The term “trust agent” resonated with me, because I automatically equated it with “change agent”, thinking in terms of chemical reactions. Not that I’m from any sort of background. Your article immediately made me take stock of whose blogs I follow, and why. I would define a trust agent as someone whose blog I read regularly, introduces me to new ideas, and whom I refer other people I know to read the articles so we can discuss the ideas and content, and its meaning. You reshape the way I think. This is different than advisor; I think of advisors as more consultative on a situational basis. You initiate change in how I think, and to think in terms of the why and not just the how.

[…] that we’re all too good of students of social media experts like Chris Brogan who teach us to speak with authority so as to garner the respect of our readers. The net result is that we end acting like a bunch of […]

[…] that we’re all too good of students of social media experts like Chris Brogan who teach us to speak with authority so as to garner the respect of our readers. The net result is that we end acting like a bunch of […]

Chris,

Will be hard to say something that has not been said. Clearly, there is a lot of reaction tied to the phrase “trust agent”. Like others, I understand what you are trying to convey. In terms of the book, regardless of the label, what would be interesting is to understand - a) what is meant by this and how are they different from “new influencers” or for that matter “old influencers” but with a new megaphone..the web; b) how do you know one when you see one; c) how do you determine if you can trust them - what does it take to achieve trust? is it time? reputation? the word or suggestion of others what you know (referral) or some other metric or track that takes you to them such as aggregrated and rated reputation (do you remember Opinity? a start-up that was creating a unified reputation a few years ago); d)can someone start as the goal to become a ‘Trusted agent” and is there a path or plan that you can lay out to achieve? e) differences (if any) between TAs that are associated with a company (in that they work for the company) and those that are independent voices; f)to be trusted how much of an expert do you need to be to gain trust?
very interesting - Thanks Chris

[…] blogs that I read is Chris Brogan’s and on this particular morning there was a post titled “Thinking About Trust Agents” where Chris shared with his readers that is is writing a book with Julien Smith about the […]

[…] media experts aren’t necessarily PR people or marketers in the first place. But see how Chris Brogan defines social media experts as “trust agents”: people who use the web in a very human […]

[…] Chris Brogan is a leading social media writer, thinker and practitioner. He is vice president, strategy and technology, at Cross Tech Media, but we know him best for the knowledge he shares copiously on his blog and with his 14,000+ Twitter followers. We’re also looking forward to his upcoming book on trust agents. […]

[…] Smith and I are hard at work writing our first book, Trust Agents, about how the social web helps turn relationships into serious business (or some such). […]

[…] Smith and I are hard at work writing our first book, Trust Agents, about how the social web helps turn relationships into serious business (or some such). […]

[…] Oh, and it also relates a bit to what we think about with regards to trust agents. […]

A trust agent isn’t something you’ll put on a business card.You’ll either be one or you won’t.

Man, you are such a trust agent. I’m following you around on twitter and it’s been a goose chase for me. I’m really diggin’ it too. I once said twitter is like when I smoked pot (30 years ago) and started out discussing how corn grows and finding myself on a gravel road trying to determine if corn will grow in gravel. So now, I get that great sense of adventure from following you, my trust agent.

Benjamin Zander is a musical trust agent. Neil Donald Walsh is a God trust agent. Elizabeth Berg is a trust agent for women over 50. Jennifer Louden is an insight explorer trust agent. Keri Holmes ourfocusisyou.com is a book lovers trust agent.

BTW, I type 85 words a minute on bad days. Need help?

[…] thinking about trust agents, I mentioned to Julien that some magazines use a + symbol as part of their design elements. He said […]

I must echo a lot of people here. I find the book concept interesting, but the title lacking.
I appreciate you say its a business book and not a tech book, and I guess thats part of the reason for the “agent”. However, part of the idea in the book, as I understand it, is to show that the social media business is changing, that its all about trust and long relationship building. I guess this is why for me it seems a bit weird that the title is a a bit forced into having a business-book title.
Also, I am not sure if a new term is really what is needed. I mean there is a ton of corporate literature out there dealing with identity and relationships, sense-giving and sense-making etc.

[…] me to think about it a lot this week and I’m sure you’ve considered the topic before.  Chris Brogan and Julien Smith definitely have and are writing a book about it called Trust Agents.  Not sure […]

To all those who don’t like the Title and think it’s lacking… I disagree. I think they’re trying to imply that you have to actively pursue your customers. You have to build trust on behalf of your company. It’s about consciously making the choice that your business needs to generate social capital, and without it, you will fall behind.

[…] scarcities in the Internet Economy—there’s just not much of it out there. Chris Brogan put it nicely: “Though a company like Microsoft spent millions and millions of advertising and marketing […]

Chris,

I like where you and Julian are going with this thinking.

Julian & I both witnessed how some of this conversation is evolving on twitter & I turned it into a blog post that I think you & your readers will find interesting about Why Twitter Matters: http://twurl.nl/ln1yym

Perhaps you and/or Julian would be generous enough to write a guest post over at http://www.socialcaptialvalueadd.com and/or share some feedback about my ChangeThis manifesto and ebook here on your blogs?

Best of luck with the book project.
Michael

[…] for your thoughts. Trust agents are attuned to these glyphs. I just want to share the premise out […]

[…] Seth, Meerman Scott, Brogan, or the Problogger really need ‘publishers’ or would they do fine with distribution […]

[…] organization, and make them the star, instead of the company itself. Chris Brogan calls these folks Trust Agents, and cites Frank Eliason from Comcast, Scott Monty from Ford and others as […]